Topic: Separation of Church and State (Read 596 times)

Its a separation of state and church, because of different ideas. For example church doesn't like same sex marriage.Church opposing death penalty but state like to implement. I believe that separation of state and church is necessary so that the state shall implement the programs in which the church opposes.

Definitely  must be separate. What that "leader" might have done is a crime punishable by laws of state, the church people have  the right to rally, but if they are shouting separation of church and state, then they should support the state in implementing its law against the suspected criminal.

But the only agreement that any member of society has with another, is a very tenuous thing. Show me the "society agreement" that I or anyone signed that makes us part of society. If you can't do it, church/religion is naturally separate from the State. If it isn't separation, there is no freedom, and the State is dictating everything.

Church can't be separated from the state since church is within the society

THe government is incharge of national peace and order of the country and security as well. If the church create crime or havoc in the society, which is believed to be not a task of the church, then the state has to meddle. Church suppose to be promoting peace, love and unity, order and obedience not only to God but to the state as well, and if they fail to do these and do the opposite intead, then they dont deserve the claim of separation from the state. They will be called not a church but barbaric rebels.

What is the smallest unit of the church? Isn't it the family? When a husband and wife, and the kids come together at dinner, and say grace for the food, isn't this a church?

What is the smallest unit of government (the state)? Isn't it the family? When the parents decide what their living conditions will be, are they not acting like a government? And when they order the kids around, aren't they being a government for them?

So, church and state at their basic, fundamental unit are united.

However, in the USA, when the 9th Amendment says that "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people," doesn't that mean that the people have all rights that are not listed in the Constitution?

The Government isn't about laws for the people. The Government is about laws for itself and for those who by agreement place themselves under the laws of the Government.

Personally, I am not under the laws of Government. Because of this, I do not subscribe to Government funds for my religion. Nor do I accept Government regulation of my religion. Even Government agrees with me in the 1st Amendment, and in the 9th as I stated above.

If you don't like Government messing with your religion, stop being a citizen. Simply live on land that is not owned by Government, and don't do anything that is regulated in the Constitution. Smoke all the pot you want on your own land. And when people of Government try to regulate your freedom, sue them personally for harming you.

Google and Youtube search on "Karl Lentz common law" after you watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Twn96nj0jfw&list=PLHrkQxgz0mg6kUBciD-HIvTXByqjcIZ-D&index=10.

There  is a boundary between the church and state.the church cannot easily dictate there idea in the state. And also the state cannot easily dictate there idea in the church. So they are legally separated.because there is a law amended with this matter.

Church shouldn't be separated from the State. It exists inside the state and have to live according to the laws of this state. So in my opinion government can interfere in Church's business

Separation of church and state just means that the State can not promote a single religion. It doesn't mean that the state cannot meddle in the doings of religious groups, especially if they are breaking the laws of the state.

Considering the freedom of both parties, it is just right to separate states and church. Both parties have different beliefs that they fight for, I don't see why not. There ade certain things they argue. And they argue a lot. It's just enough for me to separate them because of the difficulties they are experiencing. They argue and in that arguement, their supporters join the feud as well.

It's common sense, if a crime is committed in the vicinity of the church or if someone from a religion done a heinous crime an investigation must be made, those people rallying said by OP for me are hypocrites.

A wall of separation between church and state. This is a very strong statement, very clear in meaning. First of all, it means that the government cannot make laws that favor one religion over any other, because it cannot make laws related to the establishment of a religion or the free expression of religious beliefs. Therefore, individuals can pray in school, but public schools cannot require people to pray. The government cannot endorse any particular religion — meaning there can be no copies of the Ten Commandments in front of schools, nor nativity scenes in government buildings, nor Buddha statues in front of government offices.

Religious leaders and their followers should relish in this wall of separation, rather than trying to knock it down. Why? Because it is there not only to keep religion out of government, but to keep government out of religion. The wall of separation goes both ways; the Establishment Clause protects not only the government from meddling by religious organizations, but protects religious organizations from interference with the practice of their beliefs by government as long as those beliefs do not require actions, like human sacrifice, that break laws not related to religious practice.

What we really need now is some kind of separation of currency and state.. now that would be revolutionary!

There should be enough separation between the church and the state, because the former is not necessarily a democratic institution. Anyways, the church should rather concentrate on the religious affairs, rather than interfering with the government. Also, the motives of the church in certain sectors can differ greatly from that of the government. 

Separation of church and the state is a big deal and has a big impact to the continuous improvement of the country. As a united country we must act as one, we must abide the law set forth by the people and the law of god. The conflict cannot be eliminated between the two but through  peaceful talk, proper and wide understanding at the end of the day we all want to solve problems and all we want is peaceful and unite country.

Separation of church and state doesn't apply to this if a complaint has occur. If an institution breaks the law, no matter if this is a religious institution l, it is still subject to the law and it's punishment. In essence this is one of the reasons we have the separation of church and state. Now if the government however tries to change the doctrine of a religious institution then thats violates the separation of church and state. Same with if the religious institution tries to influence the government.

It is good idea that the church and the state is separated from each other. Church is all about the religious practices of the people and it's development to the moral aspect of everyone while the state only tackles about the whole development of community and to the future of it's countrymen and the progress that will affect everyone.

In this specific case, that separation can't actually be applied. If a person from a certain congregation or religion committed a crime, then regardless of where they belong to, they're bound to the law and should be punished.

the state in which a philosopher plato says, the head of state must be born a philosopher, because the world has two powers, namely the power of religion and philosophy, if such a state distances from religion it will be moral inequality in the country, and this actually endangers the country itself , the issue of secularism will be bunerang for its adopting nations,

In some countries, churches aren't even taxed. They make so much money and even establish schools that require high tuition fees, yet not 0% tax? C'mon it's time that everybody pay the same amount of taxes as churches do.

In some countries, churches aren't even taxed. They make so much money and even establish schools that require high tuition fees, yet not 0% tax? C'mon it's time that these people pay the same way other businesses do.

Church is the reality; State is just a state of mind.   

I think this is cery important in every state to have a clear distinction or definition regarding what is covered and under the jurisditciont of the church or state. Sometimes it is important to note that one cannot interfere with the other as this can only mean that they have different wolds to go on

In the western society state is already separated from the church.
This process started with French revolution in 1789.
Only in the Islam world religious leaders lead the state.
Basicaly, you can't separate religion and the state in the arab world.
We can think what we want about it but it's natural for them, part of their culture and tradition.

The church should and always be separated from from the state becauae their beliefs cannot be ruled over by the law, but if it involves the lives of the other people of the state to which the church is a part of, then the story is different. The church must submit to the laws of the state.

No one is exempted from the law, even if you're a spiritual leader or a religious body. Therefore, if you commit crimes under the law of the state, then you're still dubbed as a criminal. There's a separation of the church from the state but the law is universal.

When it involves a violation of the law or crime, the state must intervene. The separation is still abound but the moral laws cannot be crossed by religion. They stilm have to answer to the laws of the state.

I have never been a fan of Church and I find it uncenceivable that it can rule a country. It MUST be separated from the state.

The church and the state are equal in essence. What does not control one, is controlled by another. The state regulates our physical side and the church - the mental one. They are like parasites on the body of each other, and would be glad to separate, but they can not. There were many examples of attempts to separate the church from the state in history, but all of them, as a rule, ended pitifully.

Now politics and church are separate. Churches no more rules the country. So, only the politician can be above the law. Churches now have to be under the law.

Now, in many countries of the world, politics and the church are so strongly connected that it is simply frightening. I believe that it is bad when the church uses different political parties for its own benefit.

there should be separation between church and state because you can never have a good government if the church always butt in every time the state make decision and vise versa.

Even if Church is separated from the government, it can still be of a great influence. Could you really imagine an atheist president in he US? Probably not, right.

Church is an institution separated from state, its works are unite individual and teach acceptable values. On the other hand state's role is to maintains peace and control criminality and solve social problems. Church may give opinions on certain issue like human rights violation but it cannot enter to decision making regarding the problem because it part of state's job.

Lemme guess, you were thinking of the INC in the Philippines? 

IMHO, the State should trump the Church when it comes to law. After all the Church is not the one providing security and law enforcement for the citizens. It irks me when mullahs can get away with molesting kids in madrasas, that priests get spirited away to a far away parish at the first whiff of a sexual abuse complaint, etc. The Church have no business telling the State how to run itself but the State have every right to monitor the Church because it tend to abuse whatever privilege it may have been given by the State (example, tax exemptions) - privileges they never deserved in the first place.

Separation of church and state must excluded when crime is in thr equation because state or the government is in charge of it, church is not another country, it is still in the jurisdiction of the government.

I was looking through the news and I saw a old news article. This is when the State investigate the leaders of a certain religious group and the members hold a rally in front of the state building, shouting and exclaiming the separation of church and state (Like don't meddle with our problems). But the state has to respond because someone complaint about a crime that have been committed. What are your thoughts about this?