should religion have anything to do with the way governments make up there laws?

NO NO NO! that is what is wrong with this country. we need an atheist government. people who aren't delusional about a big fairy in the sky

Some people will tell you, "yes!" Some people will tell you "no!" The question is: "Is it possible to have a balanced perspective on the relationship between Church & State?" The answer to that question is "Yes!" It's just that we (esp. Christians) have forgotten it or are ignorant of it.

From the Christian perspective we know three things about the human nature: (1) We are all fallen human beings born & even conceived with the inclination to sin (Psalm 51:5). (2) God has written His Law (a.k.a. conscience) on the hearts of all mankind (Romans 2:14-15). (3) Because we are conceived & born in sin, we have the power to override that conscience & do (Romans 1). And I think that in these things most people, even unbelievers would agree.

So we know that civil government is necessary, just by way of reason. People commit crimes for which they need to be punished; law & order are a necessary part of society. Does the church have to dominate or take control of that government for it to work well? No! Why should a Christian, (or at least any other theist) have so little confidence in God's Sovereignty over His creation? Is that government better off when individual consitituants are believers? Probably, but only because hopefully they understand this: Two Kingdoms Theology.

That is that God has sovereignty & works both in His secular left-hand kingdom, the Civil Government and in His heavenly right-hand kingdom, the Church. He works in his left-hand kingdom through the government to enforce the law & order with the sword. He works through the Church to grant grace & mercy to individuals with Word & Sacrament.

The government is needed to keep law & order by the sword, so that that Church can do her job of granting grace & mercy to people by the Gospel. The Church is needed to tend to needs of the needy, so the government can do its job of protecting the country economically & militarily. It's not so much a separation of Church & State as a healthy distinction between the two. If we think of it as the government being a father of sorts & the Church being a mother of sorts, it becomes more of a marriage, not a separation. Yet, there is still an important distinction between a mother & father. They have differenct roles, each important in their own way & each contributing to the well being of society in different ways.

There is danger when the State tries to take on the role of the Church, or the Church tries to take on the role of the State. Communism is a good example of the first scenario. The Catholic Rome of 500 years ago or any religion that insists on becoming the government (e.g. believes in theocracy) is a good example of the latter. Either way, the people lose.

Getting rid of religion won't help because God has created us to worship Him & if we don't, it will inevitably be replaced by something. The Communists already tried this. It doesn't work. Getting rid of government or a religion taking over the government is equally as dangerous. This is what we are learning from Islam. Why some Christians overreact & think that things would be better if it was just Christians who were taking over the government should take a look at their history books. Return to the Lutheran Reformation that didn't overreact, but responded with balance & biblical truth. It's best for everyone, believer & unbeliever alike!

Depends on the government. In America, there is no "official" religion - so there is no definitive religion in which to use as a guideline for making laws. BUT our founding fathers came from a Christian background. And despite what people like to argue, our Constitution was founded under the basic principals and morals of Christianity. That does not give the government the right to force religious morals and beliefs on its citizens, but it does play a role in how people choose to interpret the law and to legislate.

Religion is a way of life. Because the government is made up of individuals that possess religion themselves, it will inherently reflect that.

While on the one hand I should say that government should not in any way inhibit the free practice of individual religion, it must on the other maintain some form of balanced compromise in social morality and shared ethics. Government must have evolved from this social necessity.

Looking back into the dark ages pushes me to believe it is best for society that government strive for independence from religion in every way it can.

No, a thousand times no. A WORLD of no. At least in America, we have many different religions in this country and if one religion makes the laws, the rest of the believers will suffer for it.

Not in the United States. If we can't unanimously decide on one religion to use to influence the laws, then it would be impossible. I mean, which religion would you choose? Christianity. But then we would have a case of the majority making laws that might not accommodate the minority. For instance, what if the majority religion dictated that you couldn't eat pork? Would it be OK to ban the sale of pork in the US? Shouldn't I, as someone who's religion does not prohibit pork, have the liberty to buy and eat pork?

Since we can't decide which one religion to use to influence the laws, we need to apply a standard that is accommodating to every religious belief system. One can still live with in "God's law" even if it is not the government's law.

Religion is faith system.

Your faiths make up your values.

You can seperate religion from the way you make rules for the overall society, should you? or shouldnt you? thats not for me to say. But since any decision a person makes will stem from his/her values, the likelihood of being affected by the faith system is quite high.

To assume that human beings can act independent of the elements that make them humans: culture, faith system etc, is just nonsense. Humans cannot do that. They may keep their religion to themselves instead of trying to preach it, but everyone knows, politics and religion dont go hand in hand.

For one, religious people are supposed to be self-less, whereas politics is selfish. Thus, you can either be a politician, or a religious man. You cant be both.

No, because we all have different religions. Well what I mean is there isn't just one religion in the country. It wouldn't be fair to other religions. I'm pagan, do you think the goverment would listen to my views? But if it was a christian, they would. And then it would go against peoples beliefs. And what about those who aren't religious?

I'll guess you are in a largley "Christian" country, so think about it, would you tolerate the government basing its laws on the Bible? If you think "yes", you would be obliged to accept laws that punished you for any kind of avarice, greed or covetousness (since these are "deadly sins"), and the government would need to uphold your right to stone non-Christian family members to death (Dt.13:6-10)!

So, no, I think that would be a terrible idea!

Which religion ? Do you think we should consult with the head of all the religions of the world before passing a law ?

Those countries that are run by the church, are not very good countries to live in. Superstition and government can't coexist.

The way to "bring down" an ideal government is to listen to and follow the will of God. This is found only in religions. Trying to figure it out intellectually causes poor communication and confusion.