relationship state and religion

@advokatku (4039)
Indonesia
December 14, 2009 10:51pm CST
As we all know, the State has an obligation to fulfill the right of every citizen to freedom of religion / belief. This means that the state should use its resources optimally to guarantee citizens the right to freedom of religion / belief. The problem is, sometimes for someone who is a fanatic with a religion / belief often do an activity that another religion is considered a disruptive activity. On one side of reasonable run religious activities the other hand said that activities are activities of disturbing. if happened like this, whether the state should act to give the penalty? What do you think about the relationship of religion with the state? whether your state can mix religious affairs?
8 responses
@xfahctor (14111)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
15 Dec 09
Well, here in the U.S. we have a portion of our consitution designed to protect religion from government. The part of our first amendment reads "congress shall make no law establishing religion, nor prohibiting the free exercize thereof." A lot of folks in this nation today have come to interpret this as a so called "seperation of church and state", truthfully however the words "seperation of church and state" do not appear anywhere in our constitution. This has been tisted to all ends and used as an excuse to try and remove any trace of religion from public sight. People have used to to try and prohibit prayer in school, remove manger scenes from public lands, even to try and remove the words "one nation, under god" from our pledge of alegence. Our founders would be rolling in their graves to see the founding document they wrote used in such a way.
@poingly (606)
• United States
15 Dec 09
All of these examples need clarification. Teacher led prayer in schools in unacceptable; children choosing to pray is fine. I'm fine with manger scenes, but then many times people get upset when people with other beliefs want to display something from their belief system -- it gets understandably messy when there are really many, many religions out there. And finally, to be fair, they are not trying to remove "one nation" just "under God," which wasn't even part of the original pledge--why was it okay to bastardize the pledge to add words, yet a sin to remove them? While separation of church of state may not be in the Constitution per se, the Supreme Court is and they coined that phrase. Really, as someone pointed out on here, the Bible even advocates separation of church and state!
@xfahctor (14111)
• Lancaster, New Hampshire
15 Dec 09
Actually, Jefferson coined the phrase, not the supreme court, in a letter to a bishop. what would the problem with a manger scene or any other religious scene on public land be though? I can't see how that at all is government encroaching on religion.
@poingly (606)
• United States
16 Dec 09
There's no inherent problem with it. However, what happens is that you have one display of a manger, then the Jewish people want a Menorah, which I'm sure is fine with you. The Muslims want their symbol and so on. Eventually, even the atheists (who might've been upset about the manger) ask for something, and place a sign that says, "There is no God." This upsets the original manger places just as much (if not more) than what would happen if they didn't allow anything in the first place. Though I am with you; I think all these things can and should co-exist, but I understand why it's easier to not have any in the first place.
@thea09 (18329)
• Greece
1 Jan 10
The secular should always be separated from religion when the governance of a country is invovled. It is impossible for everyone to share in religion of a country if it is dominated by one religion and the laws of that religion should not be imposed. When they are it is time to take out the religious leaders who dominate and allow freedom.
@Gram13000 (443)
• United States
16 Dec 09
Thats why the U.S is gonna take our freedom of speech away its in the bible in the book of revelations. Politically people are gonna fight over this no matter what thats why freedom of belief is already not allowed in other countries. It will get to that point here its only a matter of time that is just the nature of people thats how it people have always been. Freedom will go bye communism will go hi, and thats how the cookie is gonna crumble this whole system of freedom was built to fall apart from the start the government knows this.
@poingly (606)
• United States
15 Dec 09
With the exception of a few fringe religions (like say those that believe in human sacrifice), we can all get along. I think examples of "disruptive" activities is needed here. For instance, I don't mind people praying to their God where ever and whenever (even when it closes down the store I want to buy frozen yogurt at), but don't force me to pray to your God. And so on.
@vjagra (147)
• India
15 Dec 09
A State is supposed to run its affairs according to its constitution. If the constitution is religion based, people of other faith may find themselves prejudiced. If a State has secular Constitution, for example, India, State heads are obliged to treat all religions equally. In the hands of some fanatic, a religious State has a greater probability of degradation than a secular State. Ideally, a State should keep away from interfering in religious activities that is only possible in a secular State. Likewise a democratic society is likely to more tolerant compared with closed societies -- whether religion based or ideology based(say, communism).
• Philippines
15 Dec 09
The United States had in their constitution the separation of the state and the church. It is biblical in the sense that when Christ was here on earth, He said that we render unto Ceasar the things of Ceasar, and unto God the things that belongs to God. I am not at ease with religion but I would like to use the Church instead. A Church who adheres to the Bible as the authority of their life is the right church I am talking about. They don't have any thing to do with the affairs of the state because the state has its own leaders.
@DenverLC (1146)
• Philippines
15 Dec 09
In some state and countries, there is the so called Separation of powers from the church and the state. The law makers are wise enough in comming up with this idea to avoid conflicting views and interest from both powerful entities. The State shall focus on political and governmental affairs, whereas the Church shall maintain its sights on purely rligious and ministerial affairs. If only this principle is strictly observed, then there will never be a clashing of principles, doctrines, ideologies and views from the State and the Church along with their respective members. What is now the effect? of course doubts and troubles on social, political and religious concerns will surely drive the situation into a hot chamber of power and assertion of who is the right one..Are we not fed up with all these mess? They should mind their own business and question how they rule their own throne within their own jurisdiction supposed to be.
@bird123 (10347)
• United States
15 Dec 09
Freedom of religion and choice are a must as long as no one is hurt. Example. If a religion decides to kill anyone who does not believe their religion, that could never be tolerated. I do believe there should be freedom of speech regardless of belief.The interaction between religions is a good thing.It will bring us all closer to understanding and the real truth. By giving everyone a different view, God guaranties us a larger view than any one person can have. Let's all be sure to see the BIG PICTURE!!! Oh, let's not forget to get the atheists views in on this interaction of religions.They are part of the picture as well.