I'm a Baptist, so I believe that church and state should be separate. In the words of the Southern Baptist Convention:
"We stand for a free church in a free state. Neither one should control the affairs of the other. We support the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, with its 'establishment' and 'free exercise' clauses.
We do, of course, acknowledge the legitimate interplay of these two spheres. For example, it is appropriate for the state to enact and enforce fire codes for the church nurseries. It is also appropriate for ministers to offer prayer at civic functions. Neither the Constitution nor Baptist tradition would build a wall of separation against such practices as these."
IMO,
The principle of separation lies in the use of control and funding.
Every church, every religion, should have the right in this free country, to govern itself and to fund (support) itself by the people who attend and get spiritual comfort, and guidance from it. The state has no right to meddle on issues which are not clearly areas of gross risks or neglect of public safety, criminal misconduct, or promoting violence and aggression against the community or state.
The state has no right to determine what the preacher may preach. The state has no right to determine limits on a congregation concerning what issues and policies they will or will not support or endorse...... even politicians.... if a collective body so desires. It is within the religion itself and the leadership of each faith to determine the relevance and relationship between the spiritual and the physical maifestation of its faith in action.
Because each religion owes its offerings to God or some diety or power and should be assumed to go towards promotion and instruction in its form of spirituality, it should not be the purpose of the state to meddle into or tax the funding or impose goverance over that which is spent for such conduct. The limits of the state should be upon the people themselves... who are already taxed on all their earnings (specific deductibles not withstanding which are by law, either present or absent).
Thus the state or government should have very little cause for intrusion into the religions and the bodies of assemblies so gathered, nor have the right to determine what is or is not related to spiritual instruction or conduct within such bodies, or judge it based upon politics of majorities or minorities, agreement or dissent.
Each religion should have the right to openly petition any official regarding any complaint or beneficiary service it believes will serve its interest of separation and equal protection, or serve the community at large without consideration as to belief; as should any individual. No religion should have the right to back by the funding used to support it, a candidate running for office, or attack a candidate running for office. This however should not prevent a religious body's finacial support to the education of the general public on those issues or interest which it deems favorable or unfavorable to the spiritual life of its people and the wellfare of its community. The fact that a particular candidate may or may not be associated with such issues is beside the point so long as it is the issues supported or opposed and not the personality. However, this should not be construed to prevent a preacher from the pulpit or a teacher in a class of religious instruction from openly naming an official or candidate as a material example of persons in presenting a spiritual concept or instruction.
IMO,
It is in the best interest of the state to encourage the spiritual developement and health of its people by exercising restraint from unnecessary regulations, license, or governance. It is for the people whether in small or large communities to determine by their own natural demographics what is expressed and supported by them within their own communities as religious assemblies, and they have no right to police or restrict the similar right of others within their communities due to differences or based on minority or majority presence in the community. The state has the right to try and make judgements regarding when the action of one body is limiting the action of another by its influence upon laws or codes which would not have existed except for purpose of exclusion or obstruction of religious expression. The state has no authority to endorse and support a particular religion nor the authority to oppose a particular religion. The state should have the authority to encourage spirituality in its people through such examples as prayers offered as an individual's expression of his own spiritual affirmations or lack thereof, without restriction, and if kept as a regular 'exercise', the state should exercise the diligence to see that in such cases, an opportunity is presented from time to time for various religions, expressive of the diversity within its people are given a similar format.... whether called 'prayer' or 'a reading' or any similar form of expression. In all such cases, it is suitable for the state to expect from all present, the decorium of those in attendance a quiet and polite respect, regardless of their agreement or disagreement; However, it should not be within the power of the state to force a compliance, participation, or force the presence of any individual: Not withstanding, all those present in official capacity should be expected to remain present in the attitude of politely quiet respect, whether agreed or not, and allowed to participate as individuals or not as each sees fit (as in the bowing of head, closing of eyes, kneeling, recitation or chant, etc.).
The first ammendment is, imo, a restraint upon the government and freedom to the people as individuals and collectives, for determination of their own religious expression. To the extent that religion supports the emotional strength and health of people who are also spiritual, and encourages the peace in and among them, it is proper that it be included in a format of expression publicly and taken as such example instead of looking upon it as an endorsement or advancement of any private persuasion.
Yes, a person should have the right, if he is Christian, to represent his Christian failth by praying in the name of Jesus, w/o restriction as much as a muslim to Allah etc., or a Catholic to cross himself.
However, I would say in defense of the Christian faith, there is no other religion, imo (but I would challenge those who would protest otherwise to make proof of it), that most clearly and directly holds up the value of human life, the reverence for God and belief in an authority which follows us to judgement or reward regardless of the secrets or knowledge kept from others, allows for the exercise of free-will, promotes personal responsibility, and trusts in the consequences of those in nature and those in God's sovereign judgement, to be self limiting factors upon the corruption within mankind: and for these reasons as well as many others, it is the only real foundation for the peaceful providence of a people who desire to live in freedom and have choices which can bring them happiness and prosperity.
