Separation of Church and State

@JaneDevin Said

My liberal friends insist that the Constitutionrequires "separation of church and state." My conservative friends say that the Constitution forbids "establishment of" and "interference in" religion. Which is correct?

If separation is required, then how separate? May preachers disobey the law? Must politicians not attend church?

@Fede88 Said

I think church and state should be separate.
And preachers should obey the law(unless personally for me it deflects the DIvine Law, but thats my opinion). And i think politicians should attend church if they want.

The thing is, i believe, Is that the God-believer to No-God-believer, or Any-other-beliver is going to reflect their decisions based on their world view so their will always be objectivity to their faith. its impossible to take out, there can only be limits.
right?

@LuckyCharms Said

Well for practicality I'd say that church and state are separate. You see you can't have a road that just goes one way. Eventually the highway will open up and it'll all go to hell.

The state can't establish laws in regard to religion and at the same time that means any state sponsorship of religion will automatically interfere with said religion. Once the state claims ownership, it's done.

The problem is that the conservatives want to take their religion to the state and have it affect all the laws. The problem then becomes what if the laws that have been enacted based on their religion interferes with another person's religion? They have freedom of religion and here comes the state that has been influenced by religion making a law that interferes with another religion.

Just an example. Mainstream Christian faith says Sunday is the holy day. For 7th Day Adventists, it's Saturday. For the Jews it's Friday to Saturday. We have three different religious players holding different beliefs. What if anyone of these groups wanted a law that had to do with business and their Holy Day? Which one would suffer for which group's belief?

That's just one basic example and a very simple one at that. Once the door is opened to using religion to establish law it is going to end up where someone else's religion is going to suffer for it.

@JaneDevin Said

Which is more important, "separation" or "establishment and interference?"

@JaneDevin Said

So, which is more important, "separation" or "establishment and interference?"

@LuckyCharms Said

I don't think either is more important. I think they are equally important because they are two sides of the same coin. Well add in a third side to our mutant coin with the 'freedom of religion' thing.

The problem is that some people want to put parts of the constitution in a bubble. It doesn't work that way. These three elements work together to form the basis of our law.

@Fede88 Said

mmmm, I would say separation.

I think world-law, should be separate from religion/faith.

@LuckyCharms Said

I don't think either is more important. I think they are equally important because they are two sides of the same coin. Well add in a third side to our mutant coin with the 'freedom of religion' thing.

The problem is that some people want to put parts of the constitution in a bubble. It doesn't work that way. These three elements work together to form the basis of our law.

@JaneDevin Said

So, you think that "separation" is the same as forbiding "establishment of" and "interference in." Is that right?

@JaneDevin Said

And, the phrase "separation of church and state" comes from a letter that Thomas Jefferson wrote to a group of Baptist supporters in 1802.

I haven't found a copy of the letter, but reading the whole letter; that might be useful.