Can we divide faith and state

Post Reply New Topic

Faith still a potent presence in UK politics, says author
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/apr/13/religion-faith-still-a-potent-presence-in-uk-politics-says-author?CMP=Share_AndroidApp_Copy_to_clipboard

I thought this was interesting. Do you think it's over hyped?

I live in the UK and what Tony Blair says rings true for me. Generally I don't think we like to hear our politicians mentioning religion.

Naively I just thought we were moving towards a larger gap between state and religion in this country and in Europe, but not America obviously.

Will we ever reach a a complete division or is it just not in the human psyche to let it go completely?

Some leaders might never actually mention their personal beliefs or religious preferences or practices, but all leaders in some way affect the personal beliefs, preferences or practices of other people whether or not any of those beliefs, preferences or practices can be tied directly back to the leaders "faith" or religion...and it would be impossible for all leaders to do whatever they do without ever at least *revealing* their personal beliefs or religious preferences or practices. So, the so-called "separation of church and state" simply means the state should not ever *impose* beliefs, preferences or practices that could *only* be tied back to (or were being put into place because of) a given "faith" or religion.

9-11 blows all of that wide open, however, since it began "the world's fight...civilization's fight...the fight of all who believe in progress and pluralism, tolerance and freedom." --GWB, 20 Sep 2001

The argument there is this: "Increasing religious pluralism in society is a major factor in causing societies to move toward greater religious freedom.", but leaders cannot force the abandonment or removal of monotheism without crossing the "separation of church and state" line.

The US was founded upon a strong principle of "separation of church and state."

I believe this principle has been tainted somewhat--especially by those who seek to associate their religion with their political beliefs, and especially by those who seek to make the US a "Christian" country.

I believe religion has produced excellent morals and ethics; but I also believe religion should be totally separate from secular politics.

I am all in favor of a separation between church and state. I do not see it in the future though.

Yes, but now it actively participates in global efforts to dominantly impose pluralism at the expense of monotheism.


Yes, and part of the problem there is the fact that most Christians do not understand the founders were establishing freedom of worship and *not* Christianity.


I added "non-secular" there to help show there is no such thing as "secular politics" in the sense of there never being religious influence or impact.

Last edited by leejosepho on 14 Apr 2017, 10:58 am, edited 1 time in total.

The separation between church and state is a matter of law. In practice, in the US, we don't elect atheists. Europeans think nothing of it, western Europeans anyway.

Not to disagree but to clarify: The constitution actually prohibits law in relation to religion...


As to your point, however: I remember the angst and uproar in certain settings when Kennedy (Catholic) was elected as President (usa), but that uproar came from ill-informed people and not because any wall of separation had been compromised.

It's the most effective tool to gain votes, so no.

In addition to the text of the amendment, you'll need to cite judicial precedent if you plan to school me on the Constitution. Citing the amendments may help educate those who seem to think that the list begins and ends at number two.

Many Americans deny embracing Xian Dominionism, but will only vote for candidates who proclaim their faith. The candidates don't even have to appear to mean it, evidently. We have a lot of closet Dominionists.

I definitely do not. Rather, I am only trying to address this kind of thing:


That is their personal choice and the remainder of us need not bother complaining about their personal practice. At best, however, we can remind them that our founders did *not* establish a Christian nation and that Christendom or "Xian Dominionism" has since been de-throned globally anyway.

Pretty sure we have a right to complain about whatever. Some even seem to consider complaining about any progress toward equality as a kind of obligation.

Yes, and that is why I had edited my post while you were posting!

However, the Founding Fathers (at least most of them, though I have my doubts about Jefferson and Franklin) were Christian, albeit Deists. Biggest issue I have with the Fundamentalists (and there is quite a distinction between the Evangelicals and the Fundamentalists) is EVERYONE MUST WORSHIP GOD (JHWH, Adonai, etc) in the same way. Problem I have with that, especially with the fundamentalists, is they can't agree on how to worship the Almighty.

I do not know enough of their biographies to discern between most, many, some or a few, but the bottom line in all of this is still the same:


However, I suspect very few people today would be similarly-willing to fight and die to protect that level or type of freedom for people whose dictates-of-conscience might be different than their own.

There is no religious law like the Sharia, or even mention of an "established church" (Church of England). So we have de jure separation of church and state.

Just like we have no discrimination against many types of people de jure[i]

[i]De facto, however, religion, especially the Christian religion, carries great weight in this country. There is also considerable discrimination against many types of people here.

Many of the Founding Fathers had a relatively rationalist belief in God. They felt, in essence, that God created the world, than withdrew and allowed Man to handle his/her own problems. They felt that God was more abstract idea than concrete reality.

Crossed inter tubes.