Church And State

According to the Constitution, church and state are supposed to be separated and not interfere in the business of one another. So how is one to understand when the church interferes with the law by winning the right of free speech at the site of funerals of American troops who have fought bravely for the freedoms we enjoy today? Many believe the church has made the military services worthless and that to fight means that God will not forgive those who defend the United States. They will have soldiers questioning whether it's right to go to war and kill the enemy if one will get dumped in Hell for it. The Church has already raised the issue that God hates soldiers and this will surely hurt the military's attempt to recruit the best men possible.

Letter writer Anna M. Harrison spoke of the "separation of church and state" and "the Inquisition" in describing Catholic parishes collecting signatures to petition Maryland's same-sex marriage law to referendum ("The Catholic Church has become a hurtful and hypocritical institution," May 3). She also approved of Susan Reimer 's column "What would Jesus do? Not stuff like this" (April 30). As to the separation of church and state, I vote based on my values, and my values are formed by my spiritual beliefs.

Although I am a very strong supporter of same-sex marriage, I want to object to Dan Rodricks' characterization of the separation of church and state in Thursday's column ("Wait just a blessed minute, Mr. Miller," Jan. 27). Mr. Rodricks argues that Senate President Thomas V. Mike Miller's support for a traditional definition of marriage on the grounds that it is "blessed by God" is a violation of "the separation. " But this confuses the establishment of religion, which the Constitution prohibits, with the use of religion in political speech, which the Constitution does not prohibit.

In her letter objecting to the Catholic Church's support of the petition to bring the same-sex marriage law to referendum. Anna Harrison asks "whatever happened to separation of church and state?" ("The Catholic Church has become a hurtful and hypocritical institution," May 3). Perhaps Ms. Harrison should re-read the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which states that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

In response to the recent coverage of gay marriage and transgender rights and the hearings in Annapolis, I am quite upset to think our elected officials are confusing the roles of the church and state. The Constitution requires civil liberties for all. Allowing the church to define the rules based on religion is not upholding the Constitution. This requires our government to keep church and state separate and to recognize the rights of all regardless of race, color, sex and religion.

It was said of Al Smith, a Roman Catholic, that if he won the 1928 presidential election he would take orders from the Vatican and not uphold the Constitution. John F. Kennedy famously confronted that anti-Catholic prejudice in a 1960 speech to the Greater Houston Ministerial Association. Kennedy said in part, "I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute; where no Catholic prelate would tell the president -- should he be Catholic -- how to act, and no Protestant minister would tell his parishioners for whom to vote...

Much has been written and said recently about the First Amendment and freedom of religion in the context of the current political atmosphere. Many of the most provocative comments have been about contraception, abortion rights and health insurance. Some politicians and pundits claim that President Barack Obama is attacking religion or religious institutions. Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum stoked the fires by criticizing the 1960 speech given by John F. Kennedy when he ran for president.

In the recent article in the Sun about the six senators that hold the key to the gay marriage bill ( "Undeclared lawmakers to decide fate of gay marriage," Feb. 6) I found the statement, "Religion has loomed large in the debate," to be particularly chilling. It's as if the concept of separation between church and state is some figment of our imagination. Some legislators are deeply involved in their churches and thus vote according to what the church dictates. Another referred to her "upbringing" and was ambivalent at the time of this article time due to the fact that she now has more friends who are gay and has discovered that they are no different that she. Wow!

THE FOUNDERS made it clear: Government would not establish a religion, nor would it interfere with people practicing their religion.Had the crafters of the U.S. Constitution been able to foresee all the entanglements between church and state that would follow they may have thrown up their hands and gone back to the monarchy.How would they have felt, for instance, about government creating a special school district to serve students from one particular religion, as New York did in 1989 for the Jewish Satmar Hasidic sect?

TUCSON, Ariz. -- When their deaf son, Jim, was in eighth grade, Sandra and Larry Zobrest decided to transfer him from a public school to a Roman Catholic high school. They asked the Catalina Foothills School District whether the state could continue to pay for a sign-language interpreter.Now, five years later, with Jim in college, that question is before the Supreme Court, in a case that could set a new standard for deciding how much separation between church and state the Constitution requires.

Thank you, Susan Reimer , for speaking up for so many of us ("What would Jesus do? Not stuff like this," April 30). I'm still angry over the "referendum tables" inside our church conducting business before the Mass is even over (the better to catch those running out early). Whatever happened to separation of church and state? At least the Catholic people of Seattle were given a choice to have such tables, and many parishes opted out, including their cathedral parish. I've heard too many people say "Who cares?

I am a 71 year old grandmother who grew up in the Roman Catholic Church, learning from the Baltimore Catechism, and who graduated from a Catholic college. I am, however, growing ever more concerned that some clerics ("Outspoken bishop to lead Baltimore Archdiocese," March 21) and politicians alike seem to be misusing the concept of religious freedom and minimizing or ignoring the concept of separation of church and state. These concepts are two of the most important principles on which our country was founded - and for good reasons, I might add. Putting aside all of the rhetoric, I think these principles are not so complicated.

Much has been written and said recently about the First Amendment and freedom of religion in the context of the current political atmosphere. Many of the most provocative comments have been about contraception, abortion rights and health insurance. Some politicians and pundits claim that President Barack Obama is attacking religion or religious institutions. Presidential hopeful Rick Santorum stoked the fires by criticizing the 1960 speech given by John F. Kennedy when he ran for president.

As an ardent supporter of former Republican Sen. Charles McC. Mathias Jr., it saddens me to observe what has happened to his Grand Old Party. It has made a grand terrible bargain with the devil. The equation is easy to see. They don't want to raise taxes on people earning over $1 million a year, which they say is critically important for the average American. To achieve this goal, they say, we must accept some things we may not like from a vocal minority of the party: Limiting women's access to contraception; limiting women's ability to make decisions regarding their health; and limiting men and women's right to marry whomever they wish.

Fellow citizens, if you are not a conservative Christian, your life may soon be subject to laws passed by those who believe that everyone should submit to their own particular beliefs. Even if you are a conservative Christian who wants laws to reflect what you may believe is the will of God, will the legislator you elect today pass only laws with which you agree? If you cannot depend on our lawmakers to separate church and state and avoid making laws which reflect only some citizens' view of what is right and good, how will you feel when a law is passed that forces you to do or not do something you think is right and good?

There was barely a whisper about God during a Carroll County-sponsored seminar Friday on the state constitution. The speaker was introduced as Pastor David Whitney to an audience of about 50 county employees in a lecture hall at Carroll Community College, but he made no attempt to proselytize. "I am honored to be with people who care about their country," said Whitney, the pastor of a Pasadena church who frequently lectures for the Institute on the Constitution. "I commend the county commissioners for having the foresight to offer you an opportunity to study the supreme law of the state.

ARLINGTON, Va. -- Logicians say it is impossible to hold two conflicting thoughts simultaneously. But I do when it comes to the Ten Commandments case in Alabama and the ongoing debate about the relationship between church and state. Alabama Chief Justice Roy Moore issued a statement Aug. 14, challenging an order by federal U.S. District Judge Myron Thompson. Judge Thompson ordered the removal of a stone depiction of the Ten Commandments from the rotunda of the Alabama Judicial Building.

Carroll County commissioners have asked county employees to attend a seminar on the Maryland Constitution led by a conservative Christian minister, sparking accusations that local officials are overstepping the boundary between church and state. David Whitney, pastor of a Pasadena church and a lecturer for the Institute on the Constitution, bases his teachings on the biblical view of American law and government. He said of the seminar scheduled for Friday, "We will be looking at the language of our founding fathers who wrote they were 'grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberties' front and center on this document.

In response to the recent coverage of gay marriage and transgender rights and the hearings in Annapolis, I am quite upset to think our elected officials are confusing the roles of the church and state. The Constitution requires civil liberties for all. Allowing the church to define the rules based on religion is not upholding the Constitution. This requires our government to keep church and state separate and to recognize the rights of all regardless of race, color, sex and religion.