Can the State be "Religion-Neutral" ?

[Starkist]

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=34243

It depends on the defination of "religion". As a belief in a higher power, as a system of morals, as a set of actions, or what? Sure, the government is not supposed to establish a religion, but they are also supposed to leave people free to practice whatever religion they follow. Does out government truly allow that?

[Rainman]

Religion is completely seperate from a system of morals. I mean, I am practically an atheist, but that doesn't mean that I'm just going around killing people willy nilly. No, you can have ethics without believing in a higher power. Religion is the believe in a higher power. That there is some almighty force watching over us.

The government shouldn't ever establish a religion. They don't need it. You can set up a moral background without consulting religious doctrine.

Can a state ever be religiously neutral? PRobably not unless religion goes away. As long as there are multiple religion there will be religious conflict. Anyone in power who believe in a religion will unknowingly or knowingly put there religious beliefs into there work. So the only way to get religion out of politics is to eliminate religion. Of course, that will never happen now will it. ;)

[Feasul]

No, the state itself cannot be religion-neutral, because a state is founded on a set of beleifs, whether they are beleifs in God, or that there is no God, or simply that some actions are morally right or wrong.
On the other hand, it kind depends on your definition of religion-neutral. If it means that it represents no religion, than it cannot be neutral. If, however, it means tolerant of all religions, that I think it can be.

[Dart Zaidyer]

The state can not be religion neutral. Primarily because the world's definition of "religion neutral" is "atheism and humanism mixed with a mild tolerance of other people's beliefs".

Of course, the way they're going now is decidedly lopsided. The government's position on religion right now is a joke. I suppose you've heard recently that the Christian Bible is now classified as "hate literature" because God is opposed to sodomy, AKA homosexuality? Imagine how many Muslims would go ape if they were to declare the Koran "hate literature" for what's written inside.
And let's not forget the "Ten Commandments monuments" debacle, where in the last week yet another survivor is coming under severe, ruthless fire. Imagine how well that would go over if it were, say, a decorative statue of Buddha.
Meanwhile, our President makes it clear he's Christian every chance he gets.

[Jigglysaint]

Anybody ever consider that this may in fact spark historic events that may be very unplesent for the US?

Perhaps there may be another civil war, where those who are opposed to Freedom and liberty will stand up and attack those who do. That sort of thing happened in the past.

I think the only thing important is that the government gives right to all groups, as long as they are not hate inspired. I really don't think Athiestism and Humanism are dangerous to our immediate safety, unless they were to attack believers, which isn't all that likely.

[Axel]

the idea, of course, is to prevent the government from supporting any single religion more than any others. By religion I refer to a system of beliefs centered around a supreme being or other supernatural figure(s).
The government should be free from religious influences. Not the moral system derived from a religious text, but the use of that text as justification for an action or against an action. Religious text or belief should never be directly represented by any written part of the government, because doing so comes at the price of the input any other religion.