Talk:Separation of church and state/Archive

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Could someone please clean up the opening paragraph of this page? I've read it half a dozen times trying to figure out what is trying to be said and all I'm left with is a bad headache. Loomis51 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes! The opening paragraph makes no sense. If I had some idea what it was getting at, i would reviseit, but i dont.

Contents

A couple of external links that could be useful

At least in the explanation of the history of the US Constitutional seperation of church and state would be Patrick Henry's A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion and James Madison's (then anononymous) response, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessment]. While these two documents apply to Virginia law of the time rather than to the US Constitution, I think they both give good insight into two competing views of the relationship of religious and secular authority during the birth of the US. -Craig

What did the Court actually say?

I have a question please about the following paragraph.

When fundamentalists attempted to force biology teachers to teach the Genesis creation story if they taught evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that labeling a religious doctrine as "science" was insufficient to allow it to be taught to a child in public school for the purpose of converting the child to a religion. [1]

To FairAndBalanced. You wrote that "the Supreme Court ruled that labeling a religious doctrine as "science" was insufficient to allow it to be taught to a child in public school for the purpose of converting the child to a religion." Could you point to the page in the case where the Court said that?

It seems to me that the Court found that the Act failed the first prong of the Lemon test--"secular purpose." Accordingly, the Court ruled on summary judgment and did not have to examine whether the thousand pages of "science" that the creationists filed was actually "science" or not. Would you agree? Rednblu 03:26, 20 Aug 2003 (UTC)

That does not invalidate my version, but feel free to change it to stick more closely to the strict legal reasoning. The previous version inappropriately implied that ID was scientific. Fairandbalanced 00:10, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Fundamentalist attempt to force biology teachers to teach Genesis

When fundamentalists attempted to force biology teachers to teach the Genesis creation story if they taught evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that even scientific evidence could not be taught to a child in public school for the purpose of converting the child to a religion. That is, religious people could not appropriate snippets of scientific evidence with the aim of persuading public school children to adopt religious beliefs.

Where is Intelligent Design even implied in the above statement?
How about you and I start from the above and change it so that you think it is accurate.
Or how about quoting the Supreme Court?

When fundamentalists attempted to force biology teachers to teach the Genesis creation story if they taught evolution, the Supreme Court ruled that "teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause." In other words, the Court did not have to examine whether what was taught under the Creationism Act was scientifically accurate. Only the legislators' intent to teach religion mattered to the Court.

Are we getting somewhere? Rednblu 02:36, 22 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Separation of politics and religion in the US

I agree with MisfitToys' edits, which resulted in a text that expressed what I meant better than my original. However, I reverted "estrangement" to "separation". "Estrangement" is separation, but with the added nuance of some hostility. I don't think that hostile feelings are an issue here – it's just that some countries separation religion and politics by tradition, and many people adhere to this vision without being hostile to religion. It's just like strawberry marmalade and steak - you may like each separately, but think, without any kind of bad feeling, that they do not mix well. See laïcité for instance. David.Monniaux 08:27, 28 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Technically, 'separation of church and state' isn't fixed "constitutional law' in the US either (although it is a concept discussed in constitutional law); the nature of the amendment is more toward non-establishment (different from disestablishment) rather than separation. MisfitToys 20:48, Apr 28, 2004 (UTC)

I would have expected to see something about Turkey here as I believe it is a good example of an Islamic country which has acheived a clear secular constitution. I don't know enough about Turkish history to edit the article. Are there any Turkish contributors who would like to comment ? Julianp 02:10, 7 May 2004 (UTC)

I would like the U.S. section edited. After all, the Constitution says, Congress shall make no law concerning the establishment, etc. and you start with "The court-enforced separation does not extend to all elements of civil religion." Which is true, but your examples of money, etc., just aren't establishments of religion. My point isn't that I disagree with people who see these as religious, but that writing this article should take into account that some of us don't accept these displays as incongruous. I consider that atheism is a religion, and to leave out these statements would be undemocratic- and the Constitution guarantees me a "democratic form of gov't"

solomonrex

I believe that the separation of politics and religion in the US is not complete: having a president say "God bless America" in all his public appearances and having "In God we trust" printed on the money clearly shows what is the main religion.

The primary response to that arguement is that "God" can refer to any god, and thus does not imply that one religion is favored (of course, atheists and agnostics don't like this, either). Remember, seperation of Church and State is not mandated, simply non-interference. Emmett5 00:04, 4 June 2006 (UTC)

A response to that is the use of the singular "God" cannot refer to a plural, thus technically favouring monotheism. (Nitpicky, I know, but a valid point.) Autarch 16:50, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


Okay a few things. First, Turkey is not the great secular-Islamic state that it's being talked up to be. The Orthodox Christians for instance live in a state of dhimmitude and are unable to train new clergy or even elect their own leaders without state approval. This is an instance where there is no separation between church and state...where the state interfers with the church. That's a topic that is seldom addressed; what happens when the state meddles with religions...you know like China does?

And the argument that "One nation under God" violates anything is silly. The Founders were very exact in how they wrote the Constitution. It was thought about for many years, discussed and debated for many months and carefully written over several days by many people. They were very careful in what words they used. "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof." I.E., no Church of America like the Church of England. And quite frankly, the ACLU and alot of judges have used a private letter from Thomas Jefferson to enact alot of bad law and court decisions that have nothing to do with Congress trying to make everyone a Methodist or a Catholic or a Buddhist or anything like that.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Culmo80 (talk • contribs) 19:07, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Do you have sources for any of your assertions? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Prayer Ban

Did the Spreme Court actually ban all prayer in schools, or just organized prayer? From what I understand, kids are free to pray on their own, therefore it wouldn't be right to say they banned prayer. To say they banned prayer makes it sound like there are police standing over anyone who says a silent prayer by themself. If it's not so, I propose saying they banned "organized prayer". Thoughts? --DanielCD 14:02, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Even organized prayer is fine, as long as the kids do it on their own (I believe), possibly with some restrictions i.e. not during school hours. I think that it can't be teacher-led. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 14:08, 14 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Well some schools didn't get the note...little girls suspended for reading the Bible at recess, teachers suspended for just saying God...and so forth. Obviously people take what the court says to an extreme for their own personal agenda...you always have that type. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Culmo80 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
Do you have a source for that? KillerChihuahua?!? 19:13, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Canadian Constitution

Actually, I see nothing in the Canadian Constitution about supremecy of any god... check here

I also can find no mention of god at all

1982 http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/annex_e.html#I --JimWae 21:31, 2005 Apr 5 (UTC)

It's in the preamble to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a Constitutional document:

"Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law." Loomis51 00:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)


God. We use upper-case "G" when refering to God. You should too. Nevertheless, you should read the text of the Charter again. DocEss 17:34, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Russian laws

I just stumbled into this:

"For example, in the Russian Armed Forces -- for which there continues to be universal conscription -- no form of religious worship other than Orthodox Christian worship is permitted."

I think this is wrong. I've never heard of any law like that in Russia. It is true that chaplains are strictly Orthodox (although this might have changed recently), but, as far as I know, prayer is NOT prohibited. Can anyone supply a reference to prove or disprove this?

The previous statement is entirely incorrect (but a good try!) Freedom of religion has been wholeheartedly adopted in Russia. In Chechnya, before going into battle, it is common for soldiers to pray. No religion is prohibited. That said, Russian Orthodox is the primary religion practiced. And it is still not what could be considered a religious country, as the enforced athiesm of the communist era had its effect and a majority of the population could be considered non-believers.

Noitall 03:14, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Sentence about the phrase not appearing in the US Constitution

I took out the sentence at the end of the first paragraph. I don't think it matters how many people believe it, saying that "separation of church and state" doesn't appear in the constitution is a loaded statement that makes it seem that there is some significance in its not being there. I don't believe it is significant, because the law is discussed every day in terms that don't appear in the constitution. Anyway, I'm sure 2/3 of Americans think a lot of things about the constitution that aren't true. Superking 21:22, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Actually it is important because current court rulings are being decided on that very phrase. And just because 2/3s of Americans may think something about the Constitution which is untrue, that doesn't matter. The perceived notion is that the "separation" phrase is part of the 1st Amendment. It's important because alot people use that ignorance to further their own causes.

Source requests for United States sections

Are there references for the Madison quote and for the Justice Thomas position? -- Beland 05:54, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I took out the Madison quote: it's known to be bogus. As for Thomas's position, his dissent in last term's Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow outlines his view that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was intended as a federalism protection of sorts, prohibiting the federal government from interfering with state religious establishments. I shudder to think that a person who essentially denies the existence of a legal separation of church and state sits on the highest court in the land, but that's neither here nor there. SS451 22:49, Apr 11, 2005 (UTC)

Tests for office in the U.S.

Seven U.S. states still have religious tests for office on the books, that have yet to be challenged.

I assume that previous precedents have essentially rendered these statues unenforcable. If so, I wouldn't see the fact that they remain unchallenged as particularly significant, though it might be an interesting bit of trivia to add to Separation of church and state in the United States. -- Beland 02:28, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Excised text

I have excised from the text the following:

Many Americans mistakenly believe that the doctrine of "separation of church and state" exists in the Judicial System of the United States, however nowhere in the Constitution does it demand or even refer to such a division. The phrase was coined by Thomas Jefferson in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in which he says "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state." [sic.] His "wall" was understood to be protecting the collective idea of church from persecution and abuse from the state. Unlike in Jefferson's day when he as well as others were trying to produce freedom of religion, many today are, in effect, trying to produce a freedom from religion. (The entire text of this letter, as well as the text of the Danbury Letter may be found at the Library of Congress website: http://www.loc.gov

It was contributed by Anonymous user 65.96.3.211. The reason I have removed it is because it does not, I believe, belong in the introductory text. I am not opposed to its inclusion within the article, but I am seeking input as to where it should be placed. The most obvious placement would in the United States of America section. Thoughts? --Cyberjunkie 05:01, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

This appears to be a particular interpretation of history and constitutional law, which is not supported by any sources. Until this view can be attributed it does not belong in the article. -Willmcw 04:37, May 16, 2005 (UTC)
I partially agree with the above comments. A better and more fuller discussion of this timely and important topic should be in the body. As to sources, the first sentence is self-evident in the Establishment Clause. The Danbury source can be found many places, such as the Danbury letter, Library of Congress. The third part is controversial and needs more explanation. The last part is a political view. --Noitall 05:06, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

"The Canadian view on Church and State is largely similar to the view in the United States." Who says this? I'm not an expert here, but I can think of a number of counterexamples. Catholics are given explicit rights, expecially in Quebec, which area given to no other relgious groups. There is no law banning government funding to religous groups. There are publicly funded Christian schools. I hate to say it, but this makes me suspicious of the rest of the article. DJ Clayworth 18:16, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since 'Separation of church and state' is pretty much a US-only concept, maybe we should rename this article to Relations between church and state or something similar. DJ Clayworth 18:17, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Went and wrote a more accurate version. DJ Clayworth 18:40, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Germany. I believe that until recently (1980s?) in Germany there was a 'church tax' which was administered by the government and given to a church of your choice? You could opt out, but it was opt-out rather than opt-in? DJ Clayworth 18:19, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Dear Clayworth, the church tax does exist in Germany, however the details you give are not accurate (church - or charity - of your choice is the Italian way) Not all religious groups do raise church. If a group is sufficently big, sufficently stable and not at odds with the constitution, they can attain the status of "corporation of public law" and they then can among other things (against a fee) use the state's revenue system of raising "membership fees" from their members (the amount is usually a percentage of from the income tax). Currently this status is held by the Catholic Church, the mainline Protesant EKD and the Jewish congregation. Also, Jevovah's Wittnesses have recently succeeded in a court case giving them this status as well, but so far they haven't decided on how to deal with their newly won rights. So you give church tax to the "church of your choice" because you are a member of that church, but not to any other church. You also can opt out only by withdrawing official membership. If you don't belong to a church/religious group that raises that church tax (as explained above) you don't have to pay anything (in contrast with the Italian model). Str1977 19:19, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Rename article

Nobody has responded to my suggestion that this article be renamed Relations between church and state. Anyone object? Any supporters? DJ Clayworth 17:02, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I think it is fine as is. However, you might like to shift all information pertaining to relations under a new section with your suggested title.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 06:53, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
  • I think the name of the article as it stands is appropriate and has a different meaning to the proposed change. The separation of church and state was important in Australian colonial history and made a difference in particular to education and how it is delivered today. It has a different sense than relations between the two institutions. Perhaps a separate article might be in order exploring the issues of the relationship.--AYArktos 08:40, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

Greece - copyright problem?

The Greece section appears to be copied directly from the linked source ([2]). While the source is clearly indicated, the paragraph is not displayed as a quote (and is really too long to be considered one). Probably this should be rewritten to avoid copyright infringement? --David Edgar 11:18, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Grant quote

I removed this:

Leave the matter of religion to the family altar, the church, and the private school, supported entirely by private contributions. Keep the church and state forever separate. Ulysses S. Grant

because of where it was situated, as though it were a statement of fact, or the last word. The quote is not irrelevant though; and an appropriate place might be found for it, in this article. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 06:04, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

yeah because Grant was our greeatest presedent ever. It however is appropriate for the article so I can offer no reason to not add it. Personally I am in Favor of a Theocracy. 167.142.154.27 21:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Article split

I propose a split of this article. I would move the descriptions of each country's relation between its church and state to a new article Relationship between church and state, while keeping the specific discussion of the separation parts, especially the US experience here. This is basicly because the degree of separation is not actually the key thing for many countries. For them it is not sensible to discuss the relationship in terms of separation. DJ Clayworth 17:00, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Separation

I think there's a problematic leaning within the concept of "separation" as it is discussed here. Granted, this affects the whole discussion in the "outside world" so it surely does affect Wikipedia, but I will ask anyway.

At fact value, separation of church and state should mean neither interferes directly with the other. However, as the section for the "separated" Turkey (the quoted passage reads the "There shall be no interference whatsoever of the sacred religious feelings in State affairs and politics"), as well as the entry to the "Modern" section ("Some states are more strict than others in disallowing church influence on the state") are leaning towards only considering a ecclesiatical interference into the state and not the other way around.

Does anyone have an idea how to fix this (the Turkey passage is not so much the problem, as the passage raises this issue, but the "modern" is). I'm not sure whether there is a solution since this a real life problem. Str1977 21:29, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Removed text from "secular arguments against separation"

Copying the text here. I agree with JimWae that these are not really secular arguments. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ | Esperanza 19:58, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Both of these groups have won recent victories in the allowance of religious symbols on public land under specific circumstances, although many see the need to defend these religious symbols as a defeat and insult to our roots as a nation.
There are those outside of organized religion who believe every person has the right to live under government that agrees with their core beliefs. This has lead back to the idea of Localized Church Government. If Localized Church Government were to be applied in America every county would decide how they wanted to be affiliated with the church. This would, according to its supporters, lead to greater religious freedom for everyone. “The state religion is this way and if you don’t like it you can leave.”
There are also people who believe the government should take an active role in eliminating religion. These people believe that it is impossible to keep the “superstitions” and “religious prejudices” out of the government and that the “superstitions” and “religious prejudices” are harmful to society. The only way to solve the problem of religion, according to these people, is to get rid of religion. They often point to freedom of choice. While many secularists think abortion is fine most religious groups condemn it and are trying to get it outlawed. Religious groups are often against homosexual marriage, pornography, child labor, free sex, prostitutes, euthanasia, and gambling; things many others see as being human rights.
Lastly there is the argument that if church and state were separated to the fullest extent possible religiously affiliated groups could perform any action they chose without fear of governmental intervention. As it is the government still has the ability to say that religious groups can't hold human sacrifices or set off nuclear weapons or destroy private property or other such illegal acts.

Secular arguments against separation

These arguments are not inherently secular, but nor are they religious. I placed them under secular arguments as a default. Would it be acceptable to every one to have a "neutral arguments against separation" section?

Secularism and theocracy

In less of course we are dealing with Evolution against Creationsism, in that case we must consider the parallels, and more importantly the flaw in language (Wittgenstein) to consider different perspectives. I have many problems with this post, because there are many flaws but this is my first post here? Is it cool, or who can I discuss this matter with this peson futher? moved from article, originally posted by 68.56.4.204

Overview or US Summary?

The section here which claims to be an overview of the topic in fact goes into enormous detail about the origins of the particular position in the USA. I think much of that materal needs to be in a distinct section concerned with separation of church and state in the US constitution. I know it's a particular constitutional isue in the US, but a general overview should be international in scope. Myopic Bookworm 09:24, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I suppose that would involve a new section about works such as A Letter Concerning Toleration by John Locke (Yes, I know that Locke didn't advocate the modern understanding of toleration - he didn't allow for toleration of Catholics or atheists, but his work can be seen as a forerunner.) Autarch 17:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

quite a leap of understanding

Text currently in the article: "The Danbury Baptist Association wrote President Jefferson in an attempt to persuade him to use his Executive Powers as President to intervene in their behalf. In his letter of reply to the Danbury Baptist Association, Jefferson argued that the U.S. Constitution forbade any interference from the Federal government with a Connecticut law which required membership in a particular church in order to hold public office.

Jefferson's point in the letter was that the Federal or State governments had no Constitutional authority to prohibit the practice of any religion. Jefferson refused their plea on the grounds cited in his letter. Thus, with the adoption of the Jeffersonian phrase '...wall of separation between church and state...', by those who seek to use Federal power to remove from the public square any religiosity of any sort, the inversion of the meaning intended by Jefferson as he wrote it."

It is interesting that whomever added this purports to know the intent of Jefferson, compared to some of the issues regarding Jefferson's abhorrence for state supported religion, and religiously supported states.--Vidkun 15:37, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Here, in fact, is the text of the leter from the DBA to Jefferson -
"Sir, — Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your Election to office; we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyd in our collective capacity, since your Inauguration, to express our great satisfaction, in your appointment to the chief Majestracy in the United States; And though our mode of expression may be less courtly and pompious than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, Sir to believe, that none are more sincere.
Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor: But Sir our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter together with the Laws made coincident therewith, were adopted on the Basis of our government, at the time of our revolution; and such had been our Laws & usages, and such still are; that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation; and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights: and these favors we receive at the expense of such degradingacknowledgements, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore; if those, who seek after power & gain under the pretense of government & Religion should reproach their fellow men — should reproach their chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion Law & good order because he will not, dare not assume the prerogatives of Jehovah and make Laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.
Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States, is not the national legislator, and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State; but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial affect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine and prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth. Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and good will shining forth in a course of more than thirty years we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State out of that good will which he bears to the Millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence & the voice of the people have cald you to sustain and support you in your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth & importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.
And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.
Signed in behalf of the Association.
his response -
Gentlemen, — The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.
Nowhere in his letter, do I see anything supporting the assertion "Jefferson's point in the letter was that the Federal or State governments had no Constitutional authority to prohibit the practice of any religion. Jefferson refused their plea on the grounds cited in his letter."--Vidkun 15:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Moral

Regarding this sentence: Religion plays a strong role in national politics, especially in controversial moral issues like abortion, euthanasia, and homosexuality. "Moral" is a bit POV, whereas leaving out the qualifier completely leaves it open as to whether the subjects are "moral" or not. Abortion and euthanasia are ethical issues, which is different from moral; homosexuality is only a moral issue from a religious perspective. Hence, "moral" is a religious viewpoint only. The statement does not qualify that this is a religious viewpoint only, so "moral" is inappropriate. KillerChihuahua?!? 17:38, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly agree. I have removed the "moral" before and been reverted if I remember correctly. Homosexuality is not a moral issue to most gay people I know. It is only a moral issue for people who have a problem, usually religious, with homosexuality. I have no problem with describing abortion and euthanasia as moral issues, but I can't think of a good way to note them separately as moral issues and one non-moral issue without the use of exceedingly cumbersome language. I say kill the "moral" altogether. Kasreyn 03:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
"Homosexuality is not a moral issue to most gay people I know" sounds really objective in my book. I don't think that because supporters of a certain practice think so is a valid point, as this would also apply to the other issues, though I am glad that you agree that these are on a way different moral level (thoug "die-hard abortionists" will probably disagree).
But anyway, I will not waste my time with reverting this issue, as the current wording is still acceptable. (BTW, dividing them between moral and non-moral would clearly be POV-pushing, apart from being cumbersome.)
However, I want to say two things to KC:
  • I object to your qualification of something is a "religious viewpoint": there is no religious viewpoint unless you say which religion you are talking about. There is no "the religion" and neither is there "the secular viewpoint".
  • Could you please explain to me in layman's language your distinction between ethics and moral? To me they are basically the same using either the Greek or the Latin term.
Str1977 (smile back) 13:30, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
Str1977, the difference as I see it is that abortion and euthanasia are acts which one chooses or does not choose to engage in. This makes them clearly moral issues. Homosexuality is seen as an act by some - typically by the religious, who see it as a choice to sin. By many others, including homosexuals themselves, being homosexual is seen as an innate characteristic of a person, and no choice or action is involved. Therefore morality cannot be involved one way or the other, because no choice was made. Of course, Wikipedia should not take sides in the debate over whether homosexuality is innate or a choice; but calling it a "moral" issue without further explanation is clearly siding with the religious viewpoint that homosexuality is a choice. Am I more clear now? Cheers, Kasreyn 16:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, Kasreyn, but you don't make sense. It is not a question of religion (or which or not) whether the homosexual act is an act one does because one choses so. The inclination is another issue. The point you are raising is not one of different views at all, but one of the definition of what is meant when someone says homosexuality. If you mean the act, what follows will of course be different then if you are talking about the inclination.
Anyway, your underlying points are reasonable in my book, but I am convinced that there are definitely those that disagree with them. There's no evil in this world that doesn't find advocates nowadays, even if that means wrecking reason. Str1977 (smile back) 20:29, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
You're not reading it correctly. The article referred to "homosexuality" as a moral issue. This includes simply being homosexual, not just "homosexual acts". And you're right that there are differing viewpoints on whether it should be called a moral issue or not. That is why we must not simply call it a moral issue ourselves. We must say "group a consider this a moral issue, while group b does not", or some such thing. Kasreyn 21:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
I was reading it correctly, though you misunderstood me. The article says "homsexuality" which might include simply being homosexual and not just the acts. However, it is ambiguous and how one reads it is not determined by adherence to a religion. Re the other point, I was referring strictly to the inclination. Also, "that there are differing viewpoints on whether it should be called a moral issue or not" is, at the risk of sounding repetitive, something that can be said about basically any issue. Str1977 (smile back) 13:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
So it can be said about almost any issue. So what? The objection still stands. It's inappropriate for us to label an issue as "moral"; it's original research and POV. Kasreyn 19:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
Technically, they are different, but the point is moot because I'm not talking about replacing moral with ethical. No, I'm talking about leaving it out altogether. It adds nothing to the sentence, unless you are trying to claim that homosexuals are immoral or unethical by their very nature, a position claimed only by those with a strong Abrahamic religious bias. There may be other religions which also condemn homosexuality as immoral - if so, I am unaware of them. Male homosexuals are considered a "third gender" in Hindu beliefs - see Hijra (South Asia) - and Buddhism only has avoid sexual misconduct as one of the precepts, and although some place homosexuality under that, some do not; some place any sex under that umbrella. Neither specifically mentions homosexuality. In contrast, the Abrahamic religions not only specifically mention it, the prescription is stoning. See Homosexuality laws of the world. KillerChihuahua?!? 14:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
That's all fine and dandy but does not contradict my point.
As for my question, would you please answer it even it makes no difference to the article? (I never intended that it should have). So, how are they different "technically"? Str1977 (smile back) 14:32, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
What point are you speaking of (which was not contradicted)? KillerChihuahua?!? 15:24, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
The point that there is no "the religious viewpoint", nor "the secular viewpoint".
Could you please answer my question? Str1977 (smile back) 20:26, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

If I could intrude on this conversation to try and answer the question if I can... The adjectives "ethical" and "moral" are often used as synonyms, but ethics refers to a branch of philosophy dealing with morality: rightness and wrongness. To call an action ethical should not mean that it is right, only that it could be right or wrong in a moral sense. An action could be right or wrong in a nonmoral sense and it would not be ethical regardless. A "good" painting is judged by a standard of value which is aesthetic, not ethical (in most philosophies).

The terms "moral" and "ethical issue" sounds rather senseless to me. Why, in politics, aren't economic issues considered "moral" and "ethical"? Is there no right and wrong when it comes to the exchange of goods? Of course homosexuality is an ethical subject: either it is right or it is wrong, human actions are usually considered to be invariable so (again, in most philosophies). Though homosexuality may not be regarded as "holy" or "desirable" by some who do not regard it as "wrong" and may not be regarded as "disgusting" by some who do consider it "wrong".

As to religious and secular viewpoint: religion is one of those words everybody thinks they understand but nobody ever defines. Could not a religious person be a secular historian with secular studies under his belt and perhaps a few secular publications in various journals? Could not a religious person have a secular viewpoint if they looked through secular lenses? Or is religion life-consuming and, if so, can we call a secular humanist, whose secular humanism directs his actions and decisions, more religious than an animist or a sun-worshipper? I hope I made this clear as mud. Srnec 21:51, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Srnec, for intruding and informing.
It seems I have now understood the distinction, though I think that I needn't change anything about my using the terms interchangeably (with a tendency towards "moral", but that might be my occidental nature ;-) ).
Of course, economics and politics can be and are moral/ethical issues too.
Regarding "religious viewpoint", I think that this is a ploy to dismiss an argument by declaring it a "merely religious" viewpoint, when in fact most the point labelled this way have to do little with religion (abortion being the most outrageous case). 22:11, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Intro was incoherent

I just cut most of the intro out, so I thought I would defend why. Roughly 75% of the introduction consisted of a convoluted discussion of what is meant by "church," with some digression into the whether or not various religions are centralized. If we want to include all this text, we ought to make it a great deal more coherent than it was. But I don't think we need it at all. The phrase is defined perfectly well in the original intro. I cut:

The text read Some denominations trace the principle back to the founding of Christianity 2000 years ago. The term "church" refers to religions and religious institutions in general and their relationship to government; in countries with religions more predominant than Christianity, the words mosque, temple, or synagogue are often substituted. However, the "church" is far more similar to the religious institutions of other monotheistic faiths. Other religions (such as The Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Jainism, and hundreds of animist faiths) have religious institutions with varying levels of authority within the faith. For example, there is no centralized Hindu "temple," in the way that there is a centralized Roman Catholic Church. There is no contemporary dominant authoritative body for Taoists, Confucianists or Muslims. There is no similarity between religious institutions even inside monotheism.

Peace out. Ethan Mitchell 22:18, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed USA Voucher info

Schools that qualify for vouchers may or may not have religious affilations, but the original sentense implied vouchers would apply only to religious schools. The original intent was to give options to students in schools that were in the lower 50% of the nation and option for better schooling, not just religious schooling. Many SECULAR private schools still exist.

Confusion Between ACLU and Clarence Thomas

In the "United States of America" subsection of "Countries with separation," the ACLU's view and Clarence Thomas' seem to be the same, which confused me upon reading it. As is, both the ACLU and Thomas hold to the view that "no government can blatantly favor one faith or church over the others, or favor belief in God or the Supreme being over non-belief."eudaemonic3 04:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Subsection removal: American activism against separation

I have removed this subsection. It appears to be irrelevant to this article.

The first sentence of this article reads, "The separation of church and state is a political doctrine which states that the institutions of the state or national government should be kept separate from those of religious institutions." As I understand it, the idea is to keep government out of religious affairs and out of the affairs of religious institutions. As I understand it, the idea is not to keep religiously-grounded ideas, religious organizations, or religiously-motivated organizations or individuals out of political affairs. I don't see that ano of the cites websites advocating ending separation of church and state, in America or elsewhere.

===American activism against separation===
Their About us page says: WallBuilders is an organization dedicated to presenting America's forgotten history and heroes, with an emphasis on the moral, religious, and constitutional foundation on which America was built—a foundation which, in recent years, has been seriously attacked and undermined.
Their About us page says, in part: The Christian Coalition of America offers people of faith the vehicle to be actively involved in shaping their government - from the County Courthouse to the halls of Congress.
Their website describes their Mission as: Focus on the Family's Mission Statement: To cooperate with the Holy Spirit in disseminating the Gospel of Jesus Christ to as many people as possible, and, specifically, to accomplish that objective by helping to preserve traditional values and the institution of the family.
Their website says: The American Center for Law and Justice (ACLJ) is committed to insuring the ongoing viability of constitutional freedoms. By specializing in constitutional law, the ACLJ is dedicated to the concept that freedom and democracy are God-given inalienable rights that must be protected. The ACLJ engages in litigation, provides legal services, renders advice, counsels clients, provides education, and supports attorneys who are involved in defending the religious and civil liberties of Americans.
Their website describes their mission as: To inform, equip, motivate, and support Christians; enabling them to defend and implement the Biblical principles on which our country was founded.
As far as I could figure it out (not far), their website is focused on religious evangelism. -- Boracay Bill 18:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Further comment re the meaning of Separation in this article

After having made the subsection removal described above, I see on more careful reading that some parts of this article are written as if barring religiously-motivated persons and/or organizations from participating in government and/or in politics does fall within the definition of Separation of church and state for purposes of this article. I would disagree, but I think that the article less than crystal clear about this. -- Boracay Bill 23:27, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I second that. :) --Noypi380 08:08, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Substantial bias in this article, lack of citations, wide-spread weasel wording

CBadSurf 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Numerous areas of this article need to be reworked. Almost every section has weasel wording, shows a bias, or does not present citations to primary sources. In addition typographical errors in the article lead me to question the amount of care taken in authorship.

Some examples are:

"In fact, among the framers of the U.S. Constitution there were actually remarkably few devout religious men." No citation is given for this, and even if one was, how can you prove it objectively? Was a survey conducted? A vote taken? Thomas Jefferson was a deist -- could he not have been a devout deist?

"The colected (sic) writings of most of America's Founding Fathers show that these were men who were far more concerned with secular pursuits, than religious ones." Note misspelling. This is a biased statement with no objective relationship to the article. Again, there is no citation for this. The "collected writing" -- what writings exactly are you referring to? The "Founding Fathers" -- who do you include in this category (Please do not include US Grant)

"Most were worldly, well-eductated (sic) men - they were lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, diplomats, and even scientists." Note misspelling. Is this article saying that well-educated lawyers, businessmen, soldiers diplomats and scientists cannot be devoutly religious? For example, Blaise Pascal? This is so obviously not the case that this statement takes on a very biased viewpoint.

These are just a few examples. I am new to this article, but I miss the objectivity and neutrality present in most wikipedia articles.

I agree. I've made a start, because I dislike that this article has become a chest-pounding session for people from both sides of the divide. Collard 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm done cleaning up the "America's Founding Fathers" section. Good enough? Collard 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's utterly wrong...most of the Founders were most likely Christian in their beliefs. It'd take some work but you'd have to read up on each one to really see. For example, Washington was active in whichever church he attended, holding offices including vestryman. He was also a Mason which requires a belief in a Deity and the basic acknowledgement of the tenants of Jesus Christ to reach the 3rd Degree. Jefferson was a deist but he became more devout as he aged. About the only "Founder" who was truly not a Christian was probably Thomas Paine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Culmo80 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You are of course forgetting Benjamin Franklin, who can't be seriously considered a Christian; he was a religious skeptic who was good friends with Voltaire.--Isotope23 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is arguing that specific individuals were, or were not Christians. The issue here was that the blanket statement in the article, that there were "were actually remarkably few devout religious men," had no empirical basis in fact. [[CBadSurf 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)]]

United Kingdom

The reference to the united Kingdom is a little misleading, it's not enough to say that there is an established Church in the United Kingdom. The Anglican Church is the estaplished church only in England. The Episcopal Churches elsewhere in the UK (Church in Wales, Church of Ireland, and the Scotish Episcopal Church) are not established. The (Presbyterian) Church of Scotland is established in Scotland, elsewhere in the UK there is a separation of Church and State. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.254.200.224 (talk) 00:33, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


Substantial bias in this article, lack of citations, wide-spread weasel wording

CBadSurf 19:23, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Numerous areas of this article need to be reworked. Almost every section has weasel wording, shows a bias, or does not present citations to primary sources. In addition typographical errors in the article lead me to question the amount of care taken in authorship.

Some examples are:

"In fact, among the framers of the U.S. Constitution there were actually remarkably few devout religious men." No citation is given for this, and even if one was, how can you prove it objectively? Was a survey conducted? A vote taken? Thomas Jefferson was a deist -- could he not have been a devout deist?

    • This is no longer in the current version of the article. Collard 08:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

"The colected (sic) writings of most of America's Founding Fathers show that these were men who were far more concerned with secular pursuits, than religious ones." Note misspelling. This is a biased statement with no objective relationship to the article. Again, there is no citation for this. The "collected writing" -- what writings exactly are you referring to? The "Founding Fathers" -- who do you include in this category (Please do not include US Grant)

"Most were worldly, well-eductated (sic) men - they were lawyers, businessmen, soldiers, diplomats, and even scientists." Note misspelling. Is this article saying that well-educated lawyers, businessmen, soldiers diplomats and scientists cannot be devoutly religious? For example, Blaise Pascal? This is so obviously not the case that this statement takes on a very biased viewpoint.

    • See above. :) Collard 08:16, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

These are just a few examples. I am new to this article, but I miss the objectivity and neutrality present in most wikipedia articles.

I agree. I've made a start, because I dislike that this article has become a chest-pounding session for people from both sides of the divide. Collard 06:27, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm done cleaning up the "America's Founding Fathers" section. Good enough? Collard 14:16, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

It's utterly wrong...most of the Founders were most likely Christian in their beliefs. It'd take some work but you'd have to read up on each one to really see. For example, Washington was active in whichever church he attended, holding offices including vestryman. He was also a Mason which requires a belief in a Deity and the basic acknowledgement of the tenants of Jesus Christ to reach the 3rd Degree. Jefferson was a deist but he became more devout as he aged. About the only "Founder" who was truly not a Christian was probably Thomas Paine.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Culmo80 (talk • contribs) 19:23, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

  • You are of course forgetting Benjamin Franklin, who can't be seriously considered a Christian; he was a religious skeptic who was good friends with Voltaire.--Isotope23 20:16, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
  • No one is arguing that specific individuals were, or were not Christians. The issue here was that the blanket statement in the article, that there were "were actually remarkably few devout religious men," had no empirical basis in fact. [[CBadSurf 18:14, 16 December 2006 (UTC)]]

Argument removed

Can anyone find an example of this being used as an argument against church-state separation?

  • The requirement that public school teachers profess Christianity during the country's first 100 years

Not only can I not find any source for this argument being used, this seems rather counter-historical to me. America's public schools, AFAIK, were (and still are) being operated by authorities in each state. It seems difficult to believe that every state had such a requirement.

So I've removed this argument, but if this argument really is being used, it would only be fair to re-instate it.