Should Religion and State Be Separate?

My friend is a catholic, and does not believe that the State should be separate from Religion. The main reason why is so things like abortion and gay marriage can be illegal. So I basically wanted to get all of your guys' opinion on weather or not the government and religion should be two separate entities, rather then together. Or do you think they should be one in the same? Your thoughts please.

Personal Opinion:

No. The one and only condition for State and Religion to go together is when the State consists of only people of that particular religion. Anything else, then it's no longer democratic.

Religion, assumes itself to be true, and does not allow the consideration that other religion might be true, or that itself might be false. That alone creates some kind of discrimination between people of one side and the others. So if there's more than one religion in the country, and one particular religion is used as the main source of law, what about the other religion? What about atheists? If the law allow those people to be free from those religious laws, then it's ok, but well, that goes against the religion itself. So to me if state and religion go together, then that state is not democratic.

So to me...religion and state must be separate. Or else many types of freedom will be violated.

Personally I think so. I'm tired of religion interfering with what should be a simple process of deciding what is acceptable in our society. Morals are a finicky thing. Not everyone shares them, and it isn't fair that they should impede upon those who don't agree with what happens to be accepted in American society.

I think it is easy to determine what may constitute as being harmful to others, but something that affects only the parties in question should be allowed no matter what (i.e. same-sex marriage, polygamy...) However, who is to say that what we decide can be harmful to others isn't also just some form of glorified religious spew.

Ideally I want religion to stay as far away from my life as possible, and that means keeping Religion on one side and State on the other. I don't want someone's religious morals telling me if what I choose to do is acceptable or not. What I choose to do is my business.

Even though I have an interest and respect for religion, I also think that it's the source of to many problems to be allowed to have any actually political power. Religion by itself, as a free choice, where you choose to either do what they say, or you don't is perfectly fine, or rather, it's up to you. Religion Without a choice, and as a power that directly can interfere with your life even though your not a believer, is NOT a good thing.

Practices and beliefs in government can be changed without too much trouble. The same cannot be said for practices and beliefs in religion. The world changes with age, society changes with age, and as they change, laws and viewpoints need to change with them. Religion has shown time and time again that it is very slow to changing its opinions and laws, if they ever change at all. It wouldn't make sense to have religion, a firm structure that rarely moves, be a part of the government, a structure that needs to be loose and free to move.

Also, if Christianity was a major part of the government, what would all the non-Christians do? How could they fight against the government if it did something wrong? Instead of using logic and reason, they might have to look up Bible quotes, something with which they may not be familiar. Same goes with any other religion incorporated into the government.

Finally, it would take away freedom of choice. If the government decided that Christianity or Buddhism was the religion of the state, people who disagreed would pretty much have to leave the country. Even if the religious aspects weren't overbearing, there'd still be intolerance towards those who were not members of the state religion. It might be something as simple as them having to go to work on a day that is considered sacred in their religion, or something as big as them having to denounce their faith and accept the state religion.

In short, we can't all agree on what is the "right" religion, and a government that inherently splits up its populace in such a way could not stand. Not a democracy, at least.

Church and state should be separate. By church I mean any and all religions. Government should not endorse nor should it restrict a religion.

The problem with not having the two separate would lead to a theocracy like a majority of countries in the middle east. While this might not be bad for the passive religions like Shinto and Buddhist. It would be a completely different story with monotheistic religions like Islam or Christianity.

I believe we are all familiar with the events between the Protestants and Catholics in England during the Marian Persecution. Which I believe would return if any religion was instated as a system of government. All theocracies dismiss that humans have rights outside of their doctrine. Islamic countries like Iran routinely infringe on the rights set by the U.N. which the most common is the rights of women.

Government should be adaptable to the people of the times. Religion is too set in stone to be adaptable at the proper rate to keep up with the rest of society.

My answer to that is a clear no for several reasons:
a) If you have a state that is "linked" with religion, there are tons of problems once someone with a different belief is to be integrated. There are enough problems when trying to adapt to a new surrounding already.
b) If we look back in history, most of the times, when the religion interfered with the politics, a big mess was created. From the catholic church charging the 1/10'th, to the point, where there is an alienation between people of different religions.
C) There is enough "belief" already included in politics /irony aside, once there is a religion in the state, you might be able to pick the ruling party, but you can hardly kick out the religion. Thus, in my opinion, democracy becomes flawed and with that, your right and choice to pick the leadership of your country.

Religion and state do not mix. The whole fury over gay marrige is one example that shows why.

that's a good example... i give you +1 rep. and it should be seperate.. too many different religions and a strict government will not work well... i think...

If the Church and State were to be mixed, then certain rights that people have will start to be encroached upon. So what if things like abortion or gay marriage are "wrong" in your religion? Who are YOU to demand that others adhere to YOUR religion?

On another note, say that a certain religion will take hold and lord command over a nation. What will happen to those of different faiths? You can't guarantee their safety or freedom, just look at what's transpired in religiously-ruled countries in the past. The Puritans in England, the Moors and Jews in Spain, the Protestants in Germany, countless instances of abuse by leading religious figures. And don't say that man has progressed and learned from his mistakes, because we haven't. If it's happened once it can very well happen again.

Interesting note about that, the bible never explicitly states that gays shouldn't be able to get married, or that marriage is between one man and one woman. In fact, there are several clearly gay relationships in the bible that are not at all painted in a bad light, and there are also several stated cases of things like polygamy. The entire argument is really invalid.

In a place like the US, with several major religions commonly practiced within it, it would be impossible to combine church and state, even if it WERE a good idea.
Which it isn't. Governments should be more concerned with the well-being of their citizens than with arbitrary sets of beliefs and laws that constrict them from their actual duties.
It's just a bad deal, man.

i disagree with this statment only slightly. i agree church and state need to be as far apart as is humanly possable, but religion can and has often become a serious issue. i wouldnt be at all against restricting or wiping out religions that prove themselfs to be particularly volatile. honestly i cant understand why religion in very select instances hasnt been treated as a highly infectious disease to be quarentined and destroyed. okay that does sound harsh. i guess i should swap out the word "religion" and replace it with "ideology". problems with this though are that in cases where it has been done its been done from a religious standpoint. so the goal would be to kill those who are different rather than protect inocents either from those that follow the ideology or from being made into the soldiors of it. come to think of it we already have a war against a concept, maybe i spoke to soon but the states big "war against terrorism" is exactly what ive been talking about. they just havnt figured out a socially acceptable method of fighting it.

that said i pretty much agree with everything else so far stating in this thread.

P.S. i am open minded and i welcome debate, i may also have gone somewhat off topic and will make a new thread if asked.

There is no debate. Religions, by nature, do not mesh well with one another. You can not just choose one religion over the others just because the majority follow that religion. Wishing that church and state may merge just because of a few issues someone does not agree with is one of the worst ideas I have ever heard. Abortion and gay marriage debates have been done to death, so I will just say it is not your right to tell me how to live my life.

I will follow the laws and rules set by the state, not commandments set by a god that does not exist. I will live my life treating others how I want to be treated. I do not wish to be stoned to death some day because of some minor fallacy I may have committed.

Reciprocity

I just think that if religion and state are mixed that it would downgrade our intelligence. People who want to grow are going to grow, but people with a religious mind who wanted to further their knowledge already came up, like America's first president and courtesans. sooner or later you have to know when you should do something based on a religious stand point, and when to do it on a serious view point that has nothing to do with your religion.

one thing I notice that keeps coming up is that there are too many different beliefs around for one to be the deciding factor. That right there is the main reason if you ask me. It would go against laws that we have today to force religion on someone who is of differing values then you. in fact you might even get arrested for that.

Secondly i think religion and state have not fully been separated, since gay marriage is considered illegal. abortion is not, but viewed as immoral. Abortion may seem evil, but this world is overpopulated. seriously i would not abort for my sake, but because it means one less life that has to live in this fucked up world. not that i am unhappy with my current life, but if someone told me in a fetal state i could live a harsh life, or just be aborted and take the easy way out, I would. that fact that religious people think you can kill a life before it is born is arrogant. If that child isn't born here, then maybe somewhere else. Religious people do not keep an open mind which is how we got to where we are now.

What exactly do you not agree on? Though, rereading the quoted statement I realize that I wasn't clear what my intentions where when I said restrict. There wouldn't be any laws specifically against a certain religion. The only "restrictions" I personally would place is that you can practice your religion so long as it doesn't infringe on the rights of people. Jehovah's witnesses could refuse blood transfusions unlike in Cuba. Rastafarian's could refuse amputations due to religious beliefs. Religions would have to work within our laws but, laws wouldn't be written against them.

I could go into the marriage thing but, that would completely derail the topic due to my rather unique outlook on marriage.

As for the abortion thing that many people claim only religious people are against. I'm an Atheist and I'm against abortion on the grounds that I believe people have a right to live as spelled out by America's declaration of independence. You can be against abortion and not be a religious fanatic.

Religion and State and state should definitely be separate... the freedom to practice your religion should be enough. If I remember correctly, religion just doesn't work out in other countries, like in... Russia? Can't remember >.<