# Church/State



## mellamarie

Irish culture and political history is notorious for its church /state relations, for the simple reason that the Catholic church is seen to have had a very negative and impinging role, some would say that not so long ago, Ireland was bordering on a fundamentalist Roman Catholic state.

My question is, how big a part, if any, should religion be allowed to play when it comes to law making and politics? And if it religion doesnt have a place in politics, how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?

This is a general question and I'm very interested to hear everone's ideas form different perspectives, I referenced Ireland because its what I know best.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

mellamarie said:


> My question is, how big a part, if any, should religion be allowed to play when it comes to law making and politics?



None.



> And if it religion doesnt have a place in politics, how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?



Yes, we definitely should - freedom of religion is as important as freedom of speech, freedom of press &c. 

The best way to protect religion is, in my opinion, to have a strictly secular government and freedom of religion written down in the constitution, in order to ensure that none religions are given an unfair advantage over another.


----------



## Chaska Ñawi

The subject, particularly with respect to the Catholic church, was discussed at some length in this thread last year.


----------



## mellamarie

Yes, we definitely should - freedom of religion is as important as freedom of speech, freedom of press &c. 

The best way to protect religion is, in my opinion, to have a strictly secular government and freedom of religion written down in the constitution, in order to ensure that none religions are given an unfair advantage over another.[/quote]

Ah but does religion have a right to be protected anymore given its track record, ie. its history of violence and death? 

Considering that the biggest religions in the world assert themselves as the 'true' religion and being the correct religion over all others. This inevitably leads to conflict and war and also taking into account that we, the human race could end the world with our nuclear capabilities, does religion that places other religions as distinctly wrong, have a right to be protected when it can lead to the destruction of the planet?


----------



## Kajjo

mellamarie said:


> How big a part should religion be allowed to play when it comes to law making and politics?


None.


> And if it religion doesnt have a place in politics, how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?


We should ensure _freedom of opinion_, the liberty to think and believe what you want without being discriminated. However, there should be no _freedom to do_ what you want or what you claim your belief requires. The secular laws should apply equally to everyone -- and the general rule, that personal liberty has its limits where other one's liberty is restricted must apply.

Kajjo


----------



## JamesM

mellamarie said:


> Yes, we definitely should - freedom of religion is as important as freedom of speech, freedom of press &c.
> 
> Ah but does religion have a right to be protected anymore given its track record, ie. its history of violence and death?
> 
> Considering that the biggest religions in the world assert themselves as the 'true' religion and being the correct religion over all others. This inevitably leads to conflict and war and also taking into account that we, the human race could end the world with our nuclear capabilities, does religion that places other religions as distinctly wrong, have a right to be protected when it can lead to the destruction of the planet?


 
This is a human behavior and is not restricted to religion. You might as well ask if all governments should be abolished given their track record of violence and death.

All people believe that they are fundamentally right and that anyone who disagrees with them are wrong. They will group themselves by similar opinion whether there is religion or not. As long as we can distance ourselves comfortably from this behavior by blaming it on some institution (which is only composed of more of us humans) we can avoid wrestling with the fact that we all have this tendency and will always be struggling with this problem, no matter what institutions we are involved in or governed by.


----------



## fenixpollo

mellamarie said:


> Ah but does religion have a right to be protected anymore given its track record, ie. its history of violence and death?


 We shouldn't protext religions: we should protect people and their right to practice/express their spiritual beliefs. 





> how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?


 Here's a wonderful example of how to protect religious beliefs: 





			
				James Madison said:
			
		

> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:


> We shouldn't protext religions: we should protect people and their right to practice/express their spiritual beliefs. Here's a wonderful example of how to protect religious beliefs:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> James Madison said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;
Click to expand...

 

Might be nice if they decided what constitutes a religion, or a religious belief, before they go enshrining this into other constitutions - 

Scientology
Jim Jones & Jonestown
The Branch Davidians
The Unification Church
… I could go on.​


----------



## fenixpollo

Why is it necessary to define what constitutes "religion"?  Just because you and I may find a group's belief system dubious, doesn't mean that they are any less a "religion" than The Catholic Church or another, more established institution.  As long as a group is not causing harm or breaking the law, it should be allowed to practice its "religion".


----------



## maxiogee

fenixpollo said:


> Why is it necessary to define what constitutes "religion"?  Just because you and I may find a group's belief system dubious, doesn't mean that they are any less a "religion" than The Catholic Church or another, more established institution.  As long as a group is not causing harm or breaking the law, it should be allowed to practice its "religion".



I don't honestly know, but I am uneasy with the way that 'anything' can be termed a religion in the US system. This is possibly because having the 'shield' of legal protection can allow them to do things which are harmful to society, or at least to the weaker individuals in a society.


----------



## JazzByChas

I think Fenix has hit it on the head...whether or not we agree with the religion, doesn't mean we can impose our beliefs upon thiers.  When they cause harm to others, or even themselves, then the authorities need to come in.

Although I am curious to know upon what principles we base our laws...



fenixpollo said:


> "...As long as a group is not causing harm or breaking the law, it should be allowed to practice its "religion".


----------



## Hockey13

maxiogee said:


> I don't honestly know, but I am uneasy with the way that 'anything' can be termed a religion in the US system. This is possibly because having the 'shield' of legal protection can allow them to do things which are harmful to society, *or at least to the weaker individuals in a society*.


 
I agree with Fenix (though this may just be because I respect some of the broader Enlightenment principles in the constitution), but maxiogee is _perfectly right_ with regards to the bolded part. This is always an issue in the U.S. when it comes to Mary Baker Eddy's bunch.

For anyone who takes the Constitution of the USA as a sacred text of sorts, here's one of my major problems with it:

...a census shall be taken of the free white inhabitants and 3/5ths of those of other descriptions...


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:


> I don't honestly know, but I am uneasy with the way that 'anything' can be termed a religion in the US system. This is possibly because having the 'shield' of legal protection can allow them to do things which are harmful to society, or at least to the weaker individuals in a society.


 Again "harmful to society" is subjective. I think that George Bush and his cronies are harmful to society, but I can't go outlawing them, now can I?  We can't regulate a religion just because we don't like it.

I do not favor a strict interpretation of the Constitution, but the principles of the Enlightenment that are found in the works of people like Thomas Paine are the ones on which the Constitution is based. Those, of course, were not developed in a vacuum but rather in the context of a Christian, European culture. However, I have faith that those principles can transcend mere religious doctrine.


----------



## Tsoman

Will there be a woman president -- yes
Will there be a black president -- yes
Will there be a gay president -- maybe
Will there be an atheist president -- no


----------



## Lemminkäinen

mellamarie said:


> Ah but does religion have a right to be protected anymore given its track record, ie. its history of violence and death?



This has been answered well by others above me; basically, you can't go ahead and do something illegal and then use the religion card (assuming the law doesn't specifically discriminate religion, when of course this will be a consequense).



Tsoman said:


> Will there be a woman president -- yes
> Will there be a black president -- yes
> Will there be a gay president -- maybe
> Will there be an atheist president -- no



I''m curious, why do you say that? Just a few decades ago, the thought of a black president was unimaginable. 

I agree that as of today, the chances of America getting a president who is open about his atheism are slim (heck, not even a single senator has "admitted" to being atheist); this is, of course, a problem, in that a belief in (the Christian) God is almost a requirement to be elected into office.
However, who's to say it will not happen in the future?


----------



## Hutschi

I replaced my answer with on-topic subject. Thanks to Fenixpollow for his hint in the next statement. He led me back to the root.



> My question is, how big a part, if any, should religion be allowed to play when it comes to law making and politics?


 
I think, religion may be a subject for politics. For example, the law should decide whether or not to allow religious symbols at school. But there must be equal conditions for the religions. The religion and the state should be separated from each other.



> And if it religion doesnt have a place in politics, how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?


 
We should protect them by law in some way. But this is a wide field. There are a lot of different conditions.


Should we consider atheism as a kind of religion, too? It is a system of belief.


----------



## fenixpollo

Despite Tsoman's attempt to hijack this thread, the original question had nothing to do with atheist presidents. Here's the original question: 





mellamarie said:


> My question is, how big a part, if any, should religion be allowed to play when it comes to law making and politics? And if it religion doesnt have a place in politics, how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?


----------



## Etcetera

I strognly believe that here in Russia, church and state should be divided completely. After the years of Communist reign, all the Orthodox traditions have gone, and now it looks really odd when the Church pretends to have any influence on the state. And I feel almost ashamed when I see politicians standing in a cathedral on Christmas or Easter. They do it just for publicity.


----------



## Roberto097

mellamarie said:


> My question is, how big a part, if any, should religion be allowed to play when it comes to law making and politics? And if it religion doesnt have a place in politics, how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?


 
Hello 
There will always be "the social problems of religion".
Religion achieves its highest social ministry when it has least connection with the secular institutions of society. It is a matter of trial and error.

R097


----------



## Kajjo

Hutschi said:


> Should we consider atheism as a kind of religion, too? It is a system of belief.


That is a very old discussion. Atheism is the absence of a belief in God (or, more generally, in deities). By definition, atheists have nothing else in common and they do not have a common system of belief.

Naturally, atheists and their beliefs should receive the same protection as any other system of belief or religion. The state and its laws should be independent and free of any religious statements.

Kajjo


----------



## fenixpollo

In United States v. Seeger, the Supreme Court upheld a definition of religion that was stated in the 1951 military service act: 





> "religious training and belief," i. e., belief in an individual's relation to a Supreme Being involving duties beyond a human relationship but not essentially political, sociological, or philosophical views or a merely personal moral code.


 According the the definition used by the US government to uphold the constitution, belief equals religion. Atheists have a belief in their relation to a supreme being (e.g., that there _is_ no such relation); therefore Atheism is a religion, the same as all the others that have been named in this thread.


----------



## Lemminkäinen

fenixpollo said:


> Atheists have a belief in their relation to a supreme being (e.g., that there _is_ no such relation); therefore Atheism is a religion[...]



Bald people have a colour in relation to their hair - that there _is_ no colour; therefore bald is a hair colour 


It's almost a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first: is there a default "setting" in humans with a belief in a higher deity which atheists choose to reject, or is this "setting" empty, so to say, and religious people have chosen to fill it with a belief?

To redirect the subject to the original post, I'll just add how the situation is over here:

We have a state church in which the majority of the population are members, however, few people actually have a belief in a god. There are also some silly paragraphs in the constitution which demands that the royal family are members, as well as at least half (or 3/4) of the parliament.


----------



## fenixpollo

Lemminkäinen said:


> It's almost a question of whether the chicken or the egg came first: is there a default "setting" in humans with a belief in a higher deity which atheists choose to reject, or is this "setting" empty, so to say, and religious people have chosen to fill it with a belief?


 Neither of these is accurate. There is no "default setting" that humans must beleive in a higher deity. The default setting is to believe; humans are spiritual people. Atheists believe, and they are spiritual people -- they just don't believe in a supreme being.


----------



## Thomas F. O'Gara

Looked at from a longer scale, this is a more complicated question than it appears at first sight.

It is inherent in many, if not most, religions that they are a touchstone of a social order, if not an entire state apparatus. The first that springs to mind in this capacity is Islam, and from its very beginning Islam was a social and legal entity. It is true of Hinduism as well (among the many things that Hinduism is, it is the basis of a supposedly divinely-mandated social order). Christianity was not such an order originally, but it had to learn to become one, and it showed the strain from this, which eventually led to a breakdown in faith in the Renaissance and the rise of secular states.

For many people around the world a secular state is an anomaly, if not an abomination. It is unfair to assume that a religious state is inherently more intolerant than a secular one is, and if sometimes they seem to be it is just as likely that the intolerance has been caused by the strain of trying to submit their traditional values to a secularism imposed by Western influence.  Removing the religious basis of some states may create a sort of chaos, a free-for-all in which every group starts killing off the others, or it may cause the rise of a pseudoreligion to "satisfy the masses."  Don't judge the whole world by the standards of Western history.


----------



## maxiogee

mellamarie said:


> My question is, how big a part, if any, should religion be allowed to play when it comes to law making and politics? And if it religion doesnt have a place in politics, how do we protect peoples religious beliefs or should we?



People will join religions.
They will also hold certain opinions on morals - many do so without adhering to any religious creed.
These people will, if elected to an office with legislative powers use their own moral codes as the basis for deciding what is right and wrong for a country - they would be unnatural if they didn't. (Note, I am not suggesting that they don't or won't look at XYZ from the point of view of other attitudes to what is moral.)

Do we really expect people - anywhere - to vote for legislation which offends their sense of moral right? Should I, at election time, consider the religion of every candidate lest their views about legislation should be swayed by their membership of a religion (or of any religion) or should I trust that if their judgement seems sound on the issues debated I should trust to luck that their judgement on issues which haven't been debated, but which may arise, will be equally sound?

If I am to pay no heed to a candidate's religion then I must accept that, if the majority of candidates elected turn out to have a similarity of thinking on certain issues, I will get legislation which reflects this - whether that be ABCism or whatever.

A problem arises when religion is established, to any extent. The USA makes great play of having separated Church and State, but where then does "In God We Trust" and the requirement on the President/senators/congresspersons to utter the "Oath of Office" — what will happen the day a duly elected person refuses to say "So help me God"? Can a Quaker accept the position?

I would dare say that the inclusion of the word "God" in the oath *is* the establishment of a religious ethos. Would Americans be seriously perturbed if "In God We Trust" were to disappear from crests and seals? Ought it disappear if they would be a truly "disestablished" nation?


----------



## fenixpollo

maxiogee said:


> A problem arises when religion is established, to any extent. The USA makes great play of having separated Church and State, but where then does "In God We Trust" and the requirement on the President/senators/congresspersons to utter the "Oath of Office" — what will happen the day a duly elected person refuses to say "So help me God"? Can a Quaker accept the position?
> 
> I would dare say that the inclusion of the word "God" in the oath *is* the establishment of a religious ethos. Would Americans be seriously perturbed if "In God We Trust" were to disappear from crests and seals? Ought it disappear if they would be a truly "disestablished" nation?


I slightly resent the phrase "makes a great play of", but I'll take it in stride because I know that American culture is perceived as having a holier-than-thou attitude.  

These issues have been hotly debated in the US of late. A plurality of Americans want to be a Protestant Christian nation; they want their leaders to make decisions based on Protestant values, and they enjoy seeing references to God on their currency and hearing them in their oaths. These people do not necessarily make a great play of the separation of church and state.

Americans like me, who want a secular government, talk a lot about our separation of church and state. We are dismayed by the hypocrisy of our words compared with the country's actions.  Just remember, I'm arguing for (and working towards) the reality that I want, not the reality that I have.


----------

