Symmetry wrote:daddy1gringo wrote:OK, so while we're at it, what activities which now occur, which you consider religion being IN politics, would you forbid? Specifically.
So how about my question?
I'd say that you've taken a general question, and entirely localised it to the US. I'd like to see the Queen removed as head of the Church of England, and religious officials taken out of the House of Lords.
Now that's an interesting response. Seems to me the truth is exactly the opposite. There's nothing in my question that localizes it to the U.S., unless you're talking about the "swearing on the Bible" thing, but that's just something that BBS brought up and I was answering.
On the other hand, the whole concept of "separation of church and state" is pretty much a U.S. creation. It can't be one of the foundational principles of British governance considering, as we both mentioned, the reigning monarch is the head of the church. I agree with you that that ought not to be. The leader of a church should be such by virtue of, well, virtue, that is to say, godliness, or at least, wisdom. Still, that seems to me less of religion being "in" government than government being "in" religion, and as I mentioned, was the reason for the "establishment clause" in the U.S. Constitution.
Now the other part that you mentioned, "religious officials [in] the House of Lords" is interesting. Are you saying that people with certain church offices, say, archbishop, are automatically given a seat by virtue of that office, or that there are simply some members who also happen to be religious officials?






