The Separation of Church and State

Those western countries have a state religion... But is that just on paper?

A good amount of nations in the world could easily have a state religion if they wanted to. But honestly I support separation of the church and the state. Though I have ran into people who claim it was separate in the way that the state was under the church >.>.

Though I wonder, Should churches be tax?

Aren't most European nations secular since Napoleonic times?

Although I believe in a higher power, I am a firm support in Separation of Church and state. Judging from history, we know that almost everything Governments start promoting (or enforcing) religion it leads to corruption, bigotry and intolerance of others.

As for religious institutions, they should stay out of politics! If a church/temple/mosque starts promoting any political ideology, they should lose their tax exempt status.

I think so. Fun fact: England has a state religion and most of its citizens do not define themselves as religious. The United States has no state religion, but the opposite is so.

More on topic, while it is impossible for such a staple of humanity as religion to be totally separated from the government, the loose relationship that religion has in the US with the government seems to work fairly well.

I think it has something to do with tradition. The English seem sentimental about these things that remind them of "the good old days" that includes both the Church of England and the monarchy.

I oppose that statement as an atheist. Religion is people seeking answers/purpose and setteling for less than they should. You can separate it from humanity just like we've separated ourselves from other non-productive traditions.
While the US has strict separation of church and state, religion(that would be Christianity) has a huge influence/effect on politics in the US(far more than any European country I can think of). I view American politics as "contaminated" by religious fundamentalists.(and many Americans support them)

How is that it only becomes contaminated by beliefs that involves some sort of deity? Atheism is a set of beliefs that help its followers find answers/purpose. In a sense, a candidate could be 'contaminated' with any set of beliefs, including atheism, which adopt a moral code beyond that of the law. For example:

You fundamentally believe that religion should not be tolerated in the government. While similar to the separation of church and state, it has a clear distinction: it implies that candidates must remove their beliefs when running/serving in office. Beyond being impossible, it could be argued that it violates the First Amendment of the United States' Constitution. Thus, as a government official, your beliefs could 'contaminate' American politics just as much as any Bible waving moron.

I support separation of church and state.

In fact if you are a Christian you should 100% in the bible it says to keep it a apart.....
if you believe that stuff

Atheism does not help you find answers. Atheism is not a religion. Atheism is disbelief or lack of belief in the existance of a deity or deities. How is that an answer to anything? While Christianity tells you how the world was created, Atheism does not. Most atheists look at science for answers but that's irelevant to this discussion.

NO I FUCKING DO NOT! As an atheist I do not believe in a deity/deities. Do not tell me what I fucking believe. OKAY?!
Do you even know what a atheist is?(well by now you propably do because I told you twice) Could you at least look it up before writing an obviously false statement?
Religion should be tolerated but it should also be completely separate from the state. Religion is a private matter that belongs in a church etc. or at home. Not in a school, not on the money and certainly not in any government body.(you can of course pray anywhere you want) While your religious belief will affect the decisions you make it should not be a valid argument for anything.(like "look it says so in the Bible!") How does that violate the First Amendment?
My beliefs are facts and science. If that "contaminates" American politics I would be more than happy.(you could certainly need some of it)

Atheism is a set of beliefs, which, as defined by the dictionary is, "a theory or belief that God does not exist" (while I would rather it say deity, whatever). Atheists believe in a scientific definition of our reality. For example, the scientific definition of creation. So, while theists look to some divine power to explain the world, atheists, as you said above, look to science. Thus, it can be held that atheism shares a number of basic qualities of a religion: 1. an overriding, dogmatic statement of a specific belief, in this case, the lack of a deity. 2. Their reality is defined by something beyond what their senses can fully explain on their own, in this case science. 3. Use the previous statements as a basis for somewhat of a moral code.

You said:

To this:

So if you could stop throwing a temper tantrum, you'd realize that I based my previous argument on your own statement. Now, I agree that schools should not portray any certain set of beliefs, but disallowing any form or religiousness in a school is wrong. I like what my school has: none of the faculty can express their beliefs, students are allowed, and back in the shelves of the library there are the writings of St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Augustine, Plato, Socrates, and a few Islamic texts. They're in the back, but they are there, along with atheist works, which is a good compromise. While it is true that religious beliefs should not hold any bearing over any kind of scientific matter (as to keep the integrity of the experiment or what have you), religions, as any other set of beliefs, including atheism, do have a resulting moral code, written or not, that its members tend to follow. Thus, most arguments of morality will generally be on the basis of some facet or another of a specific moral code. Let's take birth control, for example. A devout Christian would most likely be against it on the basis of their belief that reproduction should be the only goal of sexual intercourse, and that birth control is unproductive, no pun intended. An atheist would probably argue that sex is an essential part of a happy and healthy relationship, thus birth control is a proactive measure to keep a relationship strong. Both are based on the argument of a 'moral code', both of which are fairly untangle. The First Amendment reads as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" As you said:

As I am assuming that you would be satisfied with a law that achieves this effect, I would ask you to carefully read the First Amendment of the US Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law...or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." To that effect, it means the civil servants cannot be prohibited in their beliefs, and as is human nature, they will act upon it while in office, for better or worse.

Man, I thought it was just religious fundamentalists denying the rights of the people.

http://www.atheistfoundation.org.au/articles/atheism-belief
That's a belief! Read it and mabye you'll get what I'm talking about.
Atheists replace beliefs with facts.

No I opposed the statement that religion was inseperable from politics.

Atheists do not have any Bibles/books/teachings about how you should conduct yourself. What the individual decides to do with the knowledge/reasoning that their are no deities it totally up to them.

Except an atheist would not nessesarily say that. Atheism has little to do with the moral code of the individual. Unlike most religions it doesn't tell you what you can and cannot do etc.

Sure they can act upon it, I just don't think it belongs there. That doesn't mean I'll put them to prison or anything. I would just think they were stupid.(well mostly)
And btw I am not an American, so why the fuck should I care about your First Amendment? You should not use it as an argument when you're discussion with anyone, and least of all an European.
In my country people have to right to talk about religion whenever they want and that's fine.

Yeah sure whatever... I'm not denying people anything. Could you stop putting words in my mouth?

Plenty of Socialists are fine with freedom of religion, or even are religious themselves. Jesus, for example, had incredible Socialist ideals in his speeches and such.

That is because Jesus was a populist, which inspired socialism.

So speaking of this, I was in class today and before taking are exams the teacher said that everyone should Pray to the lord and savior Jesus Christ for good graces and to get good marks on the exam. I being me, Raised my hand and went "This is a public school you can't tell the kids to pray or not to pray", to which the class the majority all got all mad and shocked. I continued "If this was a private school you could, however being a public school the state can not tell people to believe or promote any religion. If it did it would have to do it for all, or else your being discriminating against the other faiths at our school, If you want to pray there is a reason there is the moment of silence during the pledge" To which the entire class got all pissed off and the teacher got pissed as well and tried to make my argument invalid. The teacher then said "Well this is a christian nation and thus the christian ideas should be promoted in all school" I sighed and exclaimed "Freedom of religion, the nation is based off christian philosophy not Christianity in its self, and yet again this is a public school" the class all called me atheist and tried to point out Catholic school allow praying. Yeah then I sighed and tried yet again to explain " PRIVATE SCHOOL IS PRIVATE, PUBLIC SCHOOL IS PUBLIC." (then the conversation boiled down to the constitution and how the majority of the class wants the freedom of religion portion only for Christians....meanwhile the Muslim kid in our class was laughing his ass off"


So yeah, this brings up a good question. Praying in school Yes or No.

Bad idea.

In Public, No can't be promoted, In private, sure.

If you want to separate religion and government, you can't ever promote, and especially not enforce prayer in school. In your position, I probably would've just done nothing myself, and when asked about it, refused to pray because it's probably the most useless thing you could ever do.
So, I now suggest you and the Muslim kid set up a plan where he brings one of the carpets Muslims pray on to class, and when it's time to pray in the direction of Mecca, get him to stand up, lay down the carpet and start praying. You can add the minaret music as well, to make it more atmospheric.

Its a private school and thus they have the right to promoted it, just like a Catholic school (being Private) can kick someone out for being homosexual, or the boy scouts of America can kick you out if your an atheist.

Do you know I deleted that? Anyway, I was mistaken.

Oh the look on their faces... That would be priceless
On the topic, I sadly think many Christian Americans take it for granted that people are Christians(at least if they're white, black or hispanic)