NationStates Jolt Archive

In the US, there have been court rulings that the 10 commandments should not be displayed in a courthourse, that pray should not be sponsored by or conducted by schools and that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. (Ok that last one was from the US constitution, not a court ruling.) I'd like to entertain a discusion on the way religions and governments have interacted in the past, consquenses of such interactions, and the ways future interactions of said parties should be conducted. I'll start

I believe the government should not influence religion, and religion should not influence government. In the past, religions have used the power government inherantly possese to abuse its own responsiblity. Example: Catholic church in the Dark Ages. Instead of teaching "Love thy neighbor" they were too busy teaching "thou shall not suffer a witch to live." and exploiting that phrase to attack personal enemies. Another example, going the other way. The entire Anglican Church was set up so the king of England could divorce his wife if she didn't bear a son. Subtle differances like this have shattered Christians in to feuding factions.

Many of the Christians in America feel they have been victimized by the courts, when they lost school prayer and the Ten Commandments battles. I wish they would realize, the government isn't against them, but its not for them either. It has to stay impartial to maintain a fairness amoung people of many religions.

If those Americans were forced to pray to Allah in public school, or saw "Allah Akbar" on every coin and dollar bill they use, or saw a big monument to Mohommed on the lawn of their state courthouse, they would run crying to the ACLU to save them from religious oppression.

Religions are dangerous.
Some people think religion is about "you should love your neighbor", but it is not necessarily the case. Religion is about doing the same rituals without questioning them, most of the time it is introduced to a population by brainwashing. It is inherently dangerous. All religions are sects.
If you think your religion is just about "loving your neightbor", ask yourself why you need rituals and who is controlling you. If you are christian, you are controlled by the vatican and by the richest man in the world : the pope. Do you really need to sustain the vatican in order to love your neightbor?

Religions are dangerous.
Some people think religion is about "you should love your neighbor", but it is not necessarily the case. Religion is about doing the same rituals without questioning them, most of the time it is introduced to a population by brainwashing. It is inherently dangerous. All religions are sects.
If you think your religion is just about "loving your neightbor", ask yourself why you need rituals and who is controlling you. If you are christian, you are controlled by the vatican and by the richest man in the world : the pope. Do you really need to sustain the vatican in order to love your neightbor?
Bill Gates is the Pope? He's a heckuva lot richer than John Paul II. And since when is every Christian Catholic? And if religion is automatically about unquestioning devotion to ritual, aren't you really just saying that the Unitarians don't exist? Think before you type, man.

Bill Gates is the Pope? He's a heckuva lot richer than John Paul II. And since when is every Christian Catholic? And if religion is automatically about unquestioning devotion to ritual, aren't you really just saying that the Unitarians don't exist? Think before you type, man.

I always think people should read what they have written and then think about it.Correct it then if needs be.Just offering another slant on the issue.

I think too much interaction between religion and government has a corrupting influence on both. I do not however find the most passive displays of religiosity as tanamount to endorsement.

Bill Gates is the Pope? He's a heckuva lot richer than John Paul II. And since when is every Christian Catholic? And if religion is automatically about unquestioning devotion to ritual, aren't you really just saying that the Unitarians don't exist? Think before you type, man.Bill Gates is not the richest man in the world. There are a dozen sultans and checks before him, the queen of england is richer than Bill Gates. Ingvar Kamprad is richer than Bill Gates. John Paul II is certainly richer than Bill Gates, there is no question about it. Bill Gates is just the richest american in the world.
I don't know what the unitarians are. Are they humanists?

BTW all apologies for confusing christians and catholics.

If those Americans were forced to pray to Allah in public school, or saw "Allah Akbar" on every coin and dollar bill they use, or saw a big monument to Mohommed on the lawn of their state courthouse, they would run crying to the ACLU to save them from religious oppression.
To be fair I wouldent (though some part of me dislikes the pulling down of statutes and plaques and such ... but more for a historical perspective then an actual agreement with the religion)

I should say that I dont like any religion being in such places so it really would be all equal to me (exept from a historical perspective ... changing things just cause they are there ... iti s part of the nations history ... phase it out as new buildings are built ... nothing to do with religion on them. As we change to new bills... remove religious connotations)

And such

Change the history being made now ... dont try to erase the past but dont let it rule you either

Loving your neighbour is perfectly well. Everyone should really do it.

But is mankind so WEAK as to need some black-robed crows to tell them that 2+2=4 and charging them for it?

In the US, there have been court rulings that the 10 commandments should not be displayed in a courthourse, that pray should not be sponsored by or conducted by schools and that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. (Ok that last one was from the US constitution, not a court ruling.) I'd like to entertain a discusion on the way religions and governments have interacted in the past, consquenses of such interactions, and the ways future interactions of said parties should be conducted. I'll start

I believe the government should not influence religion, and religion should not influence government. In the past, religions have used the power government inherantly possese to abuse its own responsiblity. Example: Catholic church in the Dark Ages. Instead of teaching "Love thy neighbor" they were too busy teaching "thou shall not suffer a witch to live." and exploiting that phrase to attack personal enemies. Another example, going the other way. The entire Anglican Church was set up so the king of England could divorce his wife if she didn't bear a son. Subtle differances like this have shattered Christians in to feuding factions.

Many of the Christians in America feel they have been victimized by the courts, when they lost school prayer and the Ten Commandments battles. I wish they would realize, the government isn't against them, but its not for them either. It has to stay impartial to maintain a fairness amoung people of many religions.


you are "victimized" because you can't have the courthouse decorated with your religion to the exclusion of others?

You are "victimized" because an institution funded by all citizens doesn't have an officially organized time slot for you to celebrate your religion?

You have no idea what victimization is.

If you want to read the commandments in court - bring your own copy.

If you want to pray in school - do so either alone or with your friends in a group before class starts.

Victimization is disallowing you from practicing your religion. The practice of not wasting community money to support you in you religious practice does not qualify.

Bill Gates is not the richest man in the world. There are a dozen sultans and checks before him, the queen of england is richer than Bill Gates. Ingvar Kamprad is richer than Bill Gates. John Paul II is certainly richer than Bill Gates, there is no question about it. Bill Gates is just the richest american in the world.
I don't know what the unitarians are. Are they humanists?

BTW all apologies for confusing christians and catholics.

Queen ain't rich, Bill Gates is richer than any Briton living, and the Queen only made top 50 in Britains richest. As for the others no idea.

Bill Gates is not the richest man in the world. There are a dozen sultans and checks before him, the queen of england is richer than Bill Gates. Ingvar Kamprad is richer than Bill Gates. John Paul II is certainly richer than Bill Gates, there is no question about it. Bill Gates is just the richest american in the world.
I don't know what the unitarians are. Are they humanists?

BTW all apologies for confusing christians and catholics.
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2003/02/26/billionaireland.html

http://www.forbes.com/lists/2003/02/26/billionaireland.html
http://www.forbes.com/billionaires/free_forbes/2003/0317/140.html

The richest man in the world is the guy that started Ikea or however it is spelt he has overtaken everyone else though a large chunk of his wealth is in assets.

If those Americans were forced to pray to Allah in public school, or saw "Allah Akbar" on every coin and dollar bill they use, or saw a big monument to Mohommed on the lawn of their state courthouse, they would run crying to the ACLU to save them from religious oppression.
if christians saw a statue of buddha suddenly in the middle of a courthouse they would mob the courthouse, drag, it out, and burn it and beat anyne in their way

I though Bill Gates was the richest Business Man in the world

Anyway, let's not high-jack this thread. The richest man of the world is the richest man of the world. The point is that the pope is very rich and that he is sustained by the catholics and that they don't need to.