What it SHOULD mean: That no religious law or belief will guide the creation of US laws across the country.

What people THINK it means: God is dead in politics.

What it SHOULD mean is a good idea; we should have secular laws if we're to be a country of and for all people of all races, creeds, and faiths. I think, on the whole, we've accomplished that, but recent years have skewed the issue to make it seem like the government is out to get religious people. I don't think that's the case.

Case in Point: Prayer in Schools. This was a HUGE issue at my high school a few years ago. I'm from a super conservative town that's the international headquarters to the Church of God, a super conservative sect that--until the 1980s--didn't let women wear pants. I can remember prayers over the intercom in the morning, and I don't think that's right. To be clear: it's not wrong to pray, but it did seem off when I was sitting beside my friend Afrah, one of the four Muslims at our school, and we were praying "in the name of our lord and savior Jesus Christ." She always had the distinction of being the one person without her head bowed, and the situation thrust her into an awkward spotlight without fail. I went to a public school--it's not the place for that. Now, that's not to say you CAN'T pray in school. Many a time I said a quick prayer before a tough test--or an epic prayer of Gone with the Wind proportions if said test was in math--but I didn't say it out loud. No one was gonna come wrestle me to the ground if I said a prayer to myself, but at the same time I was able to keep my personal beliefs just that: personal.

I know I beat up on George W. Bush a lot, and this is probably a bit off topic, but his administration saw a big upswing in the desecularization of America. The "Christian Conservatives" put together a lot of laws and ideas that violated the separation between church and state. I'm not saying lots of democrats aren't also doing that and supporting some of those initiatives. Religion is a big part of who we are, and of course it's going to guide how we think about big choices in our country.

Still, I think of Church and State as two good friends who just aren't good when it comes to dating--they get along great together, compliment each other well, and have lots of the same interests, but they just can't mesh when they try living together. I think they can and do coexist in America because the separation gives both the right atmosphere to flourish--government can grow and achieve its means when it is not reaching towards one agenda, and religion can remain personal and sacred rather than become another product (or pawn) of the political machine.

Edited at 2009-09-23 03:00 pm (UTC)

I am a big fan of this quote from The West Wing. Whenever the new session of the Supreme Court starts, there's what they call a "Red Mass," attended by all the big politicos. (I think it's October 4th this year, but that's neither here nor there.) Anyway, so Charlie asks the President, "What's the deal with that?" and Bartlet says:

"And so how isn't it a Constitutional issue? It is, but sometimes you say, 'Big deal.' It was the intention not to have a national religion, not to have anyone's religious views imposed on anyone else, and not to have the government encourage a national display of piety as a substitute for real action."

I like what CH says about this--it's about being able to, not being forced to. I think Presidents should have some belief in a higher power than themselves or than the government or than anything--which path he or she takes to that belief is their business. And as long as you're not trying to convert me or postulating that prayer's going to get us out of the recession or Hurricane Katrina or the War in Iraq, then I say big deal.

The West Wing has an answer for everything.

I love this, even though it's sorta unrelated to this convo...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHaVUjjH3EI

Alright, so here's my take on it all:

I totally agree that there should be no national religion, or any mandate that forces someone of one faith to adhere to prayers or religious ceremonies of another.

However, I do feel like many Americans have forgotten that we were founded by religious men. This is why our currency says "In God We Trust". That God is not specific to any one religion. Tt is merely a reminder that while our government should not be held to any one religion, its countrymen has the freedom to trust in whatever God they so desire.

This is why I get so angry when the ACLU fights to remove crosses from city or state seals. It is ignoring that city or state's history in removing a symbol of its religious founders. It is so concerned with political correctness that it doesn't matter if a city or state has historical religious roots, there can be no record of it on its seal for fear of offending someone.

I'm all for keeping church one thing and state another. I just don't agree with wiping away any traces of times when they have peacefully and respectfully met.

Oh my God, you're right - that banner is BADASS. ;)

I sort of knew that this was today's topic, hours before I actually swung by to check it out. And I've been thinking about what I could say on it. Once again, I'm sure it's worth approximately one (1) hill of beans, but y'know, when has that ever stopped me? ;)

It's a laugh to think that church and state have EVER been separate in politics or government. Sway, you're totally right in that the country was founded and established by mostly religious, (Christian) God-fearing men. Hell, several fellows in Congress absolutely REFUSED to sign the Declaration until Jefferson allowed the phrase "divine providence" to be added. It's a wonderful thing that we have freedom to worship, believe and have faith in a higher power of your choice here. It's equally cool that we have the freedom to not worship, not believe and not have faith in any sort of theism. In a perfect world - or at least country - both these factions would feel equally represented by their government.

I realize I said some of this last town hall, so forgive any repetition. It's a certainty that one's faith/belief system will shape his/her actions as a lawmaker, and to a degree I think that's fine. After all, most of the basic tenets of Christianity (both Catholic and Protestant), Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, etc, are ones that help their followers establish a strong moral, ethical compass, which (hopefully!), in turn contributes to those in power making decisions/passing laws/establishing programs that benefit mankind as a whole (ideally, of course). I believe that this is the way in which the two (church and state), can coexist peacefully.

I'd like to go on, because I actually have a lot to say about this, but at this point my hurty, headachey brain isn't working so well, so I'm going to cut this one a bit short this session. Sorry 'bout that. :)

I agree, it is quite laughable to think that church/state have ever been, or will ever effectively be (for the purposes of equality and no judgement, that is) separate from each other.

And you're right in that there's generally no problem with one's religious views (or lack thereof, for that matter), shaping how they approach politics - after all, as we've all pointed out, it is kind of hard to fully separate the two. The problem is that using religious views to shape your own views on the world and what goes on it is fine for yourself and your immediate family that you may be raising or whatever.

But where I run into issues with it, and what really grinds my gears, is when people who believe every word -- and I'm basing my response on Catholicism/Christianity here, since that's what I have the most experience with, but any one would fit - of whatever Bible they happen to "subscribe" to (forgive the poor pun everyone) and then therefore automatically condemn others who do not. I mean, I'm sorry, but just because some book tells you that gays are bad or abortion is immoral DOES NOT mean other people share your views and you have no right to take away their rights to choose to be whatever they want just because your religion has convinced you to behave in certain ways. Does that make sense?

What I'm trying to say is that I don't "mind" - in theory - that people believe in their religions forcefully and wholeheartedly. What I mind is when they judge others who don't. What I mind is when religious views affect fundamental and basic human rights whether you're gay, straight, bi, purple, yellow, short, tall, fat, pro-life, or pro-choice. It shouldn't matter what "your" religion thinks of the above when it comes to public policy, laws, and rights. Unfortunately, it DOES, and well, I just think that kinda sucks for lack of a better way to put it.

Edited at 2009-09-24 01:08 pm (UTC)

B, you finished my thoughts almost exactly as I would've. Eh, 's a lie - you did it more eloquently. Thank you. It's like you know me super well or something. ;)

And now, my healing brain and I are off to bed. :)

If you are an American, then you share something with every other American. You're a citizen. That's the 'state' I assume you're referring to (whether it be U.S. government (all Americans), or state government (all Texans).

Faith, on the other hand, is about strongly held convictions that know no geographic boundaries. And to me, it’s a private matter. For others, they share their faith with other like minded people, and that's their "Church". Where people who believe the same thing can pray together or lift their faith in song.

And faith is about DEEPLY seated convictions, and not every American or Texan share them. Some say the messiah has arrived. Some say "still waiting." Atheists say there isn't a God at all. Some evangelical faiths feel they have a moral duty to show people the way and get them to abandon prior convictions and see the light.

Now if I don't want to be a Texan, I can move Kansas. And if I don't want a particular faith 'pushed upon me' I can walk away or close the door ("thank you most respectfully for your point of view, but I don't want to be saved today. I'll pass on the publication. Thank you."). But here's where it gets sticky.

If you are an American, and therefore obey the law and go to school, or have to go to court, or proudly watch the swearing in of a public official, and that meeting or school has a platform to espouse the pillars of faith of one religion (beliefs that I may not hold), I'm kind of in a pickle. What do I do?

Like the example cah215 posed about the prayer in school… I was one of those muslim kids. (Except I was Jewish). And those prayers over the intercom made me uncomfortable. It made a few of my classmates aware day after day, that I didn't share their belief — and sadly, that irked them — and guess whose ass was kicked on the playground for being a 'dirty jew.'

Yikes — it just got harder to do my civic duty and stay in school.

The prayer that is likely to be said in government settings is likely to reflect the 'majority' religion— but that means anyone who is not a Christian American is put in an awkward situation. Even if we remove intolerance (and Lord knows things are better in that regard), there is still that uncomfortable feeling that comes from being a captive audience to beliefs that run counter to yours.

Consider this: If public expression of faith is allowed in public schools — then what if the principal just happened to be an atheist? And instead of a Christian prayer — he daily shared HIS conviction with the school that "There IS no God. Believe in a higher power is for the weak and foolish. I have only faith in myself. Amen." (Remember, he's entitled to express his faith in a public institution to a captive audience, right?) Well, how are you feeling now hearing that every morning right after the pledge of allegiance?

And that's why I think church and state need to be separated.
I go to school for civics, and to the synagogue for prayer.