Religion
Related: About this forumPublic Truths vs. Private Truths
To what extent is it legitimate to use religion as a basis for political decisions on public policy? Many people believe that such a use of religion ultimately results in violations of the separation of church state, and thus other peoples religious liberty. Many religious believers, however, argue that it is wrong to exclude religion from public debates and that such a policy effectively constitutes discrimination against religion and religious believers. Who is right?
In a way, both perspectives are right it would be a mistake to assume that only one is valid and that the other must be wrong. Nevertheless, it must also be pointed out that former position is ultimately stronger. So long as it is not taken too far, it is the position which must serve as guiding principle.
For the government to adopt any particular religious position as a basis for laws or policies, though, would mean treating the religious beliefs in question as true or at least as more true than the religious beliefs that have been excluded. All other religious beliefs that have something to say on the matter are treated as if they were false, or at the very least as worthy of less consideration. This is a genuine example of religious discrimination which cannot be tolerated in a democratic, tolerant society.
http://atheism.about.com/od/churchstate101/a/publictruths.htm
cleanhippie
(19,705 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)the relationship of individuals with their government, the point is moot. It is up to each person to act in a moral and constitutional manner as a citizen.
If we are talking about religious organizations it's different. It is possible to empirically evaluate the relationship of any organization with government. With religion it's simple. There shouldn't be one. Not only does that mean that there should be no politicking from the pulpit, but the scale of assets owned by the church should be considered since ownership implies government regulation.
As it stands now, most churches are little more than media empires and own much more property than they need for the spiritual nurturing of their flock. That's because the profit motive has driven most religions to reorganize themselves along some sort of business model to manage monstrously outsized congregations that have more to do with the expansion of the organization than spiritual enlightenment.