Should we have a separation of church and state?

Last edited by the author on April 29, 2008 5:01 PM PDT

Prime Fractionatar says:
The concept of "separation of church and state" has a very specific meaning and was very intentionally included via implication in our founding documents for a very specific purpose:
The government our country declared freedom from was England. The Church of England had become the government for all practical purposes, and as such, people were persecuted, punished, made to be criminal FOR BELIEFS NOT aligned with the ruling Church of England. Thus, many "escapees" from that tyranny of oppressive BELIEFS (Church of England's religion was codified into the laws governing the English people making those acting upon differing religious beliefs CRIMINALS for their "illegal" behaviors), became the founders of our nation.
We must never forget this because it is the context that gives meaning to what our founding fathers were thinking and why they revolted. It gives substance and intention to the framework of our Constitution and Bill of Rights. WE KNOW our beginnings were not "slapped together 'willy-nilly' on a whim. So, lets get smart and think within the original context when probing the wisdom of our founding fathers as this is sure to guide us well.
What most well-intentioned people fail to grasp, with the same clarity as our founding fathers' possessed, is that when a government "gets to select a specific religion's belief as superior enough to pass laws favoring its viewpoint, it is making those with opposing beliefs into CRIMINALS for taking actions upon their differing beliefs. YIKES for freedom lovers!
Our founding father's wise mandate is violated at our long term peril and will eventuate alienation of our people. One of the amazing aspects of America has been the protection of and tolerance of opposing views that has given us the ability to be a "melting pot" of unique expressions, most valued at a religious and spiritual core. We have flourished in a culture of diversity that "agrees to disagree" at times so that we may be free as a nation to live as un-oppressed masses, and it has made America a GREAT PLACE to be.
Do you know which current political issue is fundamentally religious at its heart and we are attempting to force the religious views of certain religions "down the throats" of those with differing, and yet wonderful beliefs in their OWN RELIGIOUS RIGHT???
Today, we are toying with this by confusing the issue as a "right to life" issue (as defined by certain religions) rather than a "right to choice" issue, and it is not, to use a Martha Stewart term, "a good thing."
I cannot be free if I am not free.
Here it is in a NUTSHELL
Now consider this, irrespective of my or anyone's personal belief about the morality of ANY given medical procedure for personal need, it is Not CONSTITUIONALLY MORAL, and it is SPECIFICALLY FORBIDDEN for our government to pass laws FAVORING one religion's belief as superior enough over another religiously held belief to pass ANY LAW making a person acting upon different religious beliefs CRIMINAL, and denying them LEGAL ACCESS to the medical treatments of their CHOICE! Banning all religions would be equally a violation of Separation of Church and State as well!
WE have crossed this line already. We are confusing politics and religious beliefs, thus mixing the affairs of church into the affairs of politics. This MUST Stop because our government is slowly advocating the beliefs of more fundamental religious thought INTO our LAWS and this is reason enough to stop!
NOTE: It is an equally confused issue to be demanding that people cannot pray in public or talk of moral issues or engage in practices of differing beliefs. It is OBVIOUS this is not the meaning since, during the lifetimes of the founding fathers, they practiced tolerance of all kinds of public behaviors derived from differing religious thought. Duh?! The Obvious strikes its clarity!
This is not the proper understanding, and this is clarified by returning to the context. IT IS SOLEY ABOUT PASSING LAWS OPPRESSING THE CHOICES OF OTHERS BASED ON SPECIFIC RELIGIOUS BELIEFS/TENETS AND MAKING ACTS CRIMINAL BASED ON RELIGIOUS BELIEFS EnCoded INTO LAWS. Eg. Making laws which make abortion illegal because of the sanctity of physical life is a religious bias because not all religions agree on when the soul, spirit, etc enters the body, and even if the body itself is the 'big Kaunas' or not; it may be all spiritual and the physical is simply as transitory as birth-death cycles themselves. This example goes to the heart of the meaning of what SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE IS ABOUT, and the context makes that eminently clear, does it not?!
Now that's the Real Skinny of it!
PS: ekory, and TrustMe as others here speak TRUE.
Mother Hen, while we do reject other's values, it confuses the issue to toss child molestation orgs into the mix of church and state because churches have a long history of "getting into the government" seat and attempt to control the masses via a "god" enthroned into governmental powers. We have enough history as Warren Holzem points out with the legacies of hate and wars, and Rights over privileges is a key factor of consideration with this issue.
There is a difficulty in being free, esp when you consider the response-ability it requires to be vigilant and active in monitoring those we select to represent our united concerns and from the perspective of maturity and acceptance one has to embody. As a nation, today, I see a very juvenile attitude regarding freedom and its obligations; its never inappropriate to be "green and growing," yet, I think apathy, selfishness, and resentment are contagions we need to be alert about contracting because like all dis-ease, we spew toxins and poison our health well-being.
We are surely More alike than we are different, if we would choose to make that our underlying focus in all our communicating and law passing, this would be a more wonderful nation, would it not?
I think we may all "be on the same page", here, it just doesn't necessarily sound like it...

I copied this over from Amazon's GoldBox (the LINK is below) because the discussion was basically non-responsive to my comment. I wanted to get a flavor of what people could grasp from my insight, and best I can tell, it was not of interest; maybe it is such a radical turn from the way this issue has been "locked-down" to be so polarized, that a new angle of perception is not noticed, YET.

It is quite sad, the post there broke down into some infighting over religious difference rather than the content of the question posed.

LINK to original post:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_et_md_pl/?ie=
UTF8&cdForum=Fx20DX5GEB7TUX8&cdMsgNo=22&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=
Tx12AA5MRR4RZE&cdMsgID=Mx1W814WZMDKRLZ#Mx1W814WZMDKRLZ