Firstly, i would like to explain to you exactly what that phrase means: The Government Will Not Be Allowed To Influence Religious Desicisions, and governmental objects/documents shall not be allowed on a religious groups property. Religion will not be allowed to influence governmental desicisions, and religious objects/documents shall not be allowed on governmental property.
Post what you think should happen now because of these facts. Also, without adding religion, why should gay marriage be illegal? And, should the Ten Commandedments be allowed on the lawns of a government building, or even in one? Note that most of these things have already happened.
I’m saying now, that I’m not even going to touch this. Hooray, for another thread destined to become overly bloated and filled with flames, bigotry and trolling.
I’m saying now, that I’m not even going to touch this. Hooray, for another thread destined to become overly bloated and filled with flames, bigotry and trolling.
well i hope this does not, i hope it simply becomes a thread where we can discuss this fact
Already a thread on this. A few of them. Dig around a bit, it's got some good legal debates in it.
Aquilapus
30-07-2005, 04:10
You had me with "the Government will not be allowed to influence religious decisions", but the rest I simply can't agree with. If you are talking about the First Amendment or the Constitution in general, you must realize that the phrase "church and state" is neither in the Constitution nor is it implied anywhere in it. If this is simply your definition of what "curch and state" means then, aside from the aforementioned, I must respectfully disagree.
The idea that Government objects/documents should not be allowed on or near a religious groups property is absurd. Firstly, today's Government both directly and indirectly has some influence on our everyday lives. Secondly, the idea that Government and Religious institutions should not have any contact whatsoever is, historically, a ridiculous assertion. Religious institutions are parts of society as a whole, a very large part mind you, and to seperate them as such not only throws out 80% of the populus, but is a new form of intellectual persecution. Religion not being allowed to influence governmental decisions is another bold assertion.
Religion, it's institutions and groups; which you don't define whatsoever, is a moral and theological system of beliefs. To say that when someone goes to vote, they are forbidden to let their personal beliefs of right or wrong, simply because they might be based in religion, is again excluding the vast majority of the populus. The idea behind this seperation, historically speaking, is speaking of a time when the church was the state and was free to do as it wished. This does not imply that there should be no contact between the two or that a person or group isn't allowed to express their beliefs if it is based in religion.
Religious object/documents not being allowed on Governmental property is not looking at our 229 years of history as a nation. Most of the founding fathers were very religious men who held true to their, as it is sometimes refered to as, Judeo-Christian roots. The morality found in Judaism and Christianity are universal rights and wrongs found throughout many of the world's religions. What of the Islamic faith, where such seperation does not exist, but is a blasphemous notion? To forbid such beliefs is an unravelling of the fabric of history and society. This new intellectual persecution comming from fringe secularists in our society cannot adhere.
The illegalization of gay marriage is a period in our history in which we will look back on with disappointment. I disagree completly with this illegality, but respect the fact that it is backed by the majority of peoples opinions. The Government has no business in this arena, except in regards to taxes, which, if gay marriage was allowed, would force the government to give more tax breaks since they are viewed as a "married" couple. Certainly, this shouldn't exist on the Federal level, but, if it must exist, only on the State level. In my opinion, the gay community recently has been pushing this new morality on society, which is why we are seeing such a backlash against it. In Europe, gay communities are tolerated because they aren't pushing their views on anyone. These differences between our societies can lead to obvious confusion at times. With the Ten Commandments, yes, they should be allowed wherever. Just because it's a religious document, and just because it's government property, doesn't mean they should never come into contact with one another.
Sorry for the long thread, if you have comment or questions, let me know.
Firstly, i would like to explain to you exactly what that phrase means: The Government Will Not Be Allowed To Influence Religious Desicisions, and governmental objects/documents shall not be allowed on a religious groups property. Religion will not be allowed to influence governmental desicisions, and religious objects/documents shall not be allowed on governmental property.
Post what you think should happen now because of these facts. Also, without adding religion, why should gay marriage be illegal? And, should the Ten Commandedments be allowed on the lawns of a government building, or even in one? Note that most of these things have already happened.
1. Seperation exists between entities; so I disagree with your interpretation of seperation. Religion plays a part in my own decisions as a human being. And has as much forum as any other belief.
2. What defines a "religious" object or document?
3. Why can't governmental documents be allowed on religious property? Are you suggesting; that as a religious person; I am not allowed to discuss the Constitution and Civil laws with my congregation?
_
Responses:
1. What should happen?
- The Seperation clause should not be used as grounds for censoring plays and music.
- Individuals should be allowed to express their religious opinions; including in public.
2. Gay marriage should not be expressly illegal.
3. Depends on the Context: the Ten Commandments have as much placement for historical context as does Greek and Roman legal imagry; and the Code of Hamurabi.