Church and State 1.0

First off the reason I am writing this is because in my last post. I was not able to clearly define what I meant by separation of The Church and The State. I did not realize this until I had an opportunity to talk to several individuals who made me realize this. So because of these chats I have had I am going to try and give it another go. See if I can get the point across that I had originally wanted to convey. So hopefully I am able to get my full complete view on this matter across to you.

To start I think I need to start at the beginning of where we as in the United States was founded and what principles we were founded on pertaining to this subject. The groups of people that first colonized the Americas after it was discovered were mainly groups of people that wanted religious freedom. Up until that point almost every government in Europe had a State sponsored religion. These groups didn't agree with the specific teaching of that sponsored religion. So they came to America to believe as they wanted. Then when our government was set up and we won independence from our ties to Europe we set up a government that did not have a state sponsored religion. I called this separation of Church and State I believe this is the most basic form of it. In my previous post I was really in my mind only addressing this issue. The problem is I failed to realize that this statement covers a much larger area of problems for many people.

So I'm going to go over slightly what I said before and add some to it as well as try and cover the other aspects that I missed. First off I believe that we cant have a state sponsored religion for mainly two reasons. They are very simple I think all except extremists could agree on them. The first is goes back to why the majority of original pioneers came to America. This is because we have many different religions in our country. It would not be fair to force one belief system on every person. I could go into more detail on this but I think that this statement sums it up.
Secondly the other reason is I don't want a religious group to have control over the government. The reason why is, I think man is corrupt when put into positions of power. Now this could be said for leaders in government positions. Here is the difference between the two in my mind. Almost every religion I have known or studied has said that you have to go on faith to get to heaven. In my mind this means not questioning the scriptures or your religious leaders. In a government leaders are and should always be questioned as to why they do things it may not keep leaders from going corrupt but it does at the very least minimize what they can do without being put out of power. That is the difference for me. This is what I was trying to cover in my original post.

Now moving on to the aspects of what I failed to mention. There are large groups of people in this country that think that the term separation of the church and state means taking out every single symbol and phrase that refers to God from every form of government. I personally don't believe that this is what this phrase means. I see these religious symbols not as a representation of what we all believe but as a representation of the history and tradition of this country's origins. Its kind of like a sports team. A team is usually proud of what they have accomplished so they put up their trophy's they have won and the put up newspaper articles about themselves. To show where they came from and what they have over come. Now other members that join the team later don't have to agree with the methods used to attain those victory's. They can still respect the fight that the team went though to get where they are now. Regardless of wither its what they believe the team needs now. Its the teams heritage and that should never be forgotten. Its more a representation of history then a religious view.

Going back to what I said earlier about religious leaders in government positions. I need to clarify a few items at this point. I have no problem with a very religious man filling a government position. This individual can be as religious as they want. However, they cannot ask the people to blindly follow their choices based on their faith. Every decision they make has to be evaluated to make sure the majority of people agree with it.

I believe I have covered what I view as religion in government. Now I want to clarify what other people may consider religious laws but I just define as morals laws. There are certain laws that our government and other governments enforce. These laws follow a set of morals or ethics that coincide with what many religions teach. Here is the principle of what I think these laws are based on. If the action of one infringes on the rights of another then it is morally wrong. These basic laws I think should never be changed such as murder, theft, rape, and slavery ect... They are very clear cut. These laws very much go along with what the ten commandments state. There original source may even be the Ten Commandments ,but regardless of the source they follow the principle that I stated earlier. At this point it doesn't matter if they were a commandment or not because by violating them you are violating the rights of others.

Now I do understand that morals vary by time, place, and people which is a long way of saying culture. So I have to divide morals into two different sets. The first I just explained, im going to call it Governing Morals. The second is much more complex I'm going to call it Culture Morals. It could be argued that any action taken would infringe on the rights of others. This is where Culture Morals come into play. Ill give an example in Italy it is not illegal to take someones possessions as long as you do not take it by force. So pickpocketing is legal you wont go to jail for it. In the states it is considered stealing and you will go to jail. Are either of these laws not ethical? In my mind because of where I grew up I would not think of pickpocketing as ethical. However, none of the Italians I have met and asked about this law have a problem with it. They say your not hurting anyone, and if you cant keep a hold of your money its your problem. So at this point Id like to tell you about my next stage in the process. So first you check and see if it infringes on the rights of others. Then if a solution cannot be made It has to go to what the majority of people in the area thinks is moral. For example a county passes a law that there not going to sell alcohol after 9pm. It could be argued that this law infringes on the rights of those people in the county that want to purchase alcohol after this time. If the majority of people in that county don't think its right to sell after 9pm then that law should be respected. It has nothing to do with where those individuals in the county got the idea that its wrong. It could have been church it doesn't matter because the majority feels that it is the moral thing to do. It could go the other way as far as gambling is concerned. If the majority of people in a state feel that lottery is a good program and have no morals against it. Then it should be respected by the rest of the population in that area. The thing is with Culture Morals they only work at a local level. What one town feels is right my be different from the next and what one county thinks is right may be different from the surrounding county's and it goes up to state, country, and then world. Its kind of like on google maps the zoom button. What I am getting at with this is, not every law needs to apply on every level. Some laws are fine if the inhabinets of that area agree with it. In short the majority of the population rules when it comes to Cultural Morals.

I have to quickly cover one last area. If you go to a global scale and say that Al-Qaeda and the Taliban believe it is morally right to kill individuals from western cultures and there is a big enough group of individual saying that this is right. Are they right to kill those people? Well just like Culture Morals Governing Morals do apply at a global scale. The majority of the world doesn't think that this is moral but even if they did that directly affects the rights to live of a western cultured people. Just a quick example to show how I think it applys at a global level.

What I have described above is what takes place in lawmaking with a few minor deviations. First off we are a republic so not everyone is going to vote on every law. We elect individuals that make the laws for us according to those who elected them. Which is the majority of the people that elected them. Then this basic process that I described takes place. You check the law to see if it goes against the Governing Morals then if you cant make a decision based on that you move on to Culture Morals.

That is the way I see the system. Now I think its a good system every system has its faults but overall this one works. This is how I understand the separation of Church and State and how our values and morals apply to it. I again employ you that if you disagree with my point of view to explain to me why. So I can see it though another persons eyes because I know I haven't hit this subject right on the head. I know I am missing pieces. If you dont have an account id appreciate you making one even if its only to respond.