There is a growing tide of opinion in this country that religion and government should be intertwined. This view tends to be most widely held by evangelical Christians, who believe that society would benefit if Christianity played an official role in government.
A recent Honolulu Civil Beat poll found that 11 percent of likely voters in Hawaii believed Christianity should play an official role in government. Among evangelical
Christian voters, the number was 32 percent.
Those who hold this view have begun questioning the Constitutional principle of separation of church and state. Most recently, Colorado Republican Senate candidate Ken Buck said he "strongly" disagreed with the principle. Delaware Republican Senate candidate Christine O'Donnell wasn't sure exactly where to find the principle or what the First Amendment was actually about.
Despite its name, the separation of church and state applies equally to any religion, so it could also be called the "separation of temple and state," or the "separation of mosque and state."
This important principle derives from the First Amendment of the Constitution of the United States, which reads, in its striking simplicity and brevity:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
The United States Constitution and its Bill of Rights is in many ways an extraordinary document, and a reading of its First Amendment brings that to life.
The phrase "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is referred to as the Establishment Clause, and is the basis for the principle of separation of church/temple/mosque and state. Combined with the phrase "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," known as the Free Exercise Clause, this short sentence is what guarantees Americans of all faiths (or no faith) the freedom to worship (or not) as they like, and freedom from the oppression of a state-sponsored
religion.
Some argue that allowing Christianity to play an official role in government would make communities stronger by promoting morality and faith. Readers of Jim Wallis will certainly
appreciate the positive impact that faith can bring. But while faith plays an important role in encouraging morality, social cohesion and justice, government-sponsored or government-favored religion brings a whole host of problems.
Ask the Christians who live in the Islamic Republic of Iran. Iran is a theocracy -- a country whose government allows religion to play an official role, where God is considered the highest authority,
superseding civil authority. In this case, it's the God of Islam, and His authority is interpreted by human beings under His divine guidance. The rights of religious minorities like Christians are
guaranteed under the Iranian Constitution, but they are still subject to the higher divine authority of Islam.
Would a Christian living in Iran feel she had the right to the free exercise of her religion, despite those guarantees? Not likely. It's obvious that the free exercise of religion is impacted by
government-sponsored religion.
Back in the United States, even short of an official theocracy, any government official in a position of leadership needs to be mindful of the environment she creates by encouraging prayer under her particular faith. While her intentions would be positive, her sponsorship, constant presence and active encouragement of others to attend would undoubtedly make people of different (or no) faith feel that they might fall out of favor with an important official by not attending.
This has become an issue in the Hawaii gubernatorial race because the Republican candidate, Lt. Gov. James "Duke" Aiona, has stated he would continue to hold prayer sessions in his office after having dedicated Hawaii's public schools in prayer to God and Jesus Christ.
Is the pressure of official sponsorship akin to "prohibiting the free exercise" of one's religion? In the case of Iran, their government doesn't think so, because it doesn't "prohibit" the exercise of any religion, despite official sponsorship of Islam.
In the United States, however, it appears some people are still asking that question. What do you think?
Follow Pierre Omidyar on Twitter: www.twitter.com/pierre
Rev. Barry Lynn: Don't Pass Me the Plate for Your Church's Upkeep
See Here : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_in_Iran
According to Acts 2:9 in the Acts of the Apostles there were Persians, Parthians and Medes among the very first new Christian converts at Pentecost. Since then there has been a continuous presence of Christians in Persia/Iran.
During the apostolic age, Christianity began to establish itself throughout the Mediterranean. However, a quite different Christian culture developed on the eastern borders of the Roman Empire and in Persia. Syriac Christianity owed much to preexistent Jewish communities and the Aramaic language. This language was most probably spoken by Jesus, and, in various modern forms is still spoken by some Christians in Iran today (see Assyrian Neo-Aramaic and Senaya language). From Persia, missionary activity established the Saint Thomas Christians of India and the Nestorian Stele and Daqin Pagoda in China.
But if they want to do the same for their religion? That is allowed...ALLOWED !
What makes us truly exceptional is the idea that our republic is guided by ideals which are totally independant of religious doctrine but rather guided by the rights of the individual.
We are not and never were a Chrsitian nation. We are a nation largely founded by people who were, to varying degrees, Christian. two toally different statements.
If we ascribe any level of governing power to a particular faith, how are we ANY different from the multitude of state/church combinations which have come and gone over the ages?
Answer: we aren't...we would be just another dime-a-dozen theocracy...unexceptional.
Our nations has recently fallen below 20 in the scale of corruption. Chile, a country that hardly has our wealth and power has more integrety then we do.
OUr educational system has fallen to 25 amongst it's peers and fallen to 40 in maternal/infant death rates.
It begs the question why? Is it politics? Where are the good, patriotic men and women? The loyalists? They are sh*tting where they eat all over America. Oh, that's right, patriotism and loyality are evil.
And the air this election is quite foul.
Please keep your religion out of my government.
Someone should tell the fundamentals, especially those who adhere to every word that comes out of Jesus mouth the following; he doesn't support their desire to dissolve separation of shurch and state.
What goes in his mouth goes out where?
My mother put it like this; “don’t sh*t where you eatâ€. If I am an astute pupil of my mother, and my secular education has fulfilled it’s obligation toward my instruction, I understand that “equally†I should not sh*t where others eat; especially if I don’t want them sh*tting where I eat. Now that is separation of church and state in a nut shell. Don’t sh*t where you eat, and don’t sh*it where others eat.
My religion also says worshipping the wrong gods is wrong. I hope you don't mind me telling your government that, and I hope your government doesn't make me worship the wrong gods or not worship mine, and I'm just fine if your government also doesn't make other people worship the right gods.
And surprisingly, there are issues that are more complex than those two, and times Caesar should mind his own business even when the issue isn't directly religious.
and btw, i say keep your state out of my religion. the whole movement towards separating religion from leadership is as old as the separation of the waters above from the waters below, and originated with the first desire to follow the Whims of Man and abandon obedience to the Laws of God which were given to us to prevent precisely the kind of pain, suffering and wanton destruction of ourselves and our world that we're witnessing today as a result of embracing Man as God.
And many atheists have read the Bible, know what's in there, and we're scared of true believers. If you believe in the Bible, you must believe Deuteronomy. See what it says you must do to us non-believers, it's grotesque.
If it does offend an atheist (as I can't speak for every atheist) tough - its your right to pray. If you're disrupting the class with a prayer, then theres a problem with disrupting a class.
As far as "separation of church and state" goes you have it all wrong, and (amazingly) Christine O'Donnell had it right. This phrase does not appear anywhere in the Constitution. It comes from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association in 1802. It is not a constitutional principle.
But certainly the Establishment Clause separates the power of the state from the practice of religion, regardless of whether the exact phrase "separation of church and state" can be located in our founding documents. For the vast majority of jurists, politicians, and constitutional scholars, "separation of church and state" has simply been a shorthand way of saying "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
The "wall of separation" idea is much broader than the establishment clause. It does not "stem" from the establishment clause. Read Jefferson's letter.