|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Separation of church and state: my ideal solution.
The problem of the separation of church and state has come to my attention now, so I'll address it.
Marriage:
Marriage should be viewed as a strictly religious ceremony, and there should be no reason for the government to be involved in it.
There would be no legal or tax differences for married couples.
If you wanted to get married (even a controversial marriage, such as same-sex), all you would have to do is find a church, chapel, or 'minister' willing to perform the ceremony. The marriage would be a private matter, between the two (or more) people married to each other, and their religion.
I find any government involvement in the religious ceremony of marriage to be just as bad a violation of the separation of church and state as the government dictating who can and can't be baptized, for example, or the government deciding how Jews should celebrate Passover, or the government awarding special tax status to a Buddhist who had achieved enlightenment.
Schools:
The key here would be use of reason.
Can a principal declare a time of prayer for the school? No. (It would be wrong to thus encourage the swath of religions that use prayer.)
Can the principal be seen praying in public view of students during school hours? Yes. (It would be wrong to force the principal to practice his belief in secret.)
-On the teaching of evolution: Leave that to the science class. Then, add a section on the creation beliefs of various religions to social studies. (The 'theory of intelligent design' could probably be mentioned in science class, but just mentioned and briefly explained, with an offer of more information to students who want to learn more about it, not taught in-depth. It would just be mentioned as an aside when discussing evolution.)
Charity:
(As you may know, I oppose all government funding of charity work. The only government charity program that I would suggest is that tax money collected for state charity be still collected, but instead distributed to the approved charity of the taxpayer's choice.)
Under that system, there would be no problem. Religious-oriented charities would only get funding from those taxpayers who want to fund them. (And of course, they would only get on the approved list if their primary goal was helping those in need, with religious evangelism as a secondary objective.)
Government Publications, Songs, Pledges, and Mottoes:
I do agree that having 'in God we trust' and 'under God' officially sanctioned is a violation of the separation of church and state.
However, those opposed to such things are going about it the wrong way.
Don't ban the official US motto. Don't ban the official pledge of allegiance.
CHANGE them. There's no reason congress couldn't change these things, and changing them would make a lot more sense than trying to restrict their use.
Decorations:
(Such as displaying the ten commandments in a courthouse.)
Why are we putting so much effort into decorating an official building anyway? I don't want my tax money used on any needless decoration of official buildings, religious or not.
Leave the decorations where they belong: in museums and on fancy privately owned buildings.
Leave the religious art where it belongs: in the church, or in the privately owned buildings of the pious.
This is part 3 of my Ideal Government for America series.
The series will continue on an as-I-have-spare-time basis until I run out of topics to talk about, and then they will all be consolidated into one, concise vision for the ideal government of the USA, after assimilating comments and advice given from Frihosters, of course.
Marriage:
Marriage should be viewed as a strictly religious ceremony, and there should be no reason for the government to be involved in it.
There would be no legal or tax differences for married couples.
If you wanted to get married (even a controversial marriage, such as same-sex), all you would have to do is find a church, chapel, or 'minister' willing to perform the ceremony. The marriage would be a private matter, between the two (or more) people married to each other, and their religion.
I find any government involvement in the religious ceremony of marriage to be just as bad a violation of the separation of church and state as the government dictating who can and can't be baptized, for example, or the government deciding how Jews should celebrate Passover, or the government awarding special tax status to a Buddhist who had achieved enlightenment.
Schools:
The key here would be use of reason.
Can a principal declare a time of prayer for the school? No. (It would be wrong to thus encourage the swath of religions that use prayer.)
Can the principal be seen praying in public view of students during school hours? Yes. (It would be wrong to force the principal to practice his belief in secret.)
-On the teaching of evolution: Leave that to the science class. Then, add a section on the creation beliefs of various religions to social studies. (The 'theory of intelligent design' could probably be mentioned in science class, but just mentioned and briefly explained, with an offer of more information to students who want to learn more about it, not taught in-depth. It would just be mentioned as an aside when discussing evolution.)
Charity:
(As you may know, I oppose all government funding of charity work. The only government charity program that I would suggest is that tax money collected for state charity be still collected, but instead distributed to the approved charity of the taxpayer's choice.)
Under that system, there would be no problem. Religious-oriented charities would only get funding from those taxpayers who want to fund them. (And of course, they would only get on the approved list if their primary goal was helping those in need, with religious evangelism as a secondary objective.)
Government Publications, Songs, Pledges, and Mottoes:
I do agree that having 'in God we trust' and 'under God' officially sanctioned is a violation of the separation of church and state.
However, those opposed to such things are going about it the wrong way.
Don't ban the official US motto. Don't ban the official pledge of allegiance.
CHANGE them. There's no reason congress couldn't change these things, and changing them would make a lot more sense than trying to restrict their use.
Decorations:
(Such as displaying the ten commandments in a courthouse.)
Why are we putting so much effort into decorating an official building anyway? I don't want my tax money used on any needless decoration of official buildings, religious or not.
Leave the decorations where they belong: in museums and on fancy privately owned buildings.
Leave the religious art where it belongs: in the church, or in the privately owned buildings of the pious.
This is part 3 of my Ideal Government for America series.
The series will continue on an as-I-have-spare-time basis until I run out of topics to talk about, and then they will all be consolidated into one, concise vision for the ideal government of the USA, after assimilating comments and advice given from Frihosters, of course.
| Quote: |
| Marriage: |
| Quote: |
| Schools: |
| Quote: |
| Charity: |
| Quote: |
| Government Publications, Songs, Pledges, and Mottoes: |
With motto's, songs, and the Pledge of Allegiance, it really depends, to me, where it is being used. Yes, I think religious motto's should be removed from Capitol buildings and money and other areas, and the Pledge should not be used in a public school at all, even if there were no religious tones in it. I just don't think that public schools are the right place for swearing a political oath. If a baseball game wants to sanction a song with a God reference in it, or if they want to put a Christmas tree in a public park during the Holidays, I have no problem with that at all. I also think that the swearing on a Bible in Court should have been thrown out a long time ago.
| Quote: |
| Decorations: |
| Ophois wrote: | ||
|
Oh, philosophy! That's another good example of a class that could make mention of non-scientific creation beliefs.
| Quote: | ||
With motto's, songs, and the Pledge of Allegiance, it really depends, to me, where it is being used. Yes, I think religious motto's should be removed from Capitol buildings and money and other areas, and the Pledge should not be used in a public school at all, even if there were no religious tones in it. I just don't think that public schools are the right place for swearing a political oath. If a baseball game wants to sanction a song with a God reference in it, or if they want to put a Christmas tree in a public park during the Holidays, I have no problem with that at all. I also think that the swearing on a Bible in Court should have been thrown out a long time ago. |
I would tend to take that path as well, but it just doesn't make sense to endorse a national motto and then ban its use in government institutions. I do agree with you that a school is no place for a pledge of allegiance, even a non-religious one. To be honest, personally, by the time I figured out what it meant, I just lip-synced and never actually recited it with the rest of the class.
Interesting that you should mention state governments... Though separation of church and state is spelled out for the federal government, is it actually worded to also include state governments?
It might be that a state with a constitution that allows it can blend state government and religion to heart's content...
| Quote: | ||
|
I like the idea of the art fair!
| Ophois wrote: | ||
|
True, this one deviates from my libertarian ideal of small government somewhat. BUT, the socialists among us do have a point. People do have a responsibility to help those in need, a responsibility that comes hand-in-hand with ability to help.
This is my solution for making a way to help that encroaches on individual freedom the least.
(I'm assuming that private charity couldn't really handle the burden of all the work that needs to be done without extra incentive.) (Refer to #1 in this series, which is entirely written about this subject.)
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Marriage: |
Is marriage a religious institution? I'll admit I'm not that educated in the history of marriage. In the past, has it or did it originate as a religious institution? If yes, then perhaps your position is correct. If no, then I simply have to disagree with the position.
Baptism and Passover are clearly religious traditions/institutions. I'm not sure about marriage...maybe somebody can elaborate on some of the history. I wish I had the motivation to do the research at the moment
What about people who want to be married (I imagine being married would remain a sort of social expectation) but don't practice any religion?
And are you referring to polygamy in the "or more" part?
| Quote: |
| Schools: |
The principal shouldn't ignore any of his duties and responsibilities to pray, correct?
I see no reason to mention ID in any science classroom. It is not science; it is creationism. There's nothing about it that can be legitimately discussed or even mentioned from a scientific point of view. However, making mention of the debate between evolution/ID-creationism could be acceptable, as I think tying classroom material to current events is always more interesting to students. Not much time should be spent on that discussion of course -- that should be left to social sciences.
I don't know if there are many high school students who can be "trusted" to discuss religion from an educational setting. I don't know how many high school teachers can be "trusted" to teach it either. That's a tough topic. I don't believe any course that focuses specifically on religious and creationist beliefs should be mandatory -- it should be an available elective, if anything, and perhaps offered only to juniors or seniors in high school.
| Quote: |
| Charity: |
No real opinion on this. I'm not too familiar with the issue.
| Quote: |
| Government Publications, Songs, Pledges, and Mottoes: |
I haven't seen anyone petition for banning of the motto/pledge, but I wouldn't put it past some people. I agree, change them....and immediately.
| Quote: |
| Decorations: |
Agree.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Interesting that you should mention state governments... Though separation of church and state is spelled out for the federal government, is it actually worded to also include state governments?
It might be that a state with a constitution that allows it can blend state government and religion to heart's content... |
Sadly, I can't say I've even read my own state's constitution, so I don't know
The US Constitution doesn't make any specific mention of how the Bill of Rights should be applied to states from what I remember. This was actually a very sticky issue in the past.
There is the Supremacy Clause, however, which basically says that where federal and state government collide, federal wins. Also, there have been many Supreme Court cases over the decades that brought up numerous issues with how the Bill of Rights applied to states. Most of those court cases have led to the Bill of Rights being expanded to states, so I would say the First Amendment has been applied fully to all citizens and states.
| liljp617 wrote: |
|
And are you referring to polygamy in the "or more" part? |
Quite so. The only thing you would need even for the most outrageous of weddings would be a person who meets two qualifications:
1: Willing to perform the ceremony, despite any oddities.
2: Has (both) your respect as someone who can perform a marriage.
As for the history of marriage, marriage predates recorded history, so we may never know how it started (cave paintings don't give a good representation of such abstract subjects). How could the government legitimately claim an interest in it though? What reason is there for government involvement?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| How could the government legitimately claim an interest in it though? What reason is there for government involvement? |
I entertained this very idea when I was making that post. That's why the history interests me. I don't know if it's a religious institution, but I also don't know if it's a government institution. Perhaps it was simply a social institution -- two people got together and said they were married and that was it.
I'm not sure why religion or government should be involved. I can't see any more purpose for religion to be involved than for government to be involved...assuming, of course, marriage is no more a religious institution than a government institution.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Oh, philosophy! That's another good example of a class that could make mention of non-scientific creation beliefs. |
| Quote: |
| I would tend to take that path as well, but it just doesn't make sense to endorse a national motto and then ban its use in government institutions. I do agree with you that a school is no place for a pledge of allegiance, even a non-religious one. To be honest, personally, by the time I figured out what it meant, I just lip-synced and never actually recited it with the rest of the class. |
| Quote: |
| Interesting that you should mention state governments... Though separation of church and state is spelled out for the federal government, is it actually worded to also include state governments?
It might be that a state with a constitution that allows it can blend state government and religion to heart's content... |
| Quote: |
| I like the idea of the art fair! |
| Quote: |
| True, this one deviates from my libertarian ideal of small government somewhat. BUT, the socialists among us do have a point. People do have a responsibility to help those in need, a responsibility that comes hand-in-hand with ability to help. |
| liljp617 wrote: |
| Is marriage a religious institution? |
| Quote: |
| I don't know if there are many high school students who can be "trusted" to discuss religion from an educational setting. I don't know how many high school teachers can be "trusted" to teach it either. |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Marriage: |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Schools:
The key here would be use of reason. Can a principal declare a time of prayer for the school? No. (It would be wrong to thus encourage the swath of religions that use prayer.) |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Schools:Can the principal be seen praying in public view of students during school hours? Yes. (It would be wrong to force the principal to practice his belief in secret.) |
Agreed, but if that is the wish of the community however and it is approved by the school board, and it is not against the law. If it is a public school for example, where quite a large number of students are from families who do not practice religion and who object to their children being potentially influenced in that way, perhaps this may not be the right kind of behaviour.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Schools:-On the teaching of evolution: Leave that to the science class. Then, add a section on the creation beliefs of various religions to social studies. (The 'theory of intelligent design' could probably be mentioned in science class, but just mentioned and briefly explained, with an offer of more information to students who want to learn more about it, not taught in-depth. It would just be mentioned as an aside when discussing evolution.) |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Charity:
(As you may know, I oppose all government funding of charity work. The only government charity program that I would suggest is that tax money collected for state charity be still collected, but instead distributed to the approved charity of the taxpayer's choice.) |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Charity: Religious-oriented charities would only get funding from those taxpayers who want to fund them. (And of course, they would only get on the approved list if their primary goal was helping those in need, with religious evangelism as a secondary objective.) |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Government Publications, Songs, Pledges, and Mottoes:
I do agree that having 'in God we trust' and 'under God' officially sanctioned is a violation of the separation of church and state. However, those opposed to such things are going about it the wrong way. Don't ban the official US motto. Don't ban the official pledge of allegiance. CHANGE them. There's no reason congress couldn't change these things, and changing them would make a lot more sense than trying to restrict their use. |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Decorations:
(Such as displaying the ten commandments in a courthouse.) Why are we putting so much effort into decorating an official building anyway? I don't want my tax money used on any needless decoration of official buildings, religious or not. Leave the decorations where they belong: in museums and on fancy privately owned buildings. Leave the religious art where it belongs: in the church, or in the privately owned buildings of the pious. |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| This is part 3 of my Ideal Government for America series.
The series will continue on an as-I-have-spare-time basis until I run out of topics to talk about, and then they will all be consolidated into one, concise vision for the ideal government of the USA, after assimilating comments and advice given from Frihosters, of course. |
| deanhills wrote: | ||
|
There would still be plenty of opportunity to get a non-religious marriage. To do that, all you have to do is find someone you respect to perform whatever ceremony you think appropriate. Or, you could even just skip the ceremony and just declare yourselves married. The government doesn't have to be involved to make it secular.
| Quote: | ||
|
Public school in a religious society... still no go. There's a reason for the separation of church and state; when they get too intertwined, very bad things can happen. If all the students want to pray before class, that's fine. They'll just have to organize it and do it without help from school faculty.
At a private school: they can do whatever they want. There is no separation of church and state issue because the private school is not a state institution, and no matter how religious it is, it is still separate from the state.
| Quote: | ||
Agreed, but if that is the wish of the community however and it is approved by the school board, and it is not against the law. If it is a public school for example, where quite a large number of students are from families who do not practice religion and who object to their children being potentially influenced in that way, perhaps this may not be the right kind of behaviour. |
The principal is employed by the state, but he isn't the state. Despite his employment, the state must respect his right to practice his religion. Sure, some students might be influenced by seeing him pray. That, however, is a lesser evil than forcing a man to not practice his religion.
| Quote: | ||
|
Unfortunately, I don't think enough people would donate on a voluntary basis. That would be the best way to do it, but it just isn't possible to do that and fulfill the responsibility towards those in need. Remember, under this system, there would be no welfare, no medicare, no social security, no government health plan. Replacing all of those with private sector charity work would be expensive. The private sector would do a better job of it, but they would still need a lot of funds, much more than they're likely to get on a voluntary basis.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Public school in a religious society... still no go. There's a reason for the separation of church and state; when they get too intertwined, very bad things can happen. If all the students want to pray before class, that's fine. They'll just have to organize it and do it without help from school faculty. |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| The principal is employed by the state, but he isn't the state. Despite his employment, the state must respect his right to practice his religion. Sure, some students might be influenced by seeing him pray. That, however, is a lesser evil than forcing a man to not practice his religion.
|
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Unfortunately, I don't think enough people would donate on a voluntary basis. That would be the best way to do it, but it just isn't possible to do that and fulfill the responsibility towards those in need. Remember, under this system, there would be no welfare, no medicare, no social security, no government health plan. Replacing all of those with private sector charity work would be expensive. The private sector would do a better job of it, but they would still need a lot of funds, much more than they're likely to get on a voluntary basis. |
| deanhills wrote: |
| I can't really see that happening though can you? However, I would be able to live with this. I.e. restrict praying to home. |
It doesn't have to be restricted to home (banned from school). You just can't have it officially sanctioned.
| Quote: |
|
I'm not so sure about this. It may cause some unhappiness among parents who are quite serious about their children not being influenced by exposure to religion. If it were the wish of the school board for teachers not to exhibit their religion publicly, then I think this is something the teachers need to abide by. |
As long as he's not using his position to officially endorse a religion, the state cannot take away his right to practice it, no matter who he works for. As long as he doesn't make his prayer time an official act, endorse religion to students, or expect students to join in, he's protected. Separation of church and state not only protects the state from religion, but also protects religion from the state.
| Quote: |
|
I assumed that Government would take care of welfare and community programmes, also medical aid for the poor, persion, social security etc. I considered charity to be something completely different, i.e. completely voluntary. |
I think of these activities as the state doing charitable activities. I would define charitable by what is done, rather than who is doing it. Appropriating money for these charitable causes may be a necessary evil, but I would mitigate that evil by giving people a choice of which causes are most important. (By eliminating the old programs, the amount of 'taxes' paid stays the same (a large portion of those taxes is the charity portion.))
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
It doesn't have to be restricted to home (banned from school). You just can't have it officially sanctioned. |
OK, I get it, and that makes good sense. Being subtle and cautious.
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
As long as he's not using his position to officially endorse a religion, the state cannot take away his right to practice it, no matter who he works for. As long as he doesn't make his prayer time an official act, endorse religion to students, or expect students to join in, he's protected. Separation of church and state not only protects the state from religion, but also protects religion from the state. |
| ocalhoun wrote: | ||
I think of these activities as the state doing charitable activities. I would define charitable by what is done, rather than who is doing it. Appropriating money for these charitable causes may be a necessary evil, but I would mitigate that evil by giving people a choice of which causes are most important. (By eliminating the old programs, the amount of 'taxes' paid stays the same (a large portion of those taxes is the charity portion.)) |
Related topics
 |