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

Hillary Smillary

I've been thinking about all this pre-election stuff and the hope of a new president with an insightful approach to refresh America.

Then, I look at how we're allowing the press to narrow down our candidates to the chosen few "legitimates" as our voting options.

I wish more people were, to thine own selves true," thus, acting more bravely and insightfully than what we've been seeing presenting at the voting polls.

We cry out for changes, yet, we don't select the candidates different enough to present us with radical shifts for the changes we NEED to have happen if we are going to successfully resolve our current state of troubled affairs.

I am not talking radical* politics which is a game itself, I am talking, sincere changes that cut at the root of our problems and stop hacking away at the branches which simply cripples us and destroys our beauty as a nation.

Consider all the hub-bub over Hillary.

Do you like the current state of affairs of our health care? Is your insurance coverage and choice of doctors as good as it was prior to health care "reform" and the discovery of HMO's? Do you like having to go to an assigned doctor who acts as your gatekeeper that you have to get his permission to get the care you want??

My answers to these questions in order of being asked
"NO!"
"NO"
"NO, absolutely not!"

Has everyone forgotten that Hillary was a driving force in creating our presently "hated" health insurance improvements???!!

Remember, this loss of health care in the name of "More for Less," "ensuring all Americans receive quality, affordable health care" and "Choices," was largely spearheaded by Hillary Clinton in her husband's years. [I don't think she should legally be allowed to run for office since she was "in the back office" influencing policy when her husband, Bill, was in office. AH, another topic, another day.]

She's back parroting the same 'ole same 'ole (I grabbed these quotes from her campaigning) and expecting different results. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

Why would we consider selecting the insane for our president? I am amazed at our lack of will to save ourselves with wise choices of our own choosing and not "precious sweethearts" of the presses choosing.

The pattern has repeated enough in my lifetime to be apparent, so why are we pretending "the same is different?" I ask this question sincerely and honestly, hoping to hear answers that make sense and are founded in realistic expectations.

"Hillary introduces the American Health Choices Plan, which will ensure all Americans receive quality, affordable health care." WAKE UP, Hillary is the one who was a driving force that delivered us into the medical hell we endure today.


And, now she dares to add the force of Mandatory to her proposals; this is going to force the lowest common denominator downward, and if you think it sucks now, well, YOU Ain't Seen Nothing YET!

What sane thought pattern thinks the same person, saying the same things she said before, with the same ideas (in essence), is going to make the changes we need with the same agenda!!!? LET'S GET REAL BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

I do not understand why the American people don't think for themselves and stop shooting themselves in their own foot. We need to stop Hurting Ourselves, don't you think?

We DO HAVE SANE choices* reflecting some very wise thinking from those with experience, albeit they are despised by the press and denied a fair hearing, but, we DO HAVE the INTERNET* and access to that which is being denied us.

Maybe enough people will shake the tiredness out of their bones, and the cobwebs out of their busy minds, and give a gander to the power of a single vote, YOURS, and vote your conscience, and not "who you think has a chance" because that is the apathy the "powers that be" hope we will succumb to when we pick up our pen and make our stroke for president.

That, by the way, is our empowerment as our Founding Fathers' envisioned it to be!

And, think about it, our greatest Hope for CHANGES we DO want is in OUR VOTING for the candidates the popular press has occluded from our public sight in hopes we won't vote for those we don't see on TV. What is that all about anyway?

How can they get away with denying legitimate candidates debate time, etc.? This is a question I think we need to give more attention to, too.

I say, "Hillary smillary, go away, and don't come back another day!"

I cannot personally afford any more of your pollution solutions. Your first solution to save me, poisoned me and most everyone I know.

I've had enough. Your first foist of health care reform upon me has not blessed me one iota. It has robbed me of my most precious of all - my choices and quality of care, AND, the sting of it is ongoing!"

That's my concern and Wake-Up Call for today.

All to Love,
Sharon
LINKS: radical* http://www.answers.com/radical?cat=technology&gwp=13
radical* http://encarta.msn.com/encnet/refpages/search.aspx?q=radical
radical politics* http://www.answers.com/topic/radical-govt-in-encyclopedia
We DO HAVE SANE choices* http://www.ronpaul2008.com/
DO HAVE the INTERNET* http://www.google.com/search?num=50&hl=en&newwindow=1&safe=off&client=firefox-a&channel=s&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aofficial&hs=KDM&q=ron+paul&btnG=Search