What are your views on "separation of church and state"?

<<What, exactly, do you think "separation of church and state" actually means?>>

I believe that the concept was originally meant by the founders to mean predominantly 2 things:

1) To keep Government from promoting 1 state religion and penalizing others which are not state sponsored.

2) To allow citizens the freedom to worship how they please, without negative sanctions by the government.

I do NOT believe it meant that religion must be silent or invisible when it comes to the public sector OR that government can't make an mention of or illusions to religion of any sort.

<<Which entity do you think benefits more from such a separation...the church, or the state? Neither? Both?>>

Back THEN, originally -- religion did.

Now-a-days, preently -- government does

<<Do you think that the phrase means that the government is not to meddle in church affairs? >>

YES, wholeheartedly, and until recently, I think the Government has done a pretty good job at this.

History is ripe with examples of governments trying to control religion. In mexico, hundreds, possibly thousands of Priests were killed when they refused to 'register' themselves with the government. In China, each church is supposed to have a 'state official' who is to oversee the church and make sure it is not doing anything illegal. According to the Chinese government, these officials merely monitor things. But according to churches - they try to manipulate and pressure the churches to change their teachings to fit the communist agenda.

<<Do you think that it means that religion has no place in public life?>>

NO, I do not think that. Religion is part of WHO a person is. Like a limb, like a vital organ. It can not be separated from a person, it is part of WHO they are. It shapes HOW they vote, which principles they follow.

To say that a person must check their religion at the door when they vote or engage in public discussion, is like saying you can not have a conscience. It is very similar to asking a person to take on a whole different set of principles in public then they truly believe and in a sense, adopt a State Religion of secularism.

Religious tolerance goes BOTH ways. It does not mean that only the religious have to be quiet and keep to themselves. IF society is going to be tolerant, truly, then we must embrace religious expression in the public sector. Get better at discussing religious issues with friends, coworkers, politicians, courtrooms, etc.

It means the church should have no influence on government policy.

Unless you want to live in Iran, you should consider it a good thing.

Also the first amendment clearly states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.".

It may not be mentioned as an exact phrase, but that doesn't mean it isn't there.

Really important that our society/nation take responsibility for it's own affairs and not the interests of one group within. Democracy means we elect leaders and call them to account for their actions (quite rightly). Religious principles when good for everyone can and will be used to benefit everyone. But there is no way a minority should feel left out in their own country or be forced to believe so they can belong.

Religion has many answers to social issues but it does not have the monopoly of common sense or good governance. Historically the churches and states have made truly awful decisions that have cost thousands of lives... thank God we can take the best of both and curb the excesses of the both too.

One last thought... Politics is a filthy business built on lies and corruption... no place for good people to be. Religions offer a place for filthy people to be forgiven, their sins washed away and be born again of spirit and truth.

The terms "separation of powers", "three equal branches of government", "checks and balances", and "judicial review" don't appear in the Constitution either.

But they exist.

The first amendment CREATES the separation of church and state, just as the Constitution's Articles I, II, and III CREATE the separation of powers, branches of government, and checks and balances.

The government MAY NOT favor one religion over another, establish one religion as the official, preferred, or accepted religion, or force anyone to observe, practice, attend, or NOT observe ANY religion WHATSOEVER.

\

I'm more concerned about church meddling in politics. Not a good mix - church and state. Churches cld interfere with legislation - like gay marriage or other issues they feel strongly about.

In England in the 1850s to 1900s church and state worked together to keep poor people from rebelling. Church told them to put up with their awful lives in overcrowded, dirty towns at the beginning of the Industrial Revolution because they would get their reward in heaven.

Mo

An atheist

'Invoking' is a long way from denying that there is and should be a seperation of church and state. Conservative republicans use 'God' to beat up gays and a woman's freedom to choose. Obama made a claim that putting together some kind of low cost and accessible HEALTH INSURANCE is a 'moral' issue. I suppose it makes a difference what the 'invoking' is about, not who does the 'invoking'.

I am a Christian so how can I leave my beliefs at the door of the government building. My Christian views go with me where ever I go. The government is not to tell the churches what to believe or what to do, because in the USA we have freedom of religion and freedom of speech. George Washington knew how the USA was dedicated to God and if we ever turned against God that we would be doomed.

Most of our forefathers were God fearing men and especially George Washington our first President.

According to at least one "Christian" a belief in separation and state warrants having your head cut off.

"Separation of Church and State? Anyone who believes that needs to have their HEAD separated from their NECK."

-Toby Keith

I for one, however, think that the United States should not mirror the Dark Ages, but rather a representative democracy for all citizens, regardless of religion.

-atheist American

The GOVERNMENT (Federal, State, County, City) should stay out of the business of the churches. That includes whiny äss "atheists" who are 'OFFENDED' by Christianity (notice they never complain about other religions).

Some 'atheists' complained about a cross on a hill that has stood for decades, and then went to court about getting it removed. Nothing better to do than whine..."it offends us".

MINORITY rules? Yeah, right! And I'm the Islamic pope. ha!

Did you know, if a church does get involved in politics/government, they can lose their 501.3 status?

It is necessary to maintain equal rights for all.

Fanatics all wish to remove basic rights.

In America, the "pursuit of happiness" does not include being suppressed by fanatics.

The population benefits from this separation.

There is no place in government for ancient superstition.

@ Jake: so there should be nobody in government? Atheist or fanatic, that is all there is to pick from. I'll take the atheist, thanks.