hi...what do you think is the limitation of the church to the state? and the state to the church?
92500
The 1st Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as interpreted by the courts, guarantees that:\n\n1. individuals will have freedom of religious expression; \n \n2. the government and its agencies will not recognize one religious faith as more valid than any other faith or secularism; \n \n3. the government and its agencies will not promote religion above secularism or vice versa. \n\nThis is what the Constitution guarantees. I agree with a lot of the current decisions out there that separate religion and state. Granted we maybe a majority Christian country, but one of our rights as a US citizen is not to be forced to partake in those cermonies. I do believe in tolerance for religion though. I believe that anyone can practice their religion in public as long as they do not force anyone else. And as long as no government official or program explicitly promotes any religion. The first amendment forbids that. You can read it below. Along with a quote written by a Supreme Court Justice.\n\n\n"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." (First Amendment)\n\n\n\n"When the government puts its imprimatur on a particular religion it conveys a message of exclusion to all those who do not adhere to the favored beliefs. A government cannot be premised on the belief that all persons are created equal when it asserts that God prefers some." Supreme Court Justice Harry A. Blackmun in the Lee v. Weisman ruling, 1992.
1116652
Honestly, I would not be opposed to our govrnment basing many of its policies on the teachings of Jesus Christ. The problem is is that these "Christians" have very little of Christ about them and their actions. Therein lies the real problem.\n\nThink about it, for a minute. Christ's teachings are quite secular for the most part. It's when people who believe that they are the only ones who know how God thinks and what God and Jesus REALLY meant deciding that their interpretaion is the only Ture & Correct Version and try impose that on the rest of that I have a huge problem with.
538327
according to the philippine constitution, there is a separation of the church and the state...\nhowever since the philippines is 95% catholic... the church defenitely have a say in key poltical issues becoz the people listen and politicians themselves are catholic...
311520
Seperation of church and state.  \n\nWhat a joke, eh?\n\nReligion is constitutionally supposed to have no say in politics.  Really working out for us, isn't it?
895761
Yes, but it will be more up to individuals to enforce Constitutional standards rather than relying on government intervention.\n\nIn the past, "separation of church and state" was used to defend religious practice of a Christian group from imposition by government. Today it is used to defend secular beliefs from perceived threats to impose Christian dominance.\n\nThe real issue is not "separation of church and state" but "consent of the governed."  Regardless of religious or secular views, no groups or individuals want their "consent" to be violated by an outside group or authority.  So that is the real issue, not freedom of religion but free will in general.\n\nIf we interpret religious freedom to mean free will and right of consent, people should have the right to govern and to be governed as they believe, without infringement on personal security by threat of censorship or oppression, as long as everyone respects the same of others so there is peace and justice.\n\nSo by this interpretation, of religious free exercise as free will, this has always been the struggle of humanity, and will continue to surface again and again until this issue is finally addressed and resolved.  Freedom is no more or less important as it was in the past, but will rise to a higher level of understanding as a universal right that all people require by nature, regardless if they call it religious or political or intellectual freedom.\n\nIt is the same argument, reincarnated over and over, until we establish mutual respect across all institutions and nations.\n\nBy its very nature, "consent of the govern" cannot be imposed by government force, but can only be established by free choice.  \n\nOtherwise laws contradict themselves, as in trying to separate "church and state" when all laws are, in fact, a form of moral code that reflects individual or collective values and beliefs.  Again, the issue behind "religious freedom" is whether or not individuals consent to the standards enforced.
636564
the church & state merged. anything the church deemed  uncool was under state enforcement therefore state punishment. sentences were often extreamly harsh & often fatal. it was also used to pursecute opponants of the church or state. handy tool to get whatever you want. as usual, there were a few dozen with ultimate & unchallenged power. most heads of state were also heads of church. religion has long (3000 years) since been used as a moral police force to instill silly notions of an elaborate boogieman. adhereance & support (financial & physical) to those who use these practices against us has bogged intelectual evolution. \nits ok though, theres an asteroid on its way to solve all our problems.\nhttp://scotthortonshow.com/\nmoney, http://www.philipdru.com/griffin_stream.html\nbush & clinton http://www.philipdru.com/triplett_stream.html\nisrael http://antiwar.com/justin/?articleid=8730\nhttp://www.philipdru.com/webb_stream.html\niran http://www.weekendinterviewshow.com/InterviewDisplay.aspx?i=131
1090025
Yes I believe it has gone to far.  I remember saying it when I was in school (I am 32 now) and there was nothing wrong with it then or now.  It dosn't say WHICH god so it shouldn't be an issue.  Most people have their own gods.  Is only the athiests that have a problem.  They say the division between church and state but once again it dosnt say what type of church so why does it matter.
21252
Churches cannot receive any government funding for any reason, but many churches form separate non-religious social service organizations, which CAN receive government money. It must not be spent to prostletize in any way.
663084
Anytime the gov't tries to incorporate church and state. I can't believe how easily we forget that our ancestors came here to get away from just that. This country was built to allow it's citizens freedom to make their own religious choices. Yet we allow the gov't to sneak their christian beliefs into our laws.
345915
No, but I think religion should be a personal practice and have NOTHING to do with the government at all. Until that happens, yes it should be repressed from all governmental function.
815984
The Founders did not intend a complete "separation of church and state."\n\nTheir concern was the state actively promoting or supporting one religion over the other. There is nothing close to this in the USA.\n\nThe ACLU and other groups, thru mountains of unnecessary litigation, have completely misread the Establish Clause of the First Amendment.  The mere mention of "God" for example, hardly favors one religion over the other. \n\nJefferson's phrase "separation of Church and State" was written to a group of Baptists to assure them that they would be free to practice as they wished. It appears no where in the Constitution.\n\nToday, however, this pseudo legal doctrine has been used as a sword to destroy even the most benign religious expression on public property. We are much poorer for it.
134399
Absoluting nothing!  Except that would treaten the "right" of religous fundimentalists to force their religion on others.  Of course, they'd probably say they are saving them for eternal damnation, but it amounts to the same thing.\n\n________\n>>>Remember, the concept of "maariage" while having many \n>>>legal and govermental ramifications, is in fact a rligious \n>>>institution.\n\nI don't think it's right to force religious institutions to preform same sex marriages.  And I don't see anyone advocating it.  However, I think it's just as wrong to tell them they're not allowed, or for the state to refuse to recognize the validity of same sex marriages that are sanctioned by a religions institution.  Many churches do not allow same sex marriage, but some do, and those that do should be afforded the same rights as those that do not.  In case you haven't noticed, the Catholic Church is not the only religious organization out there.\n\nIn a legal sense, marriage is not a religious institution.  A couple can be married in a courthouse by a justice of the peace without the involvment of any religious establishment whatsoever.  All we ask is that same sex couples be afforded the same rights under the law as heterosexual ones.  That gay couples be permitted to obtain a marriage license and be married by a justice of the peace or by an religious authority willing to preform the ceremony.  A Church already has the right to choose who they will and will not marry without explaination, and I see no reason why that needs to change.  The government, however, does not have the same right of discrimination that is afforded the Church.
207640
What do you mean "the church?"  Even if we assume you mean christianity, every denomination is doing things differently.  There's nothing they're all doing well or badly in.
356472
i don't think so, the law shouldn't be affected by the church. and if you're Muslim and want to vote, wouldn't you feel unconfortable in a church?  I think that only Christians would vote if the elections were held in churches, and that isn''t democracy.
974131
people argue that marriage is a relgious thing, but government calls for a seperation for church and state.\n\nlet them be married and be happy. it is not affecting you.
741930
In a theocratic government, there is never the freedom of faith. In most of the Islamic countries, no other religion than Islam can be freely practised.
221708
Oh Big Deal! Two people decide that they want to have something going on & the Goverment steps in & say's that's a big NO-NO... & at the same time the very Goverment that's supposedly watching to protect our Rights as (American Citizens) deny the two people theire individual & Constitional Right to freedom/s of expression. Marriage is something that man created-what two or three hundred years ago, & somehow it's related to the Church??? We as Good American Citizens have many Constitutional Rights to Excersize at will. & the Church thing is suppose to be a seperate issue other then those that threaten our very exsistance of haveing these liberties. Church & states Issues should never interfere W/each other about codes of conduct/s or Constitutionalities because they are seperate. It's alway's been legal to Marry anyone because of our Freedom/s  Of  Choices written In The U.S. Constitution, & not what some hang-up that some church has on someone. Where is the wheel of shame,when it's no-one's fault for doing the right thing w/someone? I liked your question because, alot of people have been fooled by the states taht say no.