What happened to separation of church and state?
Excuse my ignorance, but I thought that our forefathers built this
nation on one sound principal, paving the way for future governing bodies to abide by in order to maintain a sense of balance and unbiased decision making. I thought that separation of church and state was still a known and active governing rule. My bad.
It seems that now more than ever, the whole idea of separation of church and state is falling by the wayside. Even on the Democratic side of things, 2008 candidates are being pressed about their religions beliefs. If separation of church and state really mattered, then why would people care if Hillary’s (now portraying herself as a martyr) faith in God got her through her marital strife? They wouldn’t wonder if Barack Obama practiced Muslim or that Mitt Romney was a Mormon.
But people do care. Otherwise it wouldn’t be all over the news.
Gay.com - The personal faith of candidates has become a very public part of the 2008 presidential campaign.
Seven years after George W. Bush won the presidency in part with a direct appeal to conservative religious voters — he cited Jesus Christ as his favorite philosopher during one debate — it seems all the leading presidential candidates are discussing their religious and moral beliefs, even when they’d rather not.
Democratic Sens. Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama have hired strategists to focus on reaching religious voters. Obama’s campaign holds a weekly conference call with key supporters in early primary and caucus states whose role is to spread the candidate’s message to religious leaders and opinionmakers and report their concerns to the campaign.
Democrats in general are targeting moderate Roman Catholics, mainline Protestants and even evangelicals, hoping to enlist enough voters for whom religious and moral issues are a priority to put together a winning coalition.
Next week, Clinton, Obama and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards are scheduled to address liberal evangelicals at a forum on “faith, values and poverty.” READ MORE
Liberal evangelicals? Isn’t that an oxymoron? I digress. The point is this - the equality issues facing the gay community, issues that are influenced, determined and set forth as policy and/or into law by our government (i.e. gay marriage, gays in the military) are directly affected by elected officials who let their religious beliefs play more of a role in their political decision making.
As part of the homosexual population, and well-aware of how some religions abhor the very life I lead, I’m a tad bit concerned about the the influence of religion on the 2008 campaign which carries a wealth of weighty implications.
Separation of church AND state. What’s next to go? All men are created equal?
At least the Democratic candidates oppose “don’t ask, don’t tell.”
What’s that pearl of wisdom Hillary shared with us the other day … “You don’t have to be straight, to shoot straight.”
Personally, I think that should be the new slogan for Army.com
democratic campaign, 2008 campaign, separation of church and state, religious implications, barack obama, hillary clinton, mitt romney, john edwards, don’t ask don’t tell, george w. bush, gay marriage, gays in the military
June 5th, 2007 at 10:50 am
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
The idea of a wall of separation between Church and State is something that has evolved in our history. Today, there is an ongoing debate in our society about the role of religion and faith. People apparently are feeling the need to have their politicians be people who express a faith.
This not not necessarily bad. Think of Jimmy Carter, for example, a great man of faith but respectful of others.
But yes, there is a concern that people of particular religous faiths are trying to legislate their view of morality at the expense of those who are different, like me, for instance.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:46 am
A liberal evangelist is not an oxymoron. Evangelism does not necessarily mean standing on the corner telling people they are going to hell. I practice evangelism by deed. Hopefully someone will look at the liberalism and joy I live my life with and want to know more about Christianity or maybe they’ll want to know about my friend’s Yoruba faith or a another friends Buddhist principals. I am a liberal evangelist.
As for the separation of church and state. I’m not sure we are talking about the same thing. It is very important to me that my candidate be a person of religious or spiritual faith. As long as that faith is loving and open I’m cool with that.
Just like anything else I want know who I’m voting for. I want to know if you take care of your children properly, if you pay your taxes, object military service on religious grounds-anything that will influence the running of this country.
I don’t want to be stunned when I find out that you are some extreme conservative through your legislative actions. Let’s put it all on the table. Faith or lack there off is extremely important to me knowing what you are about.
That doesn’t mean that atheist are immoral people. I’m not saying that at all. I am saying that I want to know. Tell me who you are.
June 5th, 2007 at 11:47 am
Great topic by the way.:)
June 5th, 2007 at 12:02 pm
KD, well said from your point of view. I see where you are going with that. My point is that I could care less if Obama was a Muslim (even though he is not) just as long as he didn’t establish laws and regulations based on his religion. Moral fibers are necessarily drawn from religions beliefs. I know plenty of Christians, Catholics and the like who lack moral capability. So it seems we agree on that as a whole. Having a sound faith, however, doesn’t nescessarily translate to a good presidential qualities though. Look at GW. He professes to be of sound faith, and look what’s he gotten us into.
June 6th, 2007 at 10:28 am
My personal opinion on religion is we are all better without it. If religion were eliminated, there would be a lot less to argue about and kill people over in this world.
I love the idea of separation of church and state, yet recent politicians are willing to completely avoid doing what is right and moral just to please specific religious groups.
Personally, I am tired of this trend where this country is turning into a fundamental Christian nation. I hope I don’t offend anyone by saying that, but politics and religion do not mix. Our country is diverse and it’s unfair to throw religious views into the political arena.
June 6th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
I think the problem is that politics and religion *do* mix, and there’s not anyone in the world who can stop that from happening. Religion gives many people their idea of right and wrong, and when they become politicians, that idea stays with them.
However, one must also respect the religious beliefs of others, as well as other civil/human rights. It is an unspoken rule that your religious convictions cannot deprive others of their rights; however, some do not see it like that. Those people are the real problem–not those who profess religion as a public figure or those who seek religious figures.
March 11th, 2008 at 9:06 am
[…] why I can’t stand politicians by Lyndsey Darcangelo 1) They don’t know the difference between separation of church and state … or gay people and terrorists for that […]