Should government policies and institutions be separate from Religion? Why? Why not?

Does a secular government cause more problems that it resolves?

Should we move from Religion to Science?

Please discuss why or why not with the questions above.

I think it's fine as it is.

Yes, we should keep both seperate. Why? To put it simply, religion has no place in the government. If people want to practice their own personal religion, personally, fine, but to have religion active in the government means to stilt the government towards that religion (because if every religion is given an equal part in the government, the government becomes unworkable).

Also, it is the common assumption the religion in question is a positive one (for the most part). If the religion that holds control over the government is a horribly negative one (for example, the core belief is to kill off every single person in the world, or to start World War III), then the government would be a horrible government.

"Should we move from Religion to Science", what do you mean? Do you mean we as a society (the entire world) should abolish religion? Or do you mean as a form of government?

~John

I believe that goverments should be seperated form religions. Religions have a set of beliefs and rules that they feel are moral and right. These morals and rules can differ from religion to religion so by having one religion in charge it can outlaw or damage other religious practises. If you run the country as a secular country then you can never be blamed for being out right prejudice against other.

With a secular society the laws are made in the interest of the people or decorum, rather than to line up with any religion. It may outlaw more of one religions practises then another but it has done so by chance. Not on purpose.

I don't think we should move to science over religion, more to a Humanitarian point of view. Helping humanity because we want to, not because a God wants us to.

I think they should be separate. Freedom of religion is cool, having an official religion or anything is not.

Having "under God" in the pledge is not separation of church and state.

I believe that everyone should have free exercise of religion. I believe that "Under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance is fine, not necessary. I believe that government officials should be allowed to place religious tokens in their offices if they wish, but the government should never underwrite any religion.

By "the government" I mean any government, not just the US.

Exactly.



I disagree with the second point, and the third.

"Under God" is not seperation of Church and State.

Government officals may place such things in their own homes, not their offices. In much the same way that I may place whatever I wish inside my own home (posters, flags, etc.), I cannot do so in my place of work. Why? Because where I work is a public place, and as such is open to the public (or at anyrate, my office co-workers). My home, is open to me, and whoever I invite. I have the freedom to express my religion, and my personal tastes in my home, not my office. A government offical should be no different.

~John

It's because it's the only logical thing to do, and all the Western countries' founding fathers (From Washington to the Illuminism Philosophers right up to Bolivar and Morazán) agreed that the church had no business with the State... Might as well have the church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster have a say in government decisions too, dontchathink?

I don't think it's fair for officials not to be able to put religious tokens in their offices if they are allowed to put other personal things there. If religion is very important to someone they should be allowed to display that, as long as their religious beliefs don't com before their duty to the people.

The thing is, somehow people take into account religion when voting (think calling Obama a muslim to get him less votes... Or many political leaders trying to go as often as possible to church and act as religious as possible), which is IMO pretty stupid, and wouldn't allow an atheist man to run up for candidate, because atheists are ebil, right?

Wrong. They believed that the state should not endorse a religion as a whole.

This does not include religious tokens in offices. This means they didn't want The American Church.

Religion should stay separated from government. And by religion, I mean belief in a god, afterlife, etc, because you don't need that to have a good government. Using religion to influence decisions is bound to stir up all sorts of problems because there are so many different types of religions. But still, I'm ok with the whole "In God we trust" and pledging on the bible because that doesn't really interfere with justice

By that logic, I can say that atheists shouldn't be allowed because atheism shouldn't be factored into decisions.

My opinion is divided, where I think it's right that religion and government stay separate so they don't influence policy, I do believe religion should be involved with politics. I just think that whatever the government believes, it should NEVER be forced onto other people. I believe in free thinking, I believe the government should be a weak force which never tells us how to live our lives unless it dangers other people, or ourselves. However, I do believe the government should fund religion, and definitely listen to it, this way anger and bad tensions will be avoided.

An interesting thing would be to see how many people agree with Israel, a Jewish state. Their are only 12 million Jews in the world, however Israel harbors nearly half of them in their "holy land". But obviously this has put imminence pressures on the middle east. In my opinion it was not the smartest move as Israel seems to be like a united states puppet. Infact, the United States gave the same amount of aid to Israel, a very small country and the whole 3rd world, about 3 billion people. (Gave both around 63$ Billion). And look what it's done, turned the whole of middle east into a war zone, with wars left right and center, with Israel bombing Iraq and threats to bomb Iran. And all of this is due to a religious difference, doesn't seem right the religion can kill millions of people like this.

There is no simple answer to this. One size doesn't fit all. Many of the previous respondents have assumed that this question pertains to the USA. Others have assumed Western Democracy in general. But there are many, many forms of government, and some lend themselves effectively to theocratic institutions.

Some current (and recent) theocracies include Iran, Tibet (prior to Chinese annexation / government in exile) and the Vatican City.

Many nations have religious elements to their constitution and function perfectly well as modern states such as my own United Kingdom.

Many religions dictate so many aspects of a life and culture as to effectively be a form of government to their adherents such as the Amish community and those muslim nations that subscribe to Sharia law.

Still other states have no religious element to their government, though one might think they do such as Israel.

So the overall answer has to be, it depends on the particular circumstances. I think there is a place for religion in government - as long as that religiousness does not impose upon the freedoms of those that do not adhere to it, either within or beyond the borders of that nation. Specifically, if someone decided that such a religious nation was not to their liking, they should be completely at liberty to migrate beyonds its borders or opt out of certain religious elements of the law.

On the flip side, I'm not at all concerned about secular forms of government. I'd hesitate to say they should be "scientific" in their outlook. Science is limited. Science doesn't tell us right from wrong or make any other value judgements. Science is used to predict outcomes based on actions - nothing more. Science will tell us just how much cyanide is sufficient to kill everyone in a gas chamber, not that it is wrong to do so. To transpose our faith from religion to science would be misguided. Instead, we should trust our personal humanity to lead us into the light of human potential - and seek government accordingly.

Should government policies and institutions be separate from Religion? Why? Why not?

Yes. take for example the U.S. How many different religions are there?? and whos to say which religion is the right one? (if any)

@Choc/Slashing: I finally learned the reason for Israel's desperation.

As you are probably aware, the Romans ransacked Jerusalem in 70 AD. Later that year, the Jews were found to be holed up in a small mountain settlement. I don't remember the name. Anyway, the Romans attacked the settlement along the mountain trail, but the Jews were able to hold off the Romans--the gate only allowed three, maybe four Romans to attack at once, whereas the Jews could line up as many fighting men as they wished. Finally, the Romans, having lost hundreds, if not thousands of men, decided to use a ram. Over several weeks, the ram battered through the wall. Finally, the Jewish leaders realized that the wall was only going to last until the next day. They decided to commit mass suicide. In the end, a woman and a child survived by hiding, and told the story to the Romans, who found thousands of Jews, all stabbed to death.

Then of course there was the Holocaust.

In short, the Israeli, if not Jewish battle cry is "never again"--hence, they don't want anyone who "doesn't belong" in Israel.

In my opinion, Religion is obsolete in Politics nowadays, and anyone who pushes for a change because Jesus would like it or something is stupid.

I'd go as far to say that Religion has only 2 points - solace and putting your life towards a good cause. And you can get that elsewhere.

Giving religion too much importance in politics has never lead to anything positive.

I'm all for secularism. Religion has nothing to do with politics and it should not influence a too big part of our laws and politics.