NationStates Jolt Archive

Should there be separation of church and state? If not how should the state interact with the church?

Should there be separation of church and state? If not how should the state interact with the church?
A big wall, right between 'em.

Yes, complete and total seperation.

Religion and state should ideally be completely separate.

Zero interaction. Government should neither promote nor discourage religion. They are separate entities.

Yeah, whenever the government involves itself in religion it tends to lead to problems like repressing heretics and such. Of course, the same is true when the government took up an Athiest role, as amply demonstrated by the Soviet Union, China, and other Communist states that ban religion.

Yeah, whenever the government involves itself in religion it tends to lead to problems like repressing heretics and such. Of course, the same is true when the government took up an Athiest role, as amply demonstrated by the Soviet Union, China, and other Communist states that ban religion.
Exactly. Balance is they key to the golden mean. :)

Like my bumper-sticker says: Freedom is the distance between church and state.

I Love Petting Zoos
Me to ^^

Yes, keep them separate

I was under the imprssion secular humanism is a religion?

I was under the imprssion secular humanism is a religion?
There is a difference. The government doesn't actively promote any religion, it simply removes itself from the matter all together.

Moderate seperation, I dont see whats wrong with (example) letting a judge have a cross in his office, where hardly anybody else will see it.

The big problem with seperation of church and state is that its a two-way slippery rope, go to far one way and you end up with the new Inquisition, go to far the other way and you get a sort of inverted Inquisition against religious people.

There is a difference. The government doesn't actively promote any religion, it simply removes itself from the matter all together.
Wherever the government goes, it is supporting some religion. It can't remove itself all together.

Wherever the government goes, it is supporting some religion. It can't remove itself all together.
That really depends on your definition of what constitutes a religion.

Government should encourage religion.

BTW nowhere in the constitution is there a seperation of church and state. Only something that prevents the government from creating an official church everyone is required to join.

Government should encourage religion.

BTW nowhere in the constitution is there a seperation of church and state. Only something that prevents the government from creating an official church everyone is required to join.
Why do you think government should encourage religion?

Government should encourage religion.
Do you mean any religion, or one specific one?
BTW nowhere in the constitution is there a seperation of church and state. Only something that prevents the government from creating an official church everyone is required to join.
Actually, there is.
I'll try to go find it.

uh oih

aare you sure neo?

I like petting zoos. Particularly ones with Llamas. We should have Llama (clicky) (goverment.http://www.albinoblacksheep.com/flash/llama.php) Worship as the world wide religion. And allow the llamas control of the government.

"[...]
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
[...]"

Hee. More people have voted for the petting zoos than people that have voted for the government to actively promote religion.
:D

Yeah, whenever the government involves itself in religion it tends to lead to problems like repressing heretics and such. Of course, the same is true when the government took up an Athiest role, as amply demonstrated by the Soviet Union, China, and other Communist states that ban religion.
False cause. Communism is not a result of an atheistic government. As a matter of fact, any "secular" government is an atheistic government, including the United States government. Atheism is not a denial of god, but simply an absense of belief in god. I don't say god doesn't exist, I just don't hold an active belief in god. This still leaves room for existence, it is simply an "hands off" approach to religious belief.

This still leaves room for existence, it is simply an "hands off" approach to religious belief.

this should be every government approach but this is in a perfect world

Government should encourage religion.

BTW nowhere in the constitution is there a seperation of church and state. Only something that prevents the government from creating an official church everyone is required to join.
The Constitution mentions religion twice, and both times it is put into exclusionary terms. If people of all faiths and no faith are paying into a system, then it is unfair for that system to take a position on faith, it HAS to remain neutral in order to be fair to all those who are paying into it.

Yeah, I'm for total separation.

I was under the impression secular humanism is a religion?
Surely the fact that it has "secular" in its name means it's not a religion? It's a philosophy.

Hee. More people have voted for the petting zoos than people that have voted for the government to actively promote religion.
:D
Well, it's official: petting zoos are better than theocracy.

I was under the imprssion secular humanism is a religion?

Only Jerry Falwell says that so that he can then argue that if the government takes an interest in promoting any kind of behaviour without involving religion then the government is promoting a religion of non-religiousness. If he can get enough people to buy that load of crap then he can tell them that they have a choice between a government that thinks all behaviours are equally valid or that his church is entitled to government funds to promote its message in public schools. Until then he just tells them that if people have to sell their homes to pay for a prep-school education then they should do it.

False cause. Communism is not a result of an atheistic government. As a matter of fact, any "secular" government is an atheistic government, including the United States government. Atheism is not a denial of god, but simply an absense of belief in god. I don't say god doesn't exist, I just don't hold an active belief in god. This still leaves room for existence, it is simply an "hands off" approach to religious belief.

No, agnosticism is the absense of belief, atheism is the active disbelief.
A secular government need only take no position on matters of faith to remain secular. The United States has a secular government despite all 50 states having some reference to some sort of non denominational devine figure in the preambles of their constitutions. France has begun to border on the Atheistic by prohibiting obvious displays of religion in public schools.

It is funny how religious people keep trying to argue that non-religion is in itself a religion.

No, agnosticism is the absense of belief, atheism is the active disbelief.
A secular government need only take no position on matters of faith to remain secular. The United States has a secular government despite all 50 states having some reference to some sort of non denominational devine figure in the preambles of their constitutions. France has begun to border on the Atheistic by prohibiting obvious displays of religion in public schools.
That is the colloquial definition, but it is not the actual definition. Dictionaries are terrible references for religious definitions, just look up the reference words they give you, that should prove it. Look up "christian" and you get reference words like "good, moral, clean, etc". Look up "atheist" and you get referrence words like "immoral, riot, untrustworthy, etc".

Parse the words.

A: greek prefix meaning without, not denial.
Theos: greek word meaning religious belief.

Therefore "atheos" is a lack of religious belief. Absence of belief is not the same as belief in absence. One is an active belief, the other is a lack of belief; a lack of a position if you will.

Gnosis: greek word meaning knowledge of god.

Therefore "agnostic" is one who claims that he is without knowledge of god. In other words, it is to say that we cannot know of god's existence. Therefore, atheism is a lack of belief and agnosticism is a lack of knowledge. Since belief and knowledge are different, these two terms are not mutually exclusive. That is how you get such things as "agnostic atheists", which I am. I do not believe in god and I do not think it is possible to know of god's existence.

Skaje, its funny because its true.

People seem to confuse the terms. We have a separation between church and state, meaning the church hierarchy and church politics. We have never acknowledged a separation of God and state. Chaplains, paid by tax dollars, operate at all times in Congress (opened by prayer), the Supreme Court, the military, and everywhere else, as it should be.