Seperation of church and state? Where do you draw the line?

I don't think you are having any problem understanding how our political system works. When you have a point of view you do every thing you can to swing people your way, use the constitution, the intent of founding fathers, and whatever else you can hang your hat on to get your view across. Sure a lot of us won't buy it but there seems to always be enough to encourage this type of politics. In most recent times fear has been the big mover to allow war, and torture.

You understand it perfectly. From the beginning, our forefathers couldn't really agree. Thomas Jefferson wanted less government and Alexander Hamiliton wanted more government.The Constitution is a compromise. When it really works, it protects us with just enough government " interference" What is so itonic, the right wingers want less government so they can do Everything they want but when it comes to Anything that will change their view of family, like abortions and gay marriage, they want More government. lefrt wingers want everyone to be free to love whomever but want the government to help the less fortunate so they can follow their dreams,Trligion is a main choice Americans get to make for themselves.The government can't make you a Christian or Muslim.The people who are using their beliefs to express their displeasure of gay marriage are assuming everyone is their trligion.Marriage isn't just a religious rite, it is a human right.And soon it will be seen as such, Not too long ago there were laws on the books against interracial marriage , and now we have a interracial president,

I believe that religion should not have anything at all to do with government.

Actually, marriage is not the business of the state... it is the business of the church, as it is a religious ceremony. The state has no business in it all. Their is no such thing as gay marriage. While some states have called this perversion marriage, it will never be anything but a cheap imitation of the real thing. Marriage is the union of a man and a woman as ordained by God. Gays need not apply, because God does not recognize such an abomination, and it is not according to God's plan for man. As to the Separation of Church and State... that phrase appears nowhere in the Constitution, and as such is a false premise.

I think you are terribly mistaken when you think the issue of gay marriage is as simple as "right wingers" and "left wingers". If that were the case, gay marriage would be legal throughout the nation or, at the very least, prop 8 would have been annihilated in California, the most left wing state in the nation. FYI, according to the latest Rasmussen polls this country is only 33.1% republican. "Government shouldn't tell us what to do with our businesses, but they SHOULD tell us who we can LOVE?If we are talking about or Constitution and the belief that our country was founded on... wasn't it about the government not telling us how we should worship?" Well let me make something VERY clear. In THIS country, under the law, marriage has absolutely NOTHING to do with love. A couple drunk morons can get married by a second rate Elvis impersonator in Vegas without even knowing each others names. Also, gay marriage has absolutely nothing to do with the government telling you how you should worship. You can go to a church based on the worship of a golf club if you want. I don't know what the non-religious opposition to gay marriage is, but you'd do best to ask those left wingers who opposed gay marriage in California instead of assuming everyone votes on party lines with that issue.

The Left is wrong and the right is always right. I try to stay in the middle. I don't see anything wrong with gay people getting married in a civil service. What I do have a problem with is them trying to change the constitution and wanting special privileges all the time. Being gay is an action, like chewing gum, it's not the same as having different skin color. Study up on Shariah Law if you want to learn more about separation of church and state. Islam teaches that it should control everything from the way people dress to finances to court systems. Most of the Middle Eastern countries that still stone people and jail people for protesting lives under Shariah law. There is no separation of church and state, church is state. http://www.americanthinker.com/2005/08/top_ten_reasons_why_sharia_is.html

I don't care for either extreme end. I think extreme right wingers would try to make laws on behavior.. Yet unlike the media and popular sentiment seems to think no every conservative or traditionalist is flaming right wing. Aand I think the extreme left does the same. I think most folks only hear one side of an issue, for a biased press is not a free press. I am in full support of civil unions with full legal rights as partners. But I'm not sure why we should have to change the traditional definition of traditional marriage, which is already a disappearing thing, and society has abundantly reflected it. I get tired of every issue being presented as a closed argument. Are you for any sort of restrictions on the terminating of the preborn even as late as 8 and 9 months, why surely it's only because you hate women. Want to preserve our historical culture of the nuclear family, why surely it is because you hate gay folks. Don't want larger and larger government and government deciding more and more things (and higher and higher taxes down the road) why surely you hate President Obama and are prejudice. I think we could be headed toward a one party system, because a biased press is not a free press, and is no longer a watchdog for the people.

if you read the history on the subject you will see that america was never set up as a religious state, that would be like Iran and some muslem countries whose law are based completely on religion, just because the forefathers were christian men did not mean they set up a christian state, they set up a legal republic so government rules not religion like in the muslem countries. now people will answer what I say and argue, all I say again is read for yourself,the unite states is a legal republic, not a religious one.

church should separated from state, but state should consider to use Bible principal

i think government and religion should be split,period. especially in america,where there are multiple religions and as such inevitable to clash in opinion. every time i see this question come up it blows into an ugly arguement,no matter where the question is posed,to whom or what subject coming within the debate.i will just let my votes speak for me,when it's that time of year.

I, myself, am not religious, but SOMEONE has to say this: Nowhere in the bill of rights, declaration, or ANY of the amendments does it say "Separation of Church and State". Before mindlessly flippin out (not directed to miamilady, but to anyone who this this is blasphemy), go over the B.O.R (bill of rights) and read amendment ONE. Amend. 1 = Freedom of religion, speech, press, and opinions. This only means that you have the freedom to believe, write, report, or think of anything you please. However, you cannot FORCE someone to believe in what you believe - like so: "You have to believe in God or I'll kill you." or "Burn the bible, it's not real, if you don't, I'll hold you captive and make you...etc etc." You cannot FORCE someone to believe in what you believe, because that is against the given freedom of what we are ALLOWED to have... our own ideas. Separation of Church and State is just kind of a Rider to the amendment. I guess the government was paranoid when teachers started talking about religion in scools. If there was separation of church and state FOR REAL...there could not be courthouse marriages. (Although, marriage should NEVER have anything to do with religion, race, sexuality, etc... love is love.) Anyway, my point: Amendments say nothing about it being illegal to talk about God or other religions in schools - which I'm glad for, though I'm not religious. I'm just glad other people are happy with their own belief system, even if it is illogical and I don't believe in it. No one is forcing me! Thank goodness - that'd be illegal ;) !!

In reply to post "1," flowerchilde thinks that "... one day we will have a one party system." I think not. Bob Hope had a joke that went like this: "Have you ever wondered why we don't have a one party system?" He's paused a bit with a questioning look on his face, then gave the answer: "Because one party can't fool all the people all the time." Think about it. Steve Slaton

There was a General named Washington who became our first President. During his second term he got discouraged and published his Farewell Address. It made a 30-page booklet when re-issued by the Senate after 200 years. He wrote about lots of stuff. On this subject, George Washington wrote, and I'll paraphrase: People! If you value your freedom, do not trust a two-party system. It is susceptible to corruption where clever minds, domestically and internationally, will compromise or destroy your freedom. The Boston Tea Party was over taxation without representation. Deficit spending is an insidious form of taxation plus interest. (Deficit spending punishes the next generation for their parents mistakes, by the way.) This was well understood in his day because the British Empire used the Wigs and Tories, the Liberals and Conservatives, to control their masses and grow their Empire. One way we are conditioned is through sports like soccer, football, etc. where, you guessed it, two teams compete. Most sporting contests have rules against finishing in a tie... What do you think? Steve Slaton

I believe it's states that decide marriage issues and not the federal government. I don't remember anything in our Constitution about marriage. As you know, some states allow homosexual marriage and some don't, and the federal government doesn't get involved.

Oh Miamilady!For a moment when I read your discussion topic I was just transported to history and the conflict between government and church and the reflection in Literature. After reading through the discussion I realised you were discussng current topic about gay marriage.My common sense tells me that when people are against something they would then come out with explanations for every contradiction.Whether this explanation would be accepted by one and all is open to question.This happens in day to day issues.AND if people wan to instil some fear and get their way they use religion becasue it is the weak spot of many.I have no idea but when you say'businesses' are you referring to 'Privatisation'?

Well I agree it is complicated. There are such things are right and left wing politics all over the world but every one perceives them differently. What some people in US call left wing would be seen as centre in Australia. As for the separation of Church and state I think they should be totally separate. I believe politics should be totally free of religious interference. I also think that the government should not control who we can marry or what faith we follow. The trouble is that each politician has their own religious faith and prejudices and they take that with them when they make decisions about what they will control. So they ban gay marriages but let business run free to exploit everything it can. It is a very strange world.

You are absolutely right. Most people only use those supposed "facts" that seem to support their pre-existing beliefs/ideas/judgements/biases/etc. and tend to do little more than argue about who's "right" and who's "wrong". One of my favorite sayings is by Swami Sri Yukteswar, who said, "Fools argue. The wise debate." In this instance, many of those foolishly arguing about what the Founding Fathers wanted seem to misunderstand (either intentionally or out of ignorance) the actuality of things. As you said, the actual facts are that America was founded on the principals of freedom of religion, which is often defined as freedom to worship (or not) and/or believe (or not) in whatever way you choose. In fact, it can honestly be said that America was founded as much on the ideal of freedom FROM religion as freedom OF religion, considering that most if not all of the Founding Fathers were avowed atheists, Deists, and agnostics and many of them had nothing but contempt for organized religion because of its habit of encouraging willful ignorance and the control of the masses by corrupt authority figures under the guise of faith alone (read: blind faith). This is the antithesis of everything for which America stands. Furthermore, arguments seem to consist primarily of rhetoric and canned answers that require little or no thought and thus discourage in-depth analysis (at least indirectly). Critical thinking is labeled as "liberal", a word spat out as if it was only four letters long. The instant we become so convinced of our beliefs and ideals that we are unwilling to even hear out another perspective, we are lost, shackeled by the mental chains of willful ignorance, which over time are forged into the fetters of spiritual darkness. Aleister Crowley wrote that "Truth does not pander to our predjudices"; William Blake, "The one who never changes his opinion breeds reptiles of the mind". These sentiments quite consicely sum up my thoughts on the matter. Namaste.

For me, in politics. church should not take sides to any politician. church should be the one to guide the people, they will just show the right and the wrong but never take sides. Like cardinal sin, he makes comment about a certain politician, when in fact he don't know the whole thing. sometimes i was thinking those priest who are supporters of certain politician, they're getting something in return, i just hope that what they get is for the church but for their own pocket.