separation of church and state

Australian Federal, State and Local Politics
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Post Reply
User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

separation of church and state

Post by freediver » Mon Dec 17, 2007 4:18 pm

The concept of separation of church and state is not intended to remove religion from politics, or vice versa. It is intended to protect the church from a state takover and to protect government from a chuch takeover (both of which have happened in the past). It maintains two separate sources of power, in the same way we have a senate and lower house with different roles, even though they can be controlled by the same party. It is only a barrier to insitutionalised connections. While a person may be both the head of a church and the head of state, they must acquire the church based position via the church's institutionalised mechainsms and the same with the head of state postion. It does not preclude religious laws. It only requires that the religious laws be adopted through a secular process (in our case, democracy). It frees the church from the burden of the mundane logistics and bureaucracy of running a state and frees the government from the limitations of theology. In reality, if all or most citizens of a country share the same religion, then the religious beliefs will govern the country despite the separation of church and state. However, it will still be different people running each institution and people's rejection of dogma will be reflected in law. It removes from those people with the strictest moral codes the temptation and the authourity to impose those moral cocdes by force. Likewise it removes the ability of the government to claim a religious mandate, as there is a separate institution powerful enough to reject the mandate and it protects the church from the fickleness of public opinion.

User avatar
boxy
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm

Re: separation of church and state

Post by boxy » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:29 pm

Arn't you trying to rewrite the history of an idea here, freedriver. The American constitution's view of the separation of church and state was done to prevent the govt from telling people what to believe (which goddy, god, god rules their conscience).

No thought crimes! It's blasphemy :lol:
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."

User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: separation of church and state

Post by freediver » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:44 pm

I'm not rewriting it. That's how it was. I don't see any contradiction between what the founding fathers of the US had in mind and what I wrote. If the government told the people what to believe, it would take over the role of the church.

User avatar
boxy
Posts: 6748
Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm

Re: separation of church and state

Post by boxy » Sun May 11, 2008 11:22 pm

The contradiction is in your assertion that religious mores can be lawfully instituted if done so through democratic means. While this is true to some extent (in a very general "what is good" sense), there are limitations to what can be mandated through democracy and still remain true to the "separation of church and state" ideal. Forcing all citizens to join the "state's religion", for example, is not consistent with the idea of church/state separation, even if 90% of the population vote for it.
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."

User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: separation of church and state

Post by freediver » Mon May 12, 2008 11:38 am

The contradiction is in your assertion that religious mores can be lawfully instituted if done so through democratic means.

But they can be. I think 'lawfully' was the wrong term to use there. Anyway, I see your point.

User avatar
freediver
Posts: 3487
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
Contact:

Re: separation of church and state

Post by freediver » Mon May 12, 2008 1:00 pm

Also, if the government dictated a 'state religion' that would effectively be a state takeover of the church. It institutionalises the connection by giving political leaders control over the church and/or church leaders control over state institutions like law.

User avatar
JW Frogen
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:41 am

Re: separation of church and state

Post by JW Frogen » Tue Jun 10, 2008 9:16 pm

Boxy demands a separation of Church and State because his love life would die out if there were not one.

What religion condones Ewe-Sheep-Man love?

Even Pan went for human females.

slimD

Re: separation of church and state

Post by slimD » Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:12 pm

"What religion condones Ewe-Sheep-Man love?"

A kiwi one , i thunk.

User avatar
JW Frogen
Posts: 2034
Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:41 am

Re: separation of church and state

Post by JW Frogen » Sat Jun 14, 2008 11:41 am

Tell me more of this intriquing religion known as Kiwianity.

New Zealand truely was the right place to film Lord of the Rings.

slimD

Re: separation of church and state

Post by slimD » Sun Jun 15, 2008 9:55 pm

JW Frogen wrote:Tell me more of this intriquing religion known as Kiwianity.

New Zealand truely was the right place to film Lord of the Rings.
Kiwianity - I think NZ is still on the statute books as being part of NSW. trans tasman union will never happen as oz is the number one enemy on any sporting field. (i can imagine the relationship would be similar to the US/Canadian one.)
However, in time, we could all be part of the chinese empire.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 36 guests