Are you for or against the separation of church and state?

[MORETORQUE]

I am against both, they are always in bed together laying claim to the whole world.

[Darkstar]

For.

I am against both, they are always in bed together laying claim to the whole world.

Anarchy?

[Neo-Scholastic]

I am for the free exercise of religion. That means that if religion is central to your life, then you should be free to bring your religion with you wherever you go and into whatever you do. You may use it to inform your decisions and as a guide for the choices you make in public.

[festive1]

I am for the free exercise of religion. That means that if religion is central to your life, then you should be free to bring your religion with you wherever you go and into whatever you do. You may use it to inform your decisions and as a guide for the choices you make in public.

And that's just fine and dandy with me too, so long as it is not extended to making policies imposing those religious views on others (ie. teaching creationism in schools, not allowing divorce, etc.).

[radorth]

I'll be curious to see what the overall results of this poll will be, but I'm even more interested to hear what Christians have to say, particularly those who live in the United States.

But any and every point of view should make for some very interesting discussion.

I'm for separation until it becomes a kind of obsession, as it is with some.

Thomas Jefferson attended Protestant services in the capitol building. Most seprationsists would have a hissy fit if Bush or Obama did that, but then claim Jefferson wanted such separation. That's nonsense, a lie spread by separationists who have none of Jefferson's wisdom. He was president of the D.C school system too where the Bible was required reading. He knew the difference between a baby and its bathwater and made the distinction over and over. But of course to do so requires intelligent non-reactionary thought.

[smax]

I'll be curious to see what the overall results of this poll will be, but I'm even more interested to hear what Christians have to say, particularly those who live in the United States.

But any and every point of view should make for some very interesting discussion.

I'm for separation until it becomes a kind of obsession, as it is with some.

Thomas Jefferson attended Protestant services in the capitol building. Most seprationsists would have a hissy fit if Bush or Obama did that, but then claim Jefferson wanted such separation. That's nonsense, a lie spread by separationists who have none of Jefferson's wisdom. He was president of the D.C school system too where the Bible was required reading. He knew the difference between a baby and its bathwater and made the distinction over and over. But of course to do so requires intelligent non-reactionary thought.

I don't agree with your assessment of Thomas Jefferson, or his views, but that debate can wait.

What I am interested in is your initial statement:

I'm for separation until it becomes a kind of obsession, as it is with some.

This is extremely vague, and I for one would appreciate greater clarity on the subject.

Your statement indicates that you think some mixture of church and state is not only okay, but necessary.

Please expand on your response. Thanks.

---

I am for the free exercise of religion. That means that if religion is central to your life, then you should be free to bring your religion with you wherever you go and into whatever you do. You may use it to inform your decisions and as a guide for the choices you make in public.

Just so I understand your perspective, are you saying that a public school teacher should be able to promote his religious beliefs while teaching children in public school?

[ThomM]

For separationt

Obviously - unfounded beliefs should not be forced upon those who chose to be intelligent and not believe them

However - theists do not need to force their religion upon others in government as well - since they have their "higher" rules -

Example - if your religion is against abortion - don't have one. But if people want to do something that has been established to be legal - why do you need to enforce your beliefs on others - when you cannot legislate belief.

[MORETORQUE]

For.

I am against both, they are always in bed together laying claim to the whole world.

Anarchy?

No, intelligent people with simple intelligent laws. We can't have this because people are not intelligent.

Just look at religion and the state and what they have done in the past, present and future. Is that intelligent?

[Cato]

I'm for separation until it becomes a kind of obsession, as it is with some.

Thomas Jefferson attended Protestant services in the capitol building. Most seprationsists would have a hissy fit if Bush or Obama did that, but then claim Jefferson wanted such separation. That's nonsense, a lie spread by separationists who have none of Jefferson's wisdom. He was president of the D.C school system too where the Bible was required reading. He knew the difference between a baby and its bathwater and made the distinction over and over. But of course to do so requires intelligent non-reactionary thought.

I don't agree with your assessment of Thomas Jefferson, or his views, but that debate can wait.

Sorry smax, I can't let this go.

Radorth,

Picture of Jefferson's headstone (the contents of which were dictated by Jefferson):



Text of "An Act to Establish Religious Freedom" (see page 2):
http://www.calhum.org/files/uploads/prog...reedom.pdf

No debate required.

[frz]

For separation