Bob Kirkpatrick

Writer - Editor,

This conversation is closed.

Should separation of church and state and religious freedom be revoked allowing lawmakers to regulate according to personal religious belief

Certain religious issues have become motivators for garnering votes for elected officials in spite of their apparent violation of Separation of Church and State, and Freedom of Religion. Since there is such apparent approval of these ideas of faith, should the Constitution be changed to permit legal mandate and enforcement of a particular religious belief set?

I am not asking about the good or bad of any particular issue or candidate. The question is solely whether the Constitution should be changed so that freedom of assembly, freedom of speech, freedom of religion and a separation of church and state no longer might pose an impediment to elected (or appointed) leadership invoking law and policy in support of their own religious faith.

Closing Statement from Bob Kirkpatrick

I think the Constitution is fine the way it is, and think that we should be taking greater care, as a society, to ensure that it is adhered to by those who've sworn to defend it.

I'm not sure why our Catholic President is believed a Muslim by so many. I'm also startled the given his visibility, how blind some people are to his accomplishments. Yet I am also surprised by the concessions he's made in contrast to his stated opinions.

I'm saddened that our Congress has become such a kindergarten of petulant immaturity to the point that the body guarding the dominion of our nation damages it so. To the point that I admit the Constitution is losing its power of influence as our nation loses its democratic portion of a democratic republic. The days of a government by and for the people appears waning, if not deceased.

  • thumb
    Mar 17 2012: I suggest the only needed change in the status of churches in the U.S.A. is that they should be taxed like any For Profit business.That revenue alone would put us on the road to solvency. I oppose the idea of legislating and regulating the religious content of any religion-based organization. From Atheism to Zoroastrianism let them preach whatever they choose: God or no god; one god; many gods; male god; female god;same-sex god(s);animal god(s); volcano gods(s) whatever. . . but tax them all!
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2012: No. We had that and escaped to America. Are you asking this based on our President being muslim and bowing to Kings and pledging service and aliegance. Or the recent decision to make churchs provide contraceptives even against their religious beliefs. Perhaps adding the term Dhimmitude to the National Health Care Act raised the question. Dhimmitude is the Muslim system of controlling non-muslim populations. Obama Care is the establishment of Dhimmitude and Shaira muslim Diktat in the United States. With the advent of Socialism and Dhimmitude on our door steps I think that seperation of church and state are no longer our major problem as both are about to become extinct. Bob
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2012: Well, no. I was thinking in more general terms. I am speaking to the changes, proposed, made, and under court scrutiny, and to the campaign promises making up the platform of candidates both Democrat and Republican. A few changes to the Constitution have been proposed, and so I wondered if we should include this issue among them.
  • thumb
    Mar 18 2012: That's why I ask the question. Given those already in office and those running for office and the popularity and acceptance of their religion based change goals, should we change the Constitution to permit a theocratic government and perhaps even a theological party?
  • thumb
    Mar 17 2012: Separation of church and state should always apply, but unfortunately, regardless of what is written into the constitution this separation is increasingly disappearing in the US.
    Just look at the GOP nomination. It seems the candidates are running for religious office and not for the nominee of POTUS.
  • Comment deleted

    • thumb
      Mar 17 2012: That is a question of a different stripe. My question was whether the Constitution's seeming proscriptions should be modified to permit the application of dogma into national policy or law.