This topic is a bit off the beaten path, but sometimes I just need to get back to the real world and worry about real things. If you feel uncomfortable about talking politics and such then no problem. If you want to read this and post a comment, any and all opinions are welcomed.
I know that Politics is a sticky subject and one that many people shy away from, but for me Political dialogue is an important part of our Democracy. Our Constitution does not directly state that there should be a “separation of church and state”, but it is something that is inferred in our First Amendment which expressly prohibits Congress from making laws ” respecting an establishment of religion” or prohibiting the free exercise of religious laws that infringe on the freedom of speech, the freedom of the press, the freedom of peaceable assembly, and the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
From Wikipedia:
The phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a “wall of separation” between church and state. The phrase was then quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.
The reason that I bring this up here is that this Saturday evening, August 16, 2008, both Barack Obama and John McCain will be interviewed by Pastor Rick Warren at his Saddleback Church in Orange County, California. While I respect any person of faith regardless of whichever faith they believe in, I am not sure how I feel about our to presumptive Presidential Candidates being involved in such a forum. They will be broaching many subjects, one of which will be Abortion Rights. This is where I become concerned about the concept of “separation of church and state.” I am of the opinion that the line between the two has continued to become more and more blurred.
I have stated my case. Now I will leave it up to whomever cares to enter here to read any further. As I stated before, any and all opinions are accepted. I will not be surprised however to see no comments and that is OK as well.
Article after the jump.
Pages: 1 2
RSS - Posts
By another meaning for “respect” in the first amendment is prohibit, so it would read; Congress shall make no law prohibiting an establishment of religion.
If you read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, you realise he was reasuring them that the goverment would not interfere with any religion (the Baptists were a minority in that time, they had been persecuted during the English reign)
When I heard of this event, my feelings were much the same.
This will be the first appearance of the two candidates on the same stage and I feel somewhat conflicted by the venue for the appearance.
To comment on the comment above by solar
[i]
If you read Thomas Jefferson’s letter to the Danbury Baptists, you realise he was reasuring them that the goverment would not interfere with any religion[/i]
Thomas Jefferson certainly meant for the reverse to be true – that no religion should interfere with the government. I fear that has been compromised by the current administration.
Rick Warren is the leader of a religious movement. He does not represent all Americans yet he has a huge following that continues to grow. His questions and moderation of this discussion will be of much interest to me as well as how the candidates present their positions. If you read the article in TIME you know Rick Warrens positions which are the same as those of the Republican right. I am most interested to see if Obama stands strong !!
A necessary move on Jefferson’s part in that he and the other ‘Founding Fathers’ were striving to maintain unity, cohesiveness and above all establish a land unlike the one they had left behind.
The example that solar1 references exemplifies one major tenet of our country.
Regarding Obama and McCain having an interview within a church, no matter the type of house of worship doesn’t sit well with me either. This should be held in an open forum that would not bias the answers either candidate might have to offer – especially the abortion issue.
The imagery too, of the prospective leaders of this nation being featured together in church lends to the impression they are encouraging religion over government. It’s almost like a manipulation, too leading the people to the religious format.
Last year there were a few little girls handing out pamphlets in the doorway of our school during the car pool time period. The material was about Christianity, their having prayer meetings to pray for everyone each Wednesday. They called themselves, “Gods Girls” and invited anyone who wanted to join them to do so. This in lieu that our school won’t recognize Christmas, won’t recognize Christian holidays, no prayer in the school. Too, it is in the district’s bylaws that solicitation on campus not allowed for special interest groups.
I was disturbed by the God’s Girls for a few reasons. One, the fact they called themselves that in Caps, the way they were handing out the material with beatific smiles on their faces – you know as if they were somehow much more special than the not God’s Girls and Boys. Also since prayer not allowed in our classrooms, so why at the front door of our school were the God’s Girls allowed to hold court and hand out pamphlets? I must be wrong for having had those emotions, but I couldn’t help it. I did not like having those pamphlets pushed on kids and parents entering the school building. Don’t get me wrong, I’m not an agnostic or atheist, but I did not like the whole situation.
It seems that I am not alone in my sentiments. I am a firm believer in putting the Constitution in context of the times we live in. The Constitution needs to be viewed as a living and breathing document always changing as we change.
Even Thomas Jefferson understood this when he said this in 1816:
“I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions. But laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. We might as well require a man to wear still the coat which fitted him when a boy as civilized society to remain ever under the regimen of their barbarous ancestors.”
This is a great topic. i enjoy discussion of real issues. I think both politics and religion are serious hotbeds, but in a forum such as this, open and open-minded, free speech of one’s ideas can only be seen as a reflection of one’s deepest, and therefore most sincere thoughts.
To me, the venue where the candidates converge does not influence how I percieve them. In a way, I am somewhat encouraged that a place of worship was selected. I have been dismayed for several years over the weakening of the moral fabric of our society. This country is very weak in it’s faith, and I don’t mean religous faith. America was at one time a place of hope, and a place where faith was the basis for that hope. But through the growth and the changes in American society, the emphasis on faith has been abandoned. I am not saying that people aren’t religous, I am saying that people practice religion but seem to have lost faith. That saddens me, deeply. Could it be that we are so diverse and so free that we cannot find common ground upon which to keep faith alive? It might be something else, something very prevalent, and something people cannot acknowledge openly. Many of our spiritual leaders have lost their faith and it trickles down through the channels to the people who look to them for leadership. Religion has become hypocritical, and many religions are seeing drastic decreases in their communities. Faith was the cornerstone of this country. We fought and died for the cause of it as it lead us to freedom. But faith is dwindling, and with it, so is hope, and eventually the ultimate loss will be freedom.
Seeing a debate in a house of worship does not bother, it actually gives me hope. It is a strong statement by the candidates that faith is important, and hope is alive. I think it might inject a sense of spirituality, not religion, into the debate. We may not all have a religion, but it is my opinion that we all most certainly have a spirit. This nation needs the essence brought back. If the debate is in a church, and it fosters a sense of faith and hope in the viewers, then I say it is okay with me.
Be well.
BL
Thank you for this wonderful topic.
Thank you Brightlite, that was beautiful. You may have just hit on something here that I was failing to see. I hope that you are right about our faith and our hope.
I will keep my mind opened while I watch tomorrow night.
Me too. I love America and all it stands for.
Your point though of separation of churc and state is valid, and probably most folks will look at it in that light. I would imagine that most do agree that the venue is not appropriate. I don’t care where they debate, in reality, I just wish to see the US unite again. I see things upon the horizon that I won’t write about here, but it safe to say, that from what I have seen, we need more than ever to find that place inside ourselves, and in each other that gives us strength. Faith. We are going to need it, in a very big way.
Thanks.
Goodnight.
I suppose that the situation with the religious leaders in our news and those involved in the current political process is what has lead to some of my cynicism concerning mixing the political debate and church. Britelite targets that point in her statements regarding folks who attend church who do so more for the social interaction, forgetting the purpose of the venue and the practice.
Hope should not only spring from religion – that’s like putting all your eggs in one basket. Hope needs to come from the ability to trust our politicians and their intents. Hope needs to come from the American people taking a stand and saying no to fanatical bias and monetary manipulations.
In regards to the U.S. political structure – a majority of politicians can be likened to a carnival barker, just all noise and appearance and no substance. All hawking the words to bring them the most gain.
It’s the average American who is coming to grips with this situation, that they can no longer trust the politics. Big Business, the Oil Companies, foreign trade agreements and under the table motives hidden behind cover of natural events creating disillusionment among the people.
Look at the oil situation. Many think that it truly is a natural event of crisis. Thing is, Big Oil is raping the country for profit, making history level numbers. They then go and throw money into our political system, which is accepted by the candidates to allow them to continue their control over the US economy.
These elements combined with the television evangelical circus creating the threat to our country’s stability. Faith is one thing, the reality is the politicians and US government needs not let special interest control our environment, the people need speak out and really consider who they are electing and why.
Regarding Big Oil, check this out. lolz
It’s true what Sunny writes about the Big Oil business. Our politicians in Washington DC are in the pockets of the Saudi’s. It is my opinion, and we won’t know for sure, until Bush is out of office, but I venture to say that he has become a multi billionaire while in the oval office. His secret: oil stock. His secret weapon: The Middle East.
Gas prices do not have to be this high of course, but our presence in the Gulf has given the Middle East oil magnates the justification to raise the price of the barrell.
It’s all though, a smoke screen, it’s all a way for both governments to rape and rob the consumer.
True enough, that acts like this do rob us of money, yes…but they rob us of faith. People learn not to trust, and that is the basis for faith. I wrote about that in ine of my posts a week or so ago. That is why a change will be good, no matter who it is. I think we need drastic change, and I don’t know who can offer that more. McCain or Barach?
Thank you.
I go to church every Sunday, and I have for just about all of my life. It has always been in my nature to question authority, and it is no different for me on Sunday mornings, than the rest of the week. I have never been able to blindly follow the words of any man, but choose instead to take in their words and form my own opinions. Which, by the way, are quite frequently different than the norm in the Christian church. I am a rebel, hee hee . . . but that’s a topic for another day.
I think about the continued need for our presidential candidates to pander to “my peeps” . . . people who attend Christian churches, and it frustrates me for a couple reasons.
People who are affiliated with any religion, or no religion at all, can celebrate the fact that our constitution does not allow for an “established religion” which might render their own religion illegal here. However, the ever increasing presence of “church leaders” in the national political arena, really gives me pause for thought. I know, from personal experience, that many ministers preach from the pulpit about who we should give our vote to. They provide us with statistics and charts and graphs to prove who is the better Christian candidate. Sometimes, it feels to me, like there are some who would like to create a Christian voting block so strong, that through the election process, they would create a de facto “established religion.”
There are many different large, and thriving, religious communities in our country . . . Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, etc. And each one of these communities contributes in significant ways to the fabric of our overall culture. I would never want to live in a country where their contributions are even more trivialized than they already are.
It is my opinion, as a Christian, and long time member of an established Christian denomination, that WE do not have the market cornered on morality and ethics, compassion and kindness, wisdom and foresight. I do not require the leader of my country to go to my church, but I do require him to display these characteristics. I think we all want that in our president . . . and if those characteristics were developed in a Temple or a Mosque, or just in their own home, I am fine with that.
All that to say this . . . I will watch this debate, as I do any other, but I made my choice about who will get my vote a long time ago. And “church” had nothing to do with the choice I have made.
Soulaz wrote:
Sometimes, it feels to me, like there are some who would like to create a Christian voting block so strong, that through the election process, they would create a de facto “established religion.”
This is what frightens me the most. The Founders Fathers faced a similar dilema and that was why the First Amendment was worded as such.
I was just reading an article about Leah Daughtry, who is Howard Dean’s Chief of Staff and who is taking an active part in the upcoming Democratic National Convention. In an interview this month with The New York Times*, she said that her mission is to “make religious believers-particularly ardent Christian believers-view the party and its candidates as receptive to, and often impelled by, the dictates of faith.”
She sparked this crusade, “both to transfigure the party’s image as predominantly secular and to take enough votes from the Republicans to win this year’s presidential election….”
We are starting down a slippery slope here that me may not be able to climb up again if we don’t start taking some of this rhetoric a little more seriously.
The place where optimism most flourishes is the lunatic asylum.HenryHavelockEllisHenry Havelock Ellis
[...] down Obama’s face, and I am not a particular fan of Pastor Rick and his values. Back in August I questioned the Separation of Church and State: The reason that I bring this up here is that this [...]