Separation of Church and State

(copied image)

Politics is definitely not my strong area; however, a recent political news headline caught my attention. It was regarding Mr Santorum’s proclamation that “I almost threw up’ when he revisited President Kennedy’s speech about the separation of church and state. Mr Santorum indicated that the former president had done wrong to not showcase his faith through politics. The news headline was very important because I do not believe in integrating church and state and I fully support people having religious freedom ie. the right to choose their beliefs.

Mr Santorum’s views can be very dangerous in the fact that he would be given federal rights to impose his (or any other politician’s) religious views and beliefs onto others which can easily become oppressive in the hands of an overzealous egotistical fanatic. One very interesting issue is that if this church and state union was in place (as Mr Santorum had wished during the Kennedy presidency), what would life look like? Mr Kennedy identified as Catholic; therefore, Catholicism would be the religion and practice of the masses. The laws of the land would also follow those views as well. Would our current president even be allowed to run for office due to persistent but misleading rumors of a Muslim affiliation? Many have used and is still using religion as a means of control and power. People need to realize that religion in politics is not democratic but autocratic-there can be only ONE.

The wonderful thing about democracy is the opportunity to bring about change by the people. With religion, there is no such thing and we see that today with the Vatican, Iran and other countries with church and state unions. Religious liberty is a wonderful thing. Many people may not think much about religious freedom until it is gone. God gave us the right to choose “whom we want to serve” and many people have exercised that right including Mr Santorum and even those who use religion to do evil.

Mr Santorum has been quoted as saying that the current president’s theology is not based on the bible. However, in reports, Mr Santorum has stated that he does not support birth control and suggests home schooling which are two things not in the bible. We all interpret the bible slightly different; hence, the reason for many different denominations. Would Mr Santorum and others of his views support a church state union if the ruling party had very differing biblical views from his? Or is it more transparent in which people who yell church and state union really want their religious views in power.

I am sure there are many politicians who have Christian beliefs and some who are even honest. However, the issue with trying to gain ultimate power is that one has to play dirty most of the time to stay on top. Power and corruption are bedfellows and even the men in the bible who were religious-political powerhouses faced their own moments of corruptions-some repented and others continued to fall. The world is definitely not the ideal paradise but I would rather support a world in which I have the religious freedom to choose how and whom I serve.


9 thoughts on “Separation of Church and State

  1. What about the Muslim religion? If there is a blending of church and state, it cannot be limited to Christianity. Does Santorum realize that?

    If Christians want to follow their faith-based doctrines in their everyday life, that’s their prerogative. But NEVER should their beliefs be forced upon others who do not believe as they do. If someone like Santorum ends up in the oval office, I’m afraid this is exactly what will happen.

    1. There *isn’t* going to be a blending of church and state. That is what Santorum is saying. He is simply striving to see to it that *government* tells no-one what to do. That has never been the place of government. Obama is just the opposite–he’s happily promoting homosexuality, abortion, socialism, and eliminating the freedoms of numerous religions. Freedoms our nation was founded on.

  2. It’s not about government imposing any religious view on anyone. It’s about guarding basic freedoms so people *can* choose and live out their faith if they want to. Obama has done nothing but attack this view–forcing religious people to violate their conscience to promote government-endorsed and taxpayer-funded abortion (which has nothing to do with healthcare); let alone numerous other corruption charges and breaches of our Constitution.

    1. This explains it a bit more clearly:

      “What concerns Santorum–and other religious conservatives–is Kennedy’s insistence that leaders shouldn’t base their decisions on faith but on personal conviction. That goes beyond the institutional separation of church and state to something far more menacing: a separation of truth and morality from the public space. What Kennedy described–and President Obama now embraces–is a society where people don’t acknowledge God or His role in informing their consciences. Thanks to the Obama administration, we’ve all learned where this “separation” leads: to a secularized public square, where Americans can be ordered to either ignore their beliefs or act against them. The difference between 1960 and today is that the greatest violator of the so-called separation of the church and state is the state! Fifty years ago, it would have been impossible to believe that the government would one day require a church to violate its teachings with something like a contraception mandate.”

      1. Interestingly, that’s one interpretation of President Kennedy’s speech. I have read others who interpreted it as the president wanted to protect religious freedom and allowing others to practice their faith without fear of one religion imposing their morals on others. I agree that people really should have a choice in what their tax money funds but that is not always the case when it comes to any government. I don’t agree with abortion but I am also concerned with women who are butchered in back door abortion clinics and banning contraception will not make this situation any better, I don’t agree with millions going to new war technology and hardly enough to the schools, community hospital etc or politician who gave themselves hefty pay raises. It was not too long ago when politicians and men in power used their religious conscience to class groups of people as less than human. The fine line keeps shifting back and forth according to change in society.

  3. Well said. Christians tend to think that Separation of Church and State means the moral decline of Western Civilization but in reality the Church would have to give up freedom to be integrated in any way with the government because then Theology would be dictated by the Constitution rather that scripture.

    On the other hand, anti-Christian self-proclaimed rationalists believe that any hint of a politician’s religious beliefs influencing their legislation is a violation of the Church/State apathied.

    1. The catch 22 issue of a little belief in politics is too much and having non is very bad. The day when humans beings are not self-serving will be the day when Church and State can become one. I will not be holding my breath. 🙂

Tell Me What You Think

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s