I very firmly believe in the Separation of Church and State despite some claiming it doesn't really exist; I also firmly believe someone's religious beliefs are very personal and really none of anyone's business! If someone wants to talk about it, fine, but if they don't, that's fine too and when it comes to political candidates, especially national candidates such as the President of the United States the less they talk about it the better. After all, we are choosing the President of the UNITED STATES, not President of the Bible Belt or President of the Religious Right. Our country may be "predominantly Christian" but we are not governed by any church doctrine and we shouldn't be. We are a diverse country with diverse views so those views should not be played against each other. Law is law and faith is faith and just because something is against one person's religious FAITH doesn't mean it should be against the LAW of our country.
The POTUS is also considered the "leader of the Free World" and as such he or she should not do anything to give the impression of favoring one religion and its people over another. It's fine to defend everyone's right to practice whatever religion they choose and to be against religious persecution of any kind but to seemingly condemn billions of people in the world is not the way to finding world peace or at least a world with fewer wars
I'd love to have a Presidential candidate say publicly from the day they throw their hat into the ring that their religion is none of anyone else's business and refuse to say another word about it. I'd also love to see religious leaders stay out of politics and if they don't their churches' non-profit status should be revoked immediately!
Annie
[question posted by anniepa]responses and comments:
I don't believe in the 501C3 status, check my website, but that is not the big issue here. I believe that the voter should know about the charcter and decision making capacities of the potential chief executive. If the candadate has ties to a religion that promotes violence, or mandates ridiculous practices, not saying any of the current contenders fall into this camp, it indicates their ability to make good choices in other areas as well. The US may have been founded on Christian principals but I do not believe that this country is predominately Christian. The principal of separation between church and state is not interpreted the way it was written. You need to read the Constitution. The purpose was intended to keep the government from interfering with the church, not that the principals of the church should not influence the concepts of right and wrong used by those whom we depend upon to establish public policy. [FundamentalCharlie]
"This is what I feel is the most important, not that the church is controlling, for it has all ways been In God we Trust, since the beginning, now it is more In man we trust, which is not working." It has not "always" been in God we trust. 1956 Is a long way from "always". In 1782 the unoffical motto of our country was "E Pluribus Unum" ("from many, one"). It was approved to be used on the United States seal, but was never offically established by legislature, and therefore "In God We Trust" was selected. the Congressional Record of 1956 reads: "At the present time the United States has no national motto. The committee deems it most appropriate that 'In God we trust' be so designated as U.S. national motto. [HouseKat]
Well said! You sound exactly like me. I am appalled at the way religion has been creeping into our government. The Line was put there for a reason. Those that push religion into politics only think of the benefits. They have no idea that it also means politics in religion. Example: if the country is doing something morally wrong and against the principles of the religion, the 'preferred' religion must stand by, shut up and co-sign it anyway. People should actually KNOW some history before trying to push their religious agenda on this country and it's citizens. This is part of a blog I wrote last December: The text of the First Amendment to the Constitution is: "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." Treaty of Tripoli, Article 11 reads: "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." Article 11 has been a point of contention regarding the proper interpretation of the doctrine of separation of church and state. Supporters of the separation of church and state contend that this article is significant in that it confirms that the government of the United States was specifically intended to be religiously neutral. Supporters of the "Christian Nation" theory dispute this, arguing that the article in the treaty carries little or no significance. Official records show that after President John Adams sent the treaty to the Senate for ratification in May 1797, the entire treaty was read aloud on the Senate floor, including the famous words in Article 11, and copies were printed for every Senator. A committee considered the treaty and recommended ratification, and the treaty was ratified by a unanimous vote of all 23 Senators. It was the 339th time a recorded vote was taken in the Senate and only the third time a unanimous result was obtained. The treaty was reprinted in full in three newspapers, two in Philadelphia and one in New York City. There is no record of any public outcry or complaint in subsequent editions of the papers. This country was founded on Religious Freedom, not Religious Freedom Only If You Are Christian. [thelastwolf113]
I love you, Rebel! I'm in total agreement with your expansion on this subject, so no need to reiterate. I expect Freedom FROM Religion, as it is my choice, my soul or lack thereof. Let me worry about it. Or not, and I can assure you I don't. Fanatics, I release you from your burden of worrying about my soul. I want to reply to the tax-exempt status portion of your post: it gets even worse: Bush and others are constantly trying to get their 'faith-based initiatives' made into law, with voucher systems and other financial assistance to CERTAIN Christian sects. It is against the Constitution to put forth one religion over another, for one, but more worrisome is that you and I would be paying to support a religion that we do not even believe in, if they got their way. Why should I be forced to pay to someone else's religion? I feel tax-exempt status is not applicable for organized religions. Tax-exemption is for non-profit organizations, organized religions are all about profit. I belong to American United for the Separation of Church and State, which is run by Reverend Barry Lynn, www.au.org, you'd be surprised on how invasive the Christian religion is becoming in our government. I believe in freedom of religion too, if someone wants to have a religion, that's fine with me. Just keep me out of it. Don't ask me to believe it, or pay for it. [thelastwolf113]
Damn right, I agree with you 100%. Their religious views should not matter at all, unless its a religon where they hurt people or animals, but not many of those actually exist, and the ones they that do arnt religions they are just a few crazy individuals. Im pagan, I very much believe in seperation of church and state, and I dont like how its not really seperated. I dont think this country is predominantly christian its just that they are the loudest so are heard the most since they dont think anybody else should have a right to their own religon. [darkjedi]
Yeah lol, or name a teddy bear muhammed [darkjedi]
anniepa you just said a mouthful and I totally agree. ones religion is one's own business. It should not have anything to do with choosing a President of the USA at all.I too would love to hear a candidate say that' their religion was nobody's business but their own. Religion and politics should not mesh. they are separate things. [Hatley]
About religion and politics. Now I am a Christian, does that mean that in the public eye, although the pastor says that "thou shalt not covet also applies to gambling," that when I go out in public, I cannot show my Christian nature and I must gamble if our government says the proceeds are to feed the hungry? Now this is a simplistic idea. But lets take Bush for instance. He is a Methodist Christian, not the same view that I hold, and he is against abortion, therefore he has a right to say he is against it publicly. Stating one's religion when one is a candidate also shows the people what the candidate is living up or down to. For instance, if Obama suddenly said, "I converted to the Islam religion," then we would expect him to go to the Mosque on Fridays, and follow their precepts. If McClain said, "I will not open an abortion clinic," and then we see a photo of him cutting the ribbon at an abortion clinic, then his standards are in question and I would expect to see a news report saying , that the McClains were at Church on Sunday as usual.. So you may want ah President who lets you do what you want in the gray area, but I would want who stands up to the standards his religion preaches. [suspenseful]
It's not going to end. It'll go on and on endlessly. Someone even posted that Obama and his wife's plans are to enslave Caucasians. Yes folks, he is going to hypnotize the legislature and the entire country and enslave Caucasians. [MoonlightSerenade]
I am a Christian who believes that seperation of church and state is good for the protection of both and all citizens. The US government is not supposed to support or enforce a State religion - an establishment of religion. Our founding fathers knew the perils and persecutions that occured in England as a result of an established State Church - The Church of England. To be free, the citizens of the US must be free to worship as they choose as long as that does not harm or infringe on the BASIC rights of others. (Some people get confused and think one of their basic rights is to not have to hear about, think about, or be aware of any beliefs outside of their own.) I don't believe that public life needs to be completely sanitized of religion. Our leaders should be held to a higher standard and should expect higher levels of scrutiny. Their physical exams and medical tests are a concern to the public, as well as their moral beliefs, personal practices, and emotional constitution. We should be informed about our candidates. If most people choose to vote or not vote for someone based in whole or in part on that person's religion - well, hey, it's a free country! If a majority vote that way for multifunction inkjet printers - that's how our democracy works; rule by the majority. By the way, most of the Founders of our Constitution were more properly defined as Theists, not Christians. And even though I consider myself a fairly conservative, but a little moderate, Christian, I would not vote for someone who wanted to establish this country as a "Christian nation". [mclendon]
I too believe in the Separation of Church and State. One would think that Presidential candidates would be careful about high-profile preachers and their backgrounds and words. Sens. Barack Obama and John McCain have already slipped up on the preacher side. They have both been embarrassed by the support of preachers who have gone far over the line from the pulpit and beyond. McCain is the latest to suffer humiliation. The Rev. John Hagee of San Antonio has stepped over the bounds of propriety not once but twice. His support was sought by the presumptive GOP nominee long before his rants were made public. A search of Hagee's sermons found that he said God had sent Hitler to deliver Jews to the Promised Land. That was too much for McCain, and he denounced his words and disavowed his endorsement. Earlier, Hagee had made disparaging remarks about the Roman Catholic Church that McCain disavowed. But he said he couldn't be responsible for everything a supporter might say. Obama was put to the test, and failed at first, on fiery words said by the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, his pastor in Chicago. Wright damned America for its treatment of African-Americans during the nation's history. Obama separated himself from those words but not his pastor. He was ripped by Republicans and their pundit allies in the media. Wright compounded the problem with some ridiculous comments during a speech at the National Press Club. He seemed to be enjoying his time in the limelight. Obama finally freed himself from his ties to the preacher. Another reason religion should be taken out of politics is because many politicians make many promises to people of faith and never deliver. Basically they used them for votes. Lloyd [lloydanthony111]
I agree, Lloyd. Especially the last comment you stated about politicians making promises to people of faith and never delivering. This is a major problem I have with politics anyway. If they are to be held to a higher standard, why is it okay for them lie, and LIE publically, and it helps them get into office? I simply don't understand. When my kids lie to me, they get grounded and lose privelages. I think that's what should happen to a candidate, if not cast out from continuing to run at all. There should be NO wiggle room for lying to the public in order to gain votes! [mommyboo]
For the most part, I do agree with you on this. I don't care what ones religious beliefs are and I've always wondered why that was an issue in politics. When Mitt Romney's being mormon was an issue, i thought it silly. I did not like mitt romney and it had nothing t o do with his being mormon. to me it was a non-issue. Obama however is another story. His religion is very obviously anti-white and anti-american. When you go to church, it is because you subscribe to the beliefs of that church. If a man is running for president of the US and the church that he has attended and been very devoted to for 20 years is anti-american....well, that does cause me concern and I think it is very relevant in the election. [sid556]
Hi anniepa, I agree with you completely, separation of church and state is very important. Isn't that why many people came to America in the first place? Some people can't seem to separate the two, and I think that is just too bad. Candidates should be judged on their political views only and and not if they they attend church or not, much less which one. Politics and religion should have nothing to do with each other. Blessings. [Pose123]
I completely agree with you. It seems that most citizens of this country have forgotten why people started coming to America. Most of the early immigrants came here to escape religious persecution. To be able to worship the way that they wanted to and not have the government controlling which church they went to or even which religion they were going to practice. Most of the problems with Americans stem from a short term memory problem. It would be great to have a candidate say "it's none of your business" or even simply one to say that they don't go to church at all. I would love to be able to ask these "great religious leaders" how their ancestors felt when the king told them what religion they had to be. I come from a big family of religious people and I know the Bible from cover to cover (from having it forced down my throat every day as a child) and I do not believe that religion and politics go together or have any reason to be intertwined. The only religious item that I can see and think should be applied to every day life is "follow the laws of the land". Maybe some day we will see a candidate take this stance but I don't think it will be any time soon. Until the day that these religious leaders stop misleading their followers; by this I mean the ones that are asking for money because the devil is going to steal their land, and the ones who are being arrested for visiting prostitutes in areas where prostitution is illegal,and staying out of politics. I personally believe that these leaders are no different than the political leaders that lie to get into office and never do what they say they will do. These are the reasons that politics and religion should NOT go together, although after my last statement I clearly see why they do go together! [ZephyrSun]
I think after 9/11, where many have forgotten, we are all trying to protect ourselves and country. I feel they are trying to use religion to win. Nothing more or less, I personally don't think either of them are worthy of being President, unless one or both of them prove something more than what they all ready have. They seem to be getting told on more then being told how great they are or what they believe as standing for the people wanting to be President. This years race seem sad for me, to think people are using what ever makes them look good, and then in the long run they are coming out looking foolish. I guess, in the last month, I try not to watch the politicians and who is doing what for now, as the election grows closer then I will start reading but for me, I feel it is all a show, putting on faces to please no one but themselves. [lynn2457]
My thoughts exactly. The days of passing "laws" of what is right and wrong that are grounded in religion, mainly Christianity, should be over. Some issues that are grounded in religion (for those that don't know)- gay marriage and stem cell research are the first ones that came to mind. I would claim that at this moment, seperation of church and state doesn't exist in the states. Though it is supposed to. [skinnychick]
I wish the powers that be in American politics took this same attitude. But unfortunately they don't. They are guided by religion in both of these respects. It's insanely wrong in my book. [skinnychick]
The character of a canditiate and his/her moral values are extremly important. He/she should not shove their beliefs down the other persons throat. It's not a big deal what the other persons religious beliefs are as long as they have an impeccable character an an excellent moral/value system. Alot of ground experiance and they will make excellent choice for the top position. it does not matter what religion the person is, wheather he/she is black/white/or anyother colour as long as they are the naturally born citizen of the country. [nick1in]
Hear hear, Annie!! This is fantastic, I couldn't be more pleased if I wrote this myself! I feel much the same way as you do and have the same convictions. I am not against anybody having their own personal religion, but I am of the mind that it has as much to do with a person as the color of their hair or whether they have freckles or not. It is not a basis to choose somebody to associate with, it is not a basis for how well (or not) anybody will perform a job - well, as long as they never allow their religious beliefs to get in the way of their job duties. I believe presidential and other government candidates should remain neutral - because that will make them appeal to all sides and there is less chance of them being supported by just one side or the other. I'm not sure if we even are predominantly Christian any more, are we? If we are, why and how did statisticians come to that conclusion? People want to feel that their government represents them, so in this way I would prefer someone who doesn't lean too far one way or the other, they need to be open to reason wherever it may lie. While a person can certainly use their faith based beliefs in order to make decisions that only affect them, when they are dealing with something that affects other people, that needs to be considered and maybe they need to take a moral back seat. One example I am thinking of involves the pharmacy tech who refused to dispense a prescription for birth control pills to a client. This was extremely wrong and basically meant she was NOT fulfilling the duties of her job - which is to dispense prescrptions no matter what they are! Her personal beliefs and moral code should not impact another person, ONLY HER. If the actual legal laws of the country follow along with something that is morally correct, that is one thing, but if not, we do not need these misguided people playing God. Things like this anger me a lot, where do people get off behaving like this? I think she was fired, I really really hope so. I would have pulled her license and not allowed her to work in a pharmacy again unless she made a public apology and wrote in a contract that she would never do such a thing again. [mommyboo]
I agree with you. When we go to vote, we need to be looking at a candidate's actions -- what they've accomplished, the legislation they have voted for and against, the causes they've worked for. [MoonlightSerenade]
This is a very interesting topic, and I fully agree. I got into a heated debate a month or so ago about this very subject because it seems to me that, the few politicians that actually practice seperation between what they personally believe and what they politically support, get slammed all the time. Ted Kennedy (the way my former debate got started) is actually a perfect example of a politician that sets his own personal beliefs aside when making political decisions. While he is a devoted Catholic, he does not make his decisions, or political stands, on his own personal religious beliefs. So many of the foolish emails that get cycled around about Obama and his religious beliefs. "Is he, or isn't he?". Who cares!? It will be far better then the person that hears a voice in his head that he claims to be God's. [HouseKat]
Ted Kennedy is a wise politician indeed. The rest can take a clue from him, and a number! [mommyboo]
I believe in seperation of church and state also but not for the same reasons. You seem to forget that our forefathers were very spiritual and based alot of their decisions by prayer and spiritual guidance-one nation under GOD remember. [kebon77]
Yes "under God", but who's God? They did not say that no one should believe or have faith in a greater power. They simply wanted every person to have the right to decide what greater power they believed in. Some people have gotten the deluted idea that we are a "Christian nation", built on Christian beliefs. That simply is not the case. [HouseKat]
I accept and agree to you about religion ! None should force another to take their religion. God will judge whose religion is better or not ! God sent me in a religion and another to another religion what is my fault or what is his/her fault? Who is religious who respect human and do lot of welfare for human ! Cruel have no religion though he born in a religion. [edigital]
More about religion you can find here: http://www.religioustolerance.org/other_es.htm [edigital]
Unfortunately you have overlooked the fact that almost all of our substantive laws are based on religious beliefs. Thou shalt not steal, thou shalt not kill ect. Religion has given us the moral code we live by and thereby been forged into the laws by which we govern ouselves as a society. The rapid moral degeneration of this country is commensurate with the attack on religion. I am not saying that athiest ro those of differing beliefs are amoral, to the contrary, most are of the highest moral standard. What I am saying is that while the specific faith of a candiate is not the most important factor it is a factor in as much as they will govern according to thier beliefs. I for one am much more comfortable with a president that has the same moral convictions and beliefs that I do. This country is still a representative democracy and to me that means those elected to govern us should be representative of the majority. While the elite are quick to say otherwise the majority of this country are people of faith. [robehren]
I'll say this as simply and as briefly as I can - it's very possible for someone with no religious belief or background, even someone who isn't even aware religion or God even exists, to still have a good moral character and know the difference between right and wrong. You don't have to go to church or read the bible to know it's wrong to steal or commit murder, do you? Annie [anniepa]
WOW! you guys wright alot! COOL! I will give it to you simple.. CHurch and Government has divided our world. They also have created wars the day this two started. Way should we even follow or believe all what they say?? Amen [utakemybreathaway00]
come on my friend, aren't the still fighting for the holly land? I know you dont know if you read the bible, but Gods words says that religion is foolishness! He said to come together my childern, so there will be no division, and seperation amongst each other. Meaning religion doesnt exist in his eyes. and will only bring war. when people cant agree, it brings war no? [utakemybreathaway00]
I believe that separation of church and state has been widely used to quieten Christians. I think the original intent was for the government to not interfere with any religion/choosing leaders, etc., and church leaders were not to come into government using their religion as a tool to get their way. Religion is a part of most of our lives. God is within us, so how can we separate our religion from the life we live? I agree that we are a diverse nation with many different religions, but with politically correctness, I see Christians more and more being sifted out and other religions appeased. I believe we should know what a presidential candidate believes. It is part of his character, and I want a president that is strong in his faith and relies on God to get him through the day. I appreciate the way President Bush has not been ashamed to admit he is a Christian and that he prays daily over this nation. [Barb42]
Check out my article on my website, "The Right to be Wrong," for a better explanation of my views on this. [FundamentalCharlie]