Should state and religion be kept completely separate?

Cillian1973

Is the church of any benefit to the state? My peronal opinion is that if the church is not independently viable then it does not erve any greater purpose. There is such a significant difference between faith and religion. Many see the two in the same light but for me there hues are in stark contrast. Someone has strong faith when they believe in a cause, regardless of whether this cause is good or bad. If I said that I wanted to kill unemployed people then I would be a person of strong faith(not that this has ever entered my mind but just to use an extreme example for effect!)

jady88

Clearly Yes.
I mean the entire perception of a modern democratic state is one where religion and state are completely seperate. Look at it like a building everyone should be allowed into the building but NO one should be allowed to paint the bulding in their colours, otherwise the others are not exactly equall.

rubadub

Yes, if the church had its way condoms would be illegal, crazy thinking about that now. I dont think marriage should be criteria for taxation either.

Karl Hungus

Yes, absolutely.

The_Minister

I think the more interesting question is - would you want the seperation of church and state if the right religion was proved. ie. somehow the Church was proved to be the one true faith (any religion will do). Would there still be such opposition to religion in public life?

murphaph

Firespinner wrote:

I think the more interesting question is - would you want the seperation of church and state if the right religion was proved. ie. somehow the Church was proved to be the one true faith (any religion will do). Would there still be such opposition to religion in public life?

If that were possible then all notion of statehood would fall apart as we realise we are mere mortals. Nobody would dare treat anybody differently based on their race, age, sex, sexual orientation etc. as you would know for certain that God was gonna get you later. It's not gonna happen anyway tbh so yes, church and state should be completely seperate. France has the right idea. We need to get there too, especially in education and healthcare.

jady88

Firstly i don't believe we will ever be able to completely prove the right religion buif we did then it would be right and if we discovered that some particular brand of psychology was right then naturally people would accept the fact that it was right. But at the moment nothing like this can be acheived so lets just deal with our mixed up reality.:D

Dave!

No.


































I mean, yes.

Tar.Aldarion

Ha!


Of course they should be kept separate.

mloc

thats one thing i feel very strongly about. personally i believe not only should there be absolute and total separation between church and state, but that also, religions should not be given any special treatment over other organisations in a country.

i realise this is a pretty extreme view, but i think its the only way stability between religions and equality can be reached in a increasingly multi-cultural society.

jady88

In fairness your view is right but i don't know if its that extreme. In my experience its what the huge majority of irish people think until some loudmouth christian freaks come along and start screaming about save the family and morals falling away. Then we all feel guilty for abondoning the "Mother Church":eek: and shut up and let the looneys have their way!

__carol__

Simple. State and religion should be completely separate. Besides, if you wanted to find out what you thought the truth was, how could you if there was only one place to look?!

Diorraing

If you do that, chances are they'll pull out of all the schools they run and sell off the land causing the Government an enormous headache. You can't expect them to just hand over their schools to the state.
I don't really see what difference it would make anyway. The church have little or no control over any of the state's affairs. It would be symbolic more than anything else

jady88

Don't be so dismissive of symbolism if you were a member of some minor eligion and you came to ireland and the state was still symbolicly linked with the catholic church i think it might be a little off putting! Symbols are significant if they weren't why would we ever have them.

And moreover why not just boot the church out of schools its time our education system was entirely secular, this includes any religion eg. islam jewish. True there might be some issues to reslove but we'd manage:D

bonkey

Should state and religion be kept completely separate?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "completely seperate".

The State isn't some anonynous mechanism - it is, in effect, a collection of people. If those people are religious (i.e. are believers in an organised religion), is there still complete seperation? When it comes to a constitutional referendum...when the people get to decide the law of the land...are they not going to allow their religious beliefs to sway them one way or another? Are the resultant decisions and ensuing laws not at least in part a reflection of the religion of the people?

Complete seperation, therefore, would seem antithetical to democracy. Nor would any other system of governance guarantee a complete seperation, that I can see.

I would argue that a more useful question is to what degree the state and church should be permitted to interact.

IF ESB, for example, wanted to fund some research into some new form of energy-generation and it turned out that the most qualified researcher happened to also be a member of a religious order....should they be prevented from hiring the best available?

"you can't be hired as a wave-generation consultant, because you happen to be a buddhist monk" would seem a tad extreme as a line of reasoning, no?

Instead of ESB, what if it was a state-funded body of higher education wanting to fill a research position. Should they be allowed to hire members of religious orders if they are the most qualified for a position?

What if it wasn't higher education...what if it was our primary and secondary schools?

I believe firmly that a line needs to be drawn. As to where that line should be drawn....I don't think thats so easy a question to answer as many responses here would seem to suggest it is.

Pazaz 21

If you sepearate your religion from your decison making as a political figure then you are not making the decision you were elected for. When people elect a president, prime minister, etc, they elect him on his ability to make a decision and what he uses to make that decision. Wheather it be experience or religion, all this is taken into account. If you believe that a politican is a religious person and will make a good decision because of that religious belief, then that should be taken into account when voting for that person.

Example, George W Bush is a very devout Christian and a lot of Christian's voted for him because they believed that he would make a good decision for them and the country, mainly because he shared the same beliefs as them.

Now how, in that and the general situation, can you hope to fully seperate state and Church ?

jady88

bonkey wrote:

Should state and religion be kept completely separate?

I guess it depends on what you mean by "completely seperate".

The State isn't some anonynous mechanism - it is, in effect, a collection of people. If those people are religious (i.e. are believers in an organised religion), is there still complete seperation? When it comes to a constitutional referendum...when the people get to decide the law of the land...are they not going to allow their religious beliefs to sway them one way or another? Are the resultant decisions and ensuing laws not at least in part a reflection of the religion of the people?

No one questions wether religion should have an influence over the way people vote etc. a seperation like that is not a seperation but rather an impossible and LUDICORS notion. I can't decide how my religion or anyother part of my belief system influences my decision making process. Thee point is that the state should not be endorsing the moral authority of any brand of religion in particular. That is not to say that similar or exactly the same moral attitudes should be avoided but rather that it is not the states duty to promote and/or enforce the values of one church above the other. A complete seperation refers to the ending and sealing off of any official or symbolic link between the state and any church. Only in this way can true religious freedom be obtained.

Transcendant

Look this is the reality. The state and religion should of course be kept firmly apart. How can we pertain to be a truly inclusive state offering complete religious freedom and equal respect to all religions if the state is linked to the catholic church? And in the opening pages of the constitution offers our gratitude to our one true saviour jesus christ????

patzer117

I'm not sure of this question, but i am sure that Religion should still be allowed in schools and that the government shouldn't prevent religious orders from teaching a la liz o'donnels plan a few months back.

bertie for that matter is quite a devout catholic - and he professes it proudly, though he disagrees with some teachings obviousy - just remember the 'all hallows' row when he admitted to asking the church for advise. i think that's a good thing.

Pazaz 21

patzer117 wrote:

I'm not sure of this question, but i am sure that Religion should still be allowed in schools and that the government shouldn't prevent religious orders from teaching a la liz o'donnels plan a few months back.

I disagree, if you want to be taught about religion you go to church. School is for educating the mind, not the soul!

I am a pretty religious person and i feel that my religious upbringing has made me a better person then i would be without it. I also feel that people should be taught about different religions in school but not taught an actual religion in school.

Its important to seperate the learning of facts and the learning of a belief, both are equally important, but two very different things.

ArthurDent

Pazaz 21 wrote:

I disagree, if you want to be taught about religion you go to church. School is for educating the mind, not the soul!

I am a pretty religious person and i feel that my religious upbringing has made me a better person then i would be without it. I also feel that people should be taught about different religions in school but not taught an actual religion in school.

Its important to seperate the learning of facts and the learning of a belief, both are equally important, but two very different things.

I agree 100% education about religion no problem (and the more education about different faith systems the better imo), but religious instruction/indoctriniation -no way, keep that for outside school hours, a private matter between parents and their priest, vicar, iman, rabbi.....etc

ArthurDent

Diorraing wrote:

If you do that, chances are they'll pull out of all the schools they run and sell off the land causing the Government an enormous headache. You can't expect them to just hand over their schools to the state.
I don't really see what difference it would make anyway. The church have little or no control over any of the state's affairs. It would be symbolic more than anything else

Agree with you on the headache it would cause and there is no simple answer, but disagree that there is little or no control over state affairs by church - were you around for any of the referenda about divorce/abortion? Also you can specifically be denied a place in our national schools or particular treatment in our public hospitals because of the religious ethos of those organisations - don't think that's just symbolic.

bonkey

jady88 wrote:

a seperation like that is not a seperation but rather an impossible and LUDICORS notion.

Well, you see, my background is in science.

I take words like "seperate" to mean exactly what they mean. I do not unterstand "completely seperate" to mean "reasonably well seperated, but still slightly intertwined".

What you call impossible and ludicrous is exactly what the question asked about. Thats what I was pointing out. Any answer to the question asked is dependant on how the answerer decides those terms should be re-interpreted so that they're not ludicrous.

Thee point is that the state should not be endorsing the moral authority of any brand of religion in particular

Thats your point, perhaps, and thats how you understand the question.

I disagree, in that I believe that the point also is that the church should not be involved in the day-to-day running of the state - that ranking members of religious orders should not be permitted to hold office in the running of the government.

I am not convinced, however, that they should be prevented from becoming any form of employee of the state....but complete seperation would suggest that.

But your right. Its ludicrous to think that "completely" means "completely", when clearly its meant to mean "mostly".

jc

jady88

I take words like "seperate" to mean exactly what they mean. I do not unterstand "completely seperate" to mean "reasonably well seperated, but still slightly intertwined".

Well I can understand if your incapable of understanding different language idioms but I don't think using a bakgroud in science as a reason is really relevant.

Now your arguement that in order to achieve a complete seperation we would have to prevent people's strong religious beliefs from influencing there political decisions is nonsense and with a background in sience i would have thought you would understand that. However simply because we have a strong connection with one faith is no justification to affording the institutions of that religion any more respect or power over us than lets a soap brand which the majority of people purchased