Are Church and State Really Separate?

[High Earth]

I have been thinking about this topic for a while. In America, it is in the constitution that church and state are intended to be completely separate. Think of how an election would be influenced in America if a candidate admitted being Religious or Atheist, tons of people would automatically change their votes. Many of the laws in America reflect similar laws first instituted by religious leaders.

So what do you think?

[Floofybit]

I don't get the constitution and the commandments being the same? Don't steal or murder and such are just good laws in general. And if the people vote a religious leader or a atheist leader over the other, that's the people's choice, not the government's fault. But sure, the government isn't 100% secular.

[Zetaopalatopia]

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of state and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grant a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Edit:spelling

[New Stonkopolis]

No government institution can be 100% secular. But, it's not like the 10 Commandments are specific. They're literally things like "Don't kill each other," "Be kind to everyone," and "Don't steal." They're so broad, it's like comparing a Pea to a Potato because they're both Vegetables. Just because they say similar things doesn't mean that one thing caused the other. Correlation is NOT Causation.

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of state and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grant a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Edit:spelling

So explain to me then, why the Soviet Union, which outright hated religion of any kind, still recognized marriage then?

[Cessarea]

I have been thinking about this topic for a while. In America, it is in the constitution that church and state are intended to be completely separate. However, most of the laws in America seem eerily similar to the Ten Commandments. Also, think of how an election would be influenced in America if a candidate admitted being Religious or Atheist, tons of people would automatically change their votes.

So what do you think?

We can commit adultety, adore and make idols to other gods, say God's name in vain, and we don't need to respect the sabbath. The only things that are in the ten commandments that most secular governments respect are:

Don't murder, don't steal, and (arguably) don't bear false witness. 3/10 is not that similar, especially considering that they are such broad and obvious commandments for a functioning society.

[High Earth]

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of stare and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grant a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Edit:spelling

That is a good point, and it is definitely an example of religion bleeding into law

[High Earth]

I have been thinking about this topic for a while. In America, it is in the constitution that church and state are intended to be completely separate. However, most of the laws in America seem eerily similar to the Ten Commandments. Also, think of how an election would be influenced in America if a candidate admitted being Religious or Atheist, tons of people would automatically change their votes.

So what do you think?

We can commit adultety, adore and make idols to other gods, say God's name in vain, and we don't need to respect the sabbath. The only things that are in the ten commandments that most secular governments respect are:

Don't murder, don't steal, and (arguably) don't bear false witness. 3/10 is not that similar, especially considering that they are such broad and obvious commandments for a functioning society.

That is fair, maybe the Ten Commandments were not the best choice for an example.

[Great Eternal Taldorei]

You misunderstand what "separation of church and state" means. It means the state does not operate its own religion (As Anglicanism was in England) and does not compulse people to follow any particular religion. It does not mean that religious laws should not be enacted. As a historically majority Christian nation, the US of course has Christian-based laws.

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of stare and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grand a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Don't forget that nearly all cultures have marriage in some manner. The US just has the form that descends from Christian culture, as it was historically Christian.

[New Stonkopolis]

You misunderstand what "separation of church and state" means. It means the state does not operate its own religion (As Anglicanism was in England) and does not compulse people to follow any particular religion. It does not mean that religious laws should not be enacted. As a historically majority Christian nation, the US of course has Christian-based laws.

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of stare and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grand a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Don't forget that nearly all cultures have marriage in some manner. The US just has the form that descends from Christian culture, as it was historically Christian.

EXACTLY! Atheist societies too have marriages, like China and North Korea!

[Lemueria]

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of stare and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grant a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Edit:spelling

...Oh, you get punished if you murder people, but punishing murderous people is from the Ten Commandments, so that's religious, now if the government really wants to be secular, they should respect everyone and if some weird atheist or cult believes that murder is fine, we need to stop making the state intervene in murders!
/j

[Neutraligon]

Of the Ten Commandments which ones are in the law. And of those in the law, how many are in the law in non Christian countries because they just make society work (don’t murder). That said, no they are not separate. Politicians campaign on how Christian they are, churches endorse candidates, despite that they should lose their tax exemption for that.

[Hekp]

In my personal opinion, religion influences people, how they vote, and how they lead. Religion will always play a part, just like other social factors.

[Zetaopalatopia]

You misunderstand what "separation of church and state" means. It means the state does not operate its own religion (As Anglicanism was in England) and does not compulse people to follow any particular religion. It does not mean that religious laws should not be enacted. As a historically majority Christian nation, the US of course has Christian-based laws.


Don't forget that nearly all cultures have marriage in some manner. The US just has the form that descends from Christian culture, as it was historically Christian.

EXACTLY! Atheist societies too have marriages, like China and North Korea!

So what's with the gender locking and other generally religious moral codes around Marriage if it is not a religious act? If it simply just fusing assets then anyone should be able to do it right? Why call it marriage in some cases and a 'Civil union" in others if they are the same exact thing?

...Oh, you get punished if you murder people, but punishing murderous people is from the Ten Commandments, so that's religious, now if the government really wants to be secular, they should respect everyone and if some weird atheist or cult believes that murder is fine, we need to stop making the state intervene in murders!
/j

I don't see how murder is anything like deciding who you share your paycheck with?

[Necroghastia]

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of state and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grant a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Edit:spelling

Civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things. Doing one does not necessitate the other.

[Neutraligon]

EXACTLY! Atheist societies too have marriages, like China and North Korea!

So what's with the gender locking and other generally religious moral codes around Marriage if it is not a religious act? If it simply just fusing assets then anyone should be able to do it right? Why call it marrage in some cases and a 'Civil union" in others if they are the same exact thing?

...Oh, you get punished if you murder people, but punishing murderous people is from the Ten Commandments, so that's religious, now if the government really wants to be secular, they should respect everyone and if some weird atheist or cult believes that murder is fine, we need to stop making the state intervene in murders!
/j

I don't see how murder is anything like deciding who you share your paycheck with?

Marriage has always been a monetary thing.

[Zetaopalatopia]

I'd say that church and state are separate on paper only. Take marriage for example. Marriage is a strictly religious act, yet as soon as you get married you all of a sudden have combined taxes, and it is illegal to enter a marriage with another person while a current one exists (Regardless of religious views)

It's not the only overlap of state and religion there, but it is the most glaring/visible one in my opinion.

If state and religion were separate, marriage wouldn't automatically grant a civil union. The fact that is does unless you take steps to prevent it is ludicrous to me.

Edit:spelling

Civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things. Doing one does not necessitate the other.

As far as I see, in the US it is. Unless you go through steps to explicitly have it not. Also if they are two different things then calling them both Marriage is rather confusing. Would it not be easier just to call all state related Marriages 'Civil unions' and leave the word Marriage exclusive to religion. Doing so would help reminding people they are not the same if that were the case.

[New Stonkopolis]

EXACTLY! Atheist societies too have marriages, like China and North Korea!

So what's with the gender locking and other generally religious moral codes around Marriage if it is not a religious act? If it simply just fusing assets then anyone should be able to do it right? Why call it marriage in some cases and a 'Civil union" in others if they are the same exact thing?

...Oh, you get punished if you murder people, but punishing murderous people is from the Ten Commandments, so that's religious, now if the government really wants to be secular, they should respect everyone and if some weird atheist or cult believes that murder is fine, we need to stop making the state intervene in murders!
/j

I don't see how murder is anything like deciding who you share your paycheck with?

That's because the people don't support it. The government won't implement unpopular policies.

[Love Peace and Friendship]

Civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things. Doing one does not necessitate the other.

As far as I see, in the US it is. Unless you go through steps to explicitly have it not. Also if they are two different things then calling them both Marriage is rather confusing. Would it not be easier just to call all state related Marriages 'Civil unions' and leave the word Marriage exclusive to religion. Doing so would help reminding people they are not the same if that were the case.

That would deny secular people, agnostics, and atheists marriage though, and I imagine some of them still like the title 'marriage' for the activity.

[Great Eternal Taldorei]

Civil marriage and religious marriage are two different things. Doing one does not necessitate the other.

As far as I see, in the US it is. Unless you go through steps to explicitly have it not. Also if they are two different things then calling them both Marriage is rather confusing. Would it not be easier just to call all state related Marriages 'Civil unions' and leave the word Marriage exclusive to religion. Doing so would help reminding people they are not the same if that were the case.

Again, the US was a Christian nation, thus Christian-style marriages.

EXACTLY! Atheist societies too have marriages, like China and North Korea!

So what's with the gender locking and other generally religious moral codes around Marriage if it is not a religious act? If it simply just fusing assets then anyone should be able to do it right? Why call it marriage in some cases and a 'Civil union" in others if they are the same exact thing?

Because in Christian/formerly Christian (Basically all Western nations) and similar nations, regulations around marriages are/were required to avoid sinning according to the religious codes. In others, it's to make society work and have grandchildren for one's grandparents

[Neutraligon]

As far as I see, in the US it is. Unless you go through steps to explicitly have it not. Also if they are two different things then calling them both Marriage is rather confusing. Would it not be easier just to call all state related Marriages 'Civil unions' and leave the word Marriage exclusive to religion. Doing so would help reminding people they are not the same if that were the case.

That would deny secular people, agnostics, and atheists marriage though, and I imagine some of them still like the title 'marriage' for the activity.

We do.

[Neutraligon]

As far as I see, in the US it is. Unless you go through steps to explicitly have it not. Also if they are two different things then calling them both Marriage is rather confusing. Would it not be easier just to call all state related Marriages 'Civil unions' and leave the word Marriage exclusive to religion. Doing so would help reminding people they are not the same if that were the case.

Again, the US was a Christian nation, thus Christian-style marriages.

So what's with the gender locking and other generally religious moral codes around Marriage if it is not a religious act? If it simply just fusing assets then anyone should be able to do it right? Why call it marriage in some cases and a 'Civil union" in others if they are the same exact thing?

Because in Christian/formerly Christian (Basically all Western nations) and similar nations, regulations around marriages are/were required to avoid sinning according to the religious codes. In others, it's to make society work and have grandchildren for one's grandparents

The us was not a Christian nation. If this were true than Jewish marriage would not have been recognized.

[Zetaopalatopia]

As far as I see, in the US it is. Unless you go through steps to explicitly have it not. Also if they are two different things then calling them both Marriage is rather confusing. Would it not be easier just to call all state related Marriages 'Civil unions' and leave the word Marriage exclusive to religion. Doing so would help reminding people they are not the same if that were the case.

That would deny secular people, agnostics, and atheists marriage though, and I imagine some of them still like the title 'marriage' for the activity.

It wouldn't deny them state union if that were their goal. And they could seek a church that would agree to religiously marry them. Though if they were Secular to begin with I don't see making a codified religious promise being the draw of a binding ceremony.

[Neutraligon]

That would deny secular people, agnostics, and atheists marriage though, and I imagine some of them still like the title 'marriage' for the activity.

It wouldn't deny them state union if that were their goal. And they could seek a church that would agree to religiously marry them. Though if they were Secular to begin with I don't see making a codified religious promise being the draw of a binding ceremony.

Again marriage has always been about money and legal recognition.

[Love Peace and Friendship]

That would deny secular people, agnostics, and atheists marriage though, and I imagine some of them still like the title 'marriage' for the activity.

It wouldn't deny them state union if that were their goal. And they could seek a church that would agree to religiously marry them. Though if they were Secular to begin with I don't see making a codified religious promise being the draw of a binding ceremony.

Marriage is just ingrained in culture; even if it has religious origins secular people still do it.

Though I'd love the idea of people attending church, it just seems a bit unnecessary. People seem to understand the differences between civil marriage and a more spiritual marriage involving religion or otherwise just romantic devotion to each other.

[Great Eternal Taldorei]

Again, the US was a Christian nation, thus Christian-style marriages.


Because in Christian/formerly Christian (Basically all Western nations) and similar nations, regulations around marriages are/were required to avoid sinning according to the religious codes. In others, it's to make society work and have grandchildren for one's grandparents

The us was not a Christian nation. If this were true than Jewish marriage would not have been recognized.

Read my first post in this thread and re-evaluate your answer, it may be enlightening