Should Church and State be related?

[RobDonkey]

I personally think not.

The State is in a bad enough - oh no, pun coming up - state - haha - as it is without religion getting involved.

[basstard]

I think this can depend on both the Church (or indeed simply religion) involved, and the state.

Here is one example - the Christian Bible, book of Exodus, chapter 21, verses 23 to 25.

23 If any harm follows, then you shall give life for life, (24) eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, (25) burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe.

It is reasonable to say that if we all followed the 'eye for an eye' principal literally, the whole world would be blind pretty quickly. Then again, this, like most of the Bible, is open to interpretation. For the record, that was from the The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, as it was easily findable online.

For the record, the Quran also contains this principle - termed Qisas - but also prescribes that one should seek compensation (Diyya) and not demand retribution. Which is ignored in some countries that follow Sharia and take it literally...

Sorry, I'll stop wikidumping now. The Bible (and Quran) both offer good moral rules to live our lives by (for example, the Ten Commandments), but those are not enough to rule countries by, by themselves (if they were we wouldn't have speed cameras!). More to the point, again, they are open to interpretation - look at Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions (and die) due to a very very obscure piece of Bible translation for one way in which interpretations can do damage.

I think, most of all, it seems a bit daft that the Church and the State should be interlinked these days - bearing in mind the number of religious people (or at least the number who attend church) is dropping rapidly - and that people are of many different and diverse religions. Source of this info - 2001 Scottish census. Just over two thirds of Scotland's population admitted having a religion. Admittedly, after that, there was 42% of Church of Scotland religion, 15% Roman Catholic and 6% other Christian, so I guess that is potentially an argument for Scotland to be more state-religion linked.

And now for the flip side - France is a country in which religion and state are kept very separate (they decided a while back it was your choice whether to be religious or not). The biggest difference - and the most controversial - is the bannage of any religious symbols in state schools. Which is a bit annoying if you are Sikh and your religion says you have to wear a turban. Or if you are Christian and like to wear a cross (just in case the vampires attack)...


This slightly rambly post was brought to you by a Christian, for the record.

[Darkscull]

I'm not sure if there is anyone on here who will argue that they should be related... I can't even think of any reasons to put forward as a devil's advocate (ironic term here, really), and i'm religious myself, in a way.

[RobDonkey]

I think this can depend on both the Church (or indeed simply religion) involved, and the state.

Here is one example - the Christian Bible, book of Exodus, chapter 21, verses 23 to 25.



It is reasonable to say that if we all followed the 'eye for an eye' principal literally, the whole world would be blind pretty quickly. Then again, this, like most of the Bible, is open to interpretation. For the record, that was from the The New Revised Standard Version (Anglicized Edition), copyright 1989, 1995 by the Division of Christian Education of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the United States of America, as it was easily findable online.

For the record, the Quran also contains this principle - termed Qisas - but also prescribes that one should seek compensation (Diyya) and not demand retribution. Which is ignored in some countries that follow Sharia and take it literally...

Sorry, I'll stop wikidumping now. The Bible (and Quran) both offer good moral rules to live our lives by (for example, the Ten Commandments), but those are not enough to rule countries by, by themselves (if they were we wouldn't have speed cameras!). More to the point, again, they are open to interpretation - look at Jehovah's Witnesses who refuse blood transfusions (and die) due to a very very obscure piece of Bible translation for one way in which interpretations can do damage.

I think, most of all, it seems a bit daft that the Church and the State should be interlinked these days - bearing in mind the number of religious people (or at least the number who attend church) is dropping rapidly - and that people are of many different and diverse religions. Source of this info - 2001 Scottish census. Just over two thirds of Scotland's population admitted having a religion. Admittedly, after that, there was 42% of Church of Scotland religion, 15% Roman Catholic and 6% other Christian, so I guess that is potentially an argument for Scotland to be more state-religion linked.

And now for the flip side - France is a country in which religion and state are kept very separate (they decided a while back it was your choice whether to be religious or not). The biggest difference - and the most controversial - is the bannage of any religious symbols in state schools. Which is a bit annoying if you are Sikh and your religion says you have to wear a turban. Or if you are Christian and like to wear a cross (just in case the vampires attack)...


This slightly rambly post was brought to you by a Christian, for the record.


If you are religious you should be allowed to display it. Daily Collective Worship (assemblies) should be banned in state schools. I am sick to death of bumbling old men trying to tell me I'm evil. If I wanted to be told that I'd go to church.

[mordark]

ye good point and at our school they stopped people waerin what they wud for their religion

[Splush]

I think any any and all religion should be totally separate from the state, and the lack of formal separation in the UK does bother me, but there are different degrees of separation. Like I can't really get behind France's rules banning conspicuous religion apparel in schools. I realise they're doing it in the interests of strictly maintaining a secular society, which I support, but they're interfering with personal freedom at the same time.

I'd agree with what basstard was talking about, that the holy books of any of the abrahamic religions are a poor foundation to build a legal system on.

[RobDonkey]

You can either have freedom or equality. Not both.

[Splush]

What's equality got to do with it?

[Aladdin Sane]

Likewise, it is my opinion that the state and religion should always be kept separate; neither has any role in the other, or indeed any right to meddle in the other. And when they do the results can be messy.

As such, I do not currently agree with the system we have in place in the UK, whereby our head of state is also the head of Church of England.

However, the banning of people wearing religious symbols in places such as schools does not strike me as strictly necessary. The state is still secular, the school is still secular, so what should it matter if someone wishes to display their own religion, as long as this is an entirely individual action?

[Sloth]

All government and educational institutions should be strickly Buddhist.

[Rook]

It is reasonable to say that if we all followed the 'eye for an eye' principal literally, the whole world would be blind pretty quickly.
I not sure I agree with that; if it was done properly and without restraint, it would act as a damn good deterrent. If you've ever read a book called Number of the Beast (by an author whose other morals I seriously disagree with, but that's not the point), within is described a state that, while not church run, has religion as a major and central pillar of society.

The laws that exist are mostly quite basic (no theft, murder, rape, etc.), and the system of enforcement is simple too. In the book, the system is called 'balancing' (as opposed to calling it punishment), and runs thus: if a person commits a crime, the immediate effects are repeated upon the perpetrator. So, if you hit someone in your car due to reckless driving and the person's leg is broken as a result, a section of highway will be cordoned off, and you will be held down at the side of the road while someone drives over your leg.

Murderers are killed in a manner matching their own method, and (quoted from the book) "I won't describe what they do to rapists". Suffice it to say, crime is not a major issue, granted that due to certain circumstances the population is much smaller than today's.


Back on topic, I personally don't think that having a theocracy would make much difference; running a state is a tough job, and no matter who tries to do it, mistakes will be made. I'm happy with what I've got, and even though I have my complaints, I don't think anyone else could do any better.

[Splush]

The problem with applying lessons from the bible to a legal system is surely having to choose which lessons to take, between "eye for an eye" old testament stuff and "turn the other cheek" new testament stuff. It seems like any reasonable legal system would be somewhere in the middle.

I think the concept of people voluntarily subscribing to religious law within a (relatively) secular society is really interesting, like Sharia courts in Britain dealing with the problems and disputes of people that subscribe to them operating at a higher level than the official legal system, creating a two-tier system of law and order for some sections of society. I'd be a bit wary of letting Sharia have any power personally, but the idea of voluntary community-based justice systems within a larger society is interesting. Perhaps people can have all the religious rule they like within a strictly secular society.

[Smartie]

I think the concept of people voluntarily subscribing to religious law within a (relatively) secular society is really interesting, like Sharia courts in Britain dealing with the problems and disputes of people that subscribe to them operating at a higher level than the official legal system, creating a two-tier system of law and order for some sections of society. I'd be a bit wary of letting Sharia have any power personally, but the idea of voluntary community-based justice systems within a larger society is interesting. Perhaps people can have all the religious rule they like within a strictly secular society.

If the UK were to give Sharia Law, and indeed Halakha (Jewish Talmudic and rabbinic law, customs and traditions) or any other kind of religious Law some power, we need to be careful of overshadowing The Law of the Land in terms of illegal acts, and how those are punishable.
What one law may consider illegal, another may not, but to the beliefs of the religion. I need only point out the fact that closer to home, in Ireland, abortion is still illegal (essentially due the force of the Catholic Church), despite the UK legalising it some 40 years ago in 1967. Whether you agree with it or not, faith influences laws and untimately affects peoples rights.
This poses many potential problems in a multi-faith society.

I'm interested to know that if in countries like Israel, or in the many where Sharia Law rules, would those countries even given a second thought to entertaining any other kind of law that might overshadow or disagree with their religious laws? Would a Christian Law even be considered - I suspect not, but then again, would a Christian group want to go to another country under religious rule and start demanding secular Law is implimented. I strongly suspect not. I'm a firm believer that in which ever country you are living you respect and live by their rules. This surely impacts on ones human rights though.

Whilst the UK is a multi-cultural, multi-faith society, we do need to remember the foundations upon which our Laws were based. Providing they're sensible and appropriate for the times we live in, then really what's the problem with that? The UK is such a liberal and forwarding thinking place to live, and I think many of us ought to be grateful that our laws are based on modern Christian thinking, rather than some of the more archaic and unyielding theologies used in other countries.

[Splush]

A two-tier legal system like that certainly couldn't be taken lightly, and there'd have to be a lot of safeguards in place, like the Sharia system would have to remain in an inferior position to the official laws of the land so that it couldn't overpower them.

Don't get me wrong, I vastly prefer the UK's legal principles to those of Sharia and I wouldn't voluntarily submit myself to anything like that, it's just the idea of voluntary legal systems that's interesting to me, it seems like if handled right it could solve some conflict in society. It's a kind of anarchic communalism in a sense, small communities defining their own rules within a greater society, it seems like it could be the antidote to the individualism and homogenisation that people are so afraid of.

(Also I just wanted to say something a bit controversial because this thread was full of people agreeing with each other :))

[the baker]

I don't think they should. I really don't like the idea that everyone (including moi, of course) have to pay for somebody else's expensive religion (Christianity) here in Norway. If they were hardcore, they'd repair their churches themselves.

And especially since there can either be one religion dominating the others, (like it is at the moment) or a whole bunch of religions with different ideas. Chaos.

I also think that it's wrong that I were a member of the church from the day I was born. It can be compared to getting born into a political party. And people don't bother to sign out, or isn't aware of it. So it stays that way.

[Ozzylator]

Any state with a multi-faith population should have, in government, the laws of each faith represented equally and without favour over any other faith, no matter how small its practicing population - the only way of ensuring such a circumstance is by not governmentally representing faith whatsoever, and permitting each faith to practice its own laws within the constraints of state law.

[Twatybollocks]

Why learn anything at school past the basics if you're not even sure what education you are going to need for your future job yet? The answer, so you have a choice when you are old enough to decide for yourself.

I'm all for the state promoting religous education in schools to help with general awareness and understanding as well as providing enough information so you can decide if you want to progress any further when you are older.

All religions teach a basic positive moral code so this is another reason to have some connection between the state and religion.

Basically if we all had a choice as kids we wouldn't bother with religion but then again if we had a choice we wouldn't have done most of the stuff at school!

[RobDonkey]

I wasn't baptised. I was the first person not to be in my family. I'm so glad I wasn't. My sister wanted to get my niece done as a Catholic. Despite the fact she's not one herself. It seems like her Nana is interfering again.

Let children choose when they can actually make choices. Don't tell them what to do. They just don't like it. Loads of them, like me, will end up fighting the system.

[Ozzylator]

Why learn anything at school past the basics if you're not even sure what education you are going to need for your future job yet? The answer, so you have a choice when you are old enough to decide for yourself.

I'm all for the state promoting religous education in schools to help with general awareness and understanding as well as providing enough information so you can decide if you want to progress any further when you are older.

All religions teach a basic positive moral code so this is another reason to have some connection between the state and religion.

Basically if we all had a choice as kids we wouldn't bother with religion but then again if we had a choice we wouldn't have done most of the stuff at school!

Religious studies are a different matter to Religion's influence on a state. I'm wholeheartedly in favour of religious studies, as long as they are multi-faith in basis.

[Splush]

I don't think anybody would seriously want RS removed from the curriculum, although maybe people have concerns about it not being objectively taught, and being a form of indoctrination to an extent. My experiences were nothing like that though and I'm very thankful for RS, my understanding of current national and international events would be worthless if I didn't have a basic understanding of the major religions.

In fact I would have preferred more, for instance I still don't feel like I know enough about the differences between different types of protestantism. The way RS was taught to me I didn't really know that christianity came in so many different flavours until my late teens.

[RobDonkey]

Up until year 7 in RS they were trying to make me believe in God and all that. This probably kick-started my distrust towards religion.

[livewirekitty]

For some reason, this question made me remember a bumper sticker that I had on my first car.
"The last time we mixed politics with religion, people got burned at the stake"
It's a real sticker, I swear! (http://www.now.org/cgi-bin/store/BS-TLT.html)
Any state with a multi-faith population should have, in government, the laws of each faith represented equally and without favour over any other faith, no matter how small its practicing population - the only way of ensuring such a circumstance is by not governmentally representing faith whatsoever, and permitting each faith to practice its own laws within the constraints of state law.

I'll take this a bit further, not only should the government not favor or represent a certain religion, the government should not allow the lobbyists of that particular religion to influence secular law or grants. It's happened here in the US with issues like planned parenthood clinics being shut down due to Christian groups protesting and saying where the money should go. Who gave religion leaders the right to say what I can and can't do with my body? If I'm not breaking any secular laws regarding what I put in my body and who I have sex with, why should they stick their collective noses in and say whether my decision is a good or bad one? For me, it doesn't matter what religion the leader represents, they are supposed to be a spiritual guides for the followers of their religion(s).

If religious studies are taught objectively, they can be a useful tool for day to day interpersonal relationships. But, teach it at an age where the nuances of religion can be understood better. I don't believe it should be taught in elementary school. That's the time to start with the ABC's not the God vs. Evolution debate.

All religions teach a basic positive moral code so this is another reason to have some connection between the state and religion.
Shouldn't religion teaching of a positive moral code be the icing on the cake and not the whole basis of a person's code of ethics? Isn't teaching a child to share their toys and not call people "poopy heads" building such a code? Isn't this another part of what parents start teaching their kids and let experience finish?

[gembird]

Personally, I don't think that religion and government should mix, but they have to communicate. What I mean is, the beliefs of the people in charge of a country should have as little effect on the laws and the people as possible, but the religious leaders should be able to give their input in a way that makes things fair whatever someone believes.

There are a lot of countries where that doesn't happen- one religion (or more usually, one denomination of a religion) dictates what happens in that country. And most of the time, those countries have stricter laws and a lot less freedom for certain members of society than countries which have a more balanced view.

I understand that religious texts are the basis for moral codes and whatnot, but there are plenty of people who are non-religious/atheist/humanist/whatever and still have the same basic moral code of all well-adjusted human beings: don't kill, steal, rape etc. It's the little details which are changed when religion is involved, like which day you go and sit somewhere to talk to your god(s), or what meat you can eat. Also, it's funny how a lot of the religions that say they're peace-loving that are a pain in the arse... the ones that just get on with things are a lot less trouble.