Debate Mansion

   

What is "Separation of Church and State"?

Post Reply New Post

Page 1 of 2

Page 1
Page   of 2
Page 2 Page 2

~LiL*PrInCeZ~

IF-Sizzlerz

~LiL*PrInCeZ~

--

Joined: 20 October 2004

Posts: 11310

Posted: 04 February 2006 at 10:11am | IP Logged

Hi everyone!

Well we have all heard of the whole Separation of Church and State deal. Ok fine not church, lets say religious institution.

For those who don't know (I dont know how you would'nt but this is an international forum and i dunno wat its like in other places) Separation of Church and State is when the government and the the religious institution have no connection. Basically it is made so that laws and other governmental issues are not influenced by any particular religion or just religion in general. This is not true everywhere, in countries in the Middle East, many laws are influenced by Islamic teachings. In the past, Western European countries relied heavily on the Church and the clergies were often given special powers and treated better than others.

Ok so heres the Debate:

What do you think it means to have a separation of Church and State? do you think that where you live (plz do mention it..not specific if u dont want but plz @least the country or region)?

I will write my views on it later because i want 2 hear all of ur opinions b4 i express mine cuz i dont want it 2 sway wat ne1 will write.

Dear Guest, Being an unregistered member you are missing out on participating in the lively discussions happening on the topic "What is "Separation of Church and State"?" in Debate Mansion forum. In addition you lose out on the fun interactions with fellow members and other member exclusive features that India-Forums has to offer. Join India's most popular discussion portal on Indian Entertainment. It's FREE and registration is effortless so JOIN NOW!

Aparna_BD

IF-Dazzler

Aparna_BD

Joined: 01 July 2005

Posts: 4926

Posted: 04 February 2006 at 10:23am | IP Logged
An excellent topic Jav . I completely favour seperation of State from any religous Institution . In a Country like India which is first a democracy and a Secular State , and has several minority religons as part of the Nation , it is impossible to have the Country goverened by laws formed by Religous Institution .

But in a Country like Saudi Arabia , Iran ,Afghanistan and many Islamic Countries that often do not allow many other religons to freely practise their religon, and their is no secularism and democracy in such regimes they are governed by Sharia law .Laws made by religous clerics will always be biased and can not allow democracy and secularism to thrive.

In U.S, Europe and most Western Countries which too has majority Christians , but have multi racial / cultural/ ethnic population can not afford to lead the Country based on the laws made by the Church !

~LiL*PrInCeZ~

IF-Sizzlerz

~LiL*PrInCeZ~

--

Joined: 20 October 2004

Posts: 11310

Posted: 04 February 2006 at 8:40pm | IP Logged
yea i favor separation of church and state as well...y wudnt u?.....but what i was asking was...wat do u think separation of church and state really is?

Countries like France and Turkey interpret it as making all public places secular and forbidding any sort of religious thing in gov't or public places.....is tht real separation of church and state?

maybe i wasnt clear in xpressing it...or aparna di misinterpreted it...either way thts wat i was really asking.....

i dont think wat turkey, france and such countries are doing can be considered separation...it is forcing the ppl 2 give up practicing their religion in public...isnt tht having the gov't interfere with ur rights? hu gave the gov't control 2 decide whether u wanna represent ur religion in public or not? im not saying tht ppl go arnd trying 2 convince ppl tht their religion is the best (like the door-todoor annoying missionaries here or the 1z u meet at the subway stations Ouch ) they r jus practising their religion. tell me how a sikh man wearing a turban or a muslim woman wearing a headscarf or a jewish man wearing a yamaca is effecting other pplz? it isnt!! so they shud b allowed 2 practice their religio freely without having anyone say anything to them.
just as they r over-doing secularism....many middle eastern countries are over-doing orthodox-ism (lol i dunno wat word 2 use 2 say it LOL). In countries like saudi arabia and afghanistan and others the women are pretty much caged. they cannot leave the house without a male from the family (husband, bro, dad, son etc) and they r FORCED to wear a burqa whether they want 2 or not......tht is ocverdoing it as well.......the gov't shudnt decide how the ppl dress and wat is an apporpri8 life style 4 thm and it shudnt make ppl act a specific way and disregard their opinions......the gov't is supposed 2 make the laws and prevent crimes and stuff and by forcing ppl 2 dress certain ways or preventing thm frm xpressing their religion the gov't is wasting their tyme and it can b used 2 catch criminals, bring justice, do better 4 the country etc (their real jobs)

Aparna_BD

IF-Dazzler

Aparna_BD

Joined: 01 July 2005

Posts: 4926

Posted: 04 February 2006 at 9:23pm | IP Logged
O.K i think i get your point now . You have countries like Saudi and Afghanistan that are obviously ruled by Sharia law and are not denying it . While France that calls it self secular and wants to say that every one should practise their own religon with out imposing it on others . But their banning of head scarves for Muslim girls , and turban for Sikhs and skull cap for Jewish folks is taking it one step forward where i call it "inverted racism". They are certainly in the cause of seperating State and Religon attacking personal beliefs . Just for your info i visit some other debate forums , which has mostly American & European members , from those i was shocked to read that somehow the Whites feel threatened by the symbols one carries upon themself that attaches themselves to a belief . It could be a Cross ,skull cap , Hijab , or turban . On one hand they talk about freedom to practise your faith (unlike Saudi that openly denies it ) . On the other hand they take away these basic rights !!!!

My Aunt is double Phd in English and French , often works with the Indian delegates that go to France . Once a French colleaugue during her trip to France commented about her sindoor was offensive to them , to which she reacted by "giving it back to this person" .

Now this is like saying i am secular but i am offended if you practise your religon openly although peacefully . As i feel threatened !!

~LiL*PrInCeZ~

IF-Sizzlerz

~LiL*PrInCeZ~

--

Joined: 20 October 2004

Posts: 11310

Posted: 04 February 2006 at 10:12pm | IP Logged
yea aparna di thts what i mean...i dunno wat offends thm but we were having a discussion on this in class and many of the white kids said tht they agreed with what france was doing and it shud b appiled 2 other countreis as well..their opinion was tht if we dont c ppl as a icon of a certain religion v wont b biased 2 thm and it will unify us more and its better for every1 and they said tht they rnt agaist ppl pracising their seligion but they shud wear their headscarf, turban, skull hat etc at home...and not in public cuz it differenci8z thm and v shud all b seen as 1 cuz thts wat equality is all abt...

i disagree with thm and i wanted 2 c wat ppl here wud say so i thot abt starting this topic

sameer.84

IF-Sizzlerz

sameer.84

Joined: 10 May 2005

Posts: 10000

Posted: 05 February 2006 at 4:36am | IP Logged
seperatation of church and state is not always practical...for example US...the champion of secularism. It's president Bush once told that he went to war in Iraq because God told him (i wonder how!! Confused ).

He's against abortion, homosexuality and stem cell research too(i too am against them) because of his christian values.

Signora2

Goldie

Signora2

Joined: 27 April 2005

Posts: 1006

Posted: 05 February 2006 at 7:08am | IP Logged
Let me add to this, I think it has not been defined what separation of state and church means. Taking leaf from History, in olden days all the monarchs drew power from the Church and British monarchs held allegiance to it. But the Church began to exert itself more and more, ultimately it led to the Kings revolting and thus began the need to completely remove the dominance of the Church, during the same period fissures too erupted in the Church and christainity as a whole so the Church was completely relegated to performing religious ceremonies.
Now in america the american prez takes oath in the name of God , but this is not the case in India, which has the best principles from all the great constitutions of the world. India is secular because its Preamble says so and after the partition and the horror of it all, it became imperative to build India on non-religious basis but at the same time giving rights to the minorities to practice their own religion.
Only the premable brought the secular structure as binding. But from time to time demands are raised by Muslim bodies to be governed as per the Sahriat law, but India has steadfastly stood its ground.
The point is any xyz if goes to any country should abide by the constitution , laws of that country and not create friction. ptoblem begins when minorites begin raising demands that pertain to one particular religion. The western world is no longer ready to bend and accomodate soleley to satisfy one particular religions demands, .

AbsolutelyNuts!

Newbie

AbsolutelyNuts!

Joined: 05 February 2006

Posts: 9

Posted: 06 February 2006 at 7:33am | IP Logged
I believe separation of Church and State is a good thing. However, there are countries, like so many have said before me, that forbid the expression of your religion and rely heavily on state... that's not good. Similarly, a country that relies heavily on religion and does not separate it from State is just as bad.

If you follow a government like the US, where Christianity is the main religion, and if there was no separation of Church and State, the laws derived from religion governing your life wouldn't be fair if you weren't a Christian, would it?

I live in the US and the sytem here suits me just fine. Crimes are dealt with objectively, without the use of cruel and unusual punishment and without using religios views as punishment (cutting off of hands or stoning, etc.)

Post Reply New Post

Go to top

Related Topics

  Topics Topic Starter Replies Views Last Post
Telangana 29th State

2 3 4 5 6 7 8

trustt 58 2439 21 December 2009 at 11:42am
By angelic_devil
The state of sports in India Khatarnak 4 1122 15 August 2009 at 2:23am
By Ahmed25
Separation of Church & State

2 3

return_to_hades 21 1283 11 January 2009 at 4:50pm
By return_to_hades
Should there be a State Owned Restriction on Media

2

trustt 10 713 26 December 2008 at 1:27am
By umrao_jaan

Forum Quick Jump

Forum Category

Active Forums

Limit search to this Forum only.

 

Disclaimer: All Logos and Pictures of various Channels, Shows, Artistes, Media Houses, Companies, Brands etc. belong to their respective owners, and are used to merely visually identify the Channels, Shows, Companies, Brands, etc. to the viewer. Incase of any issue please contact the webmaster.