NationStates Jolt Archive

I think most would agree that in order for a democracy to function in a way that respects all of its citizens, laws cannot be made restricting religious beliefs. That being said, how far does this "separation" between church and state need to be taken in order to be successful in preventing religious persecution? In the United States, some feel that the first amendment to the Constitution, which expressly bans laws made "regarding an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof", clearly calls for a complete separation of all things secular from all things religious. Others feel that symbols such as the Ten Commandments and wording such as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in association with government schools, courts, and other establishments are passable as they do nothing to restrict anyone's religious beliefs or force anyone to abide by a certain set of religious beliefs contrary to their own.

Opinions? How far should the "separation" be taken?

They should be completely and absolutely seperate. It's not the government's place to tell anyone that there's a god, it's also not the government's place to tell anyone how to worship.

Churches stay out of politics, government stays out of church.

I believe that church and state should be seperated, for the protection of both entities. However, it always bothers me when actions are taken to "reform" state history for the purposes of secularism. It is possible to take it too far.

They should be completely and absolutely seperate. It's not the government's place to tell anyone that there's a god, it's also not the government's place to tell anyone how to worship.

Churches stay out of politics, government stays out of church.

yep

:fluffle:

Churches stay out of politics

Why should any free organization be forbidden to take part in the politics of their own nation?

I agree that government should not recognize religion, but to force religious groups to be apolitical is rather discriminatory.

Generally completely separate.

There's a couple things I take issue with, such as not posting the Ten Commandments. I'm of the opinion that they should be posted alongside things like Hammurabi's Code, The Twelve Tables and the rest. Important moments in Law Giving, and thus they should not be spurned out of fear of religious connections.

Since I believe that government's only purpose is as a nightwatchman, church and state really doesn't enter into the equation.

Opinions? How far should the "separation" be taken?

There is no such thing as "partial separation." If it's not separated, it's still attached. There should be no link at all between church and state.

That being said, the state acknowledging religion =/= the state promoting religion.

There is a difference between the county's history and modern political agendas.
America was founded by Christians. A lot of old government stuff has the Commandments or "In God we Trust" on it or something.
However posting that on government property today would be pushing a modern political agenda, just as passing laws banning, say, gay marriage or stem cell research, would also be pushing a religious agenda.

Religious people don't have to stay out of government, but they should not push their agendas on a nation that does not all beleive the way they do.to force religious groups to be apolitical is rather discriminatory. They can participate in government as long as they do not mix relgion with their politics. Not "Apolitical" necessarily, just "Areligious"

Why should any free organization be forbidden to take part in the politics of their own nation?

I agree that government should not recognize religion, but to force religious groups to be apolitical is rather discriminatory.

No it's not because the church's political freedoms extend to where they abut my freedom FROM religion (and vice versa).

There is a difference between the county's history and modern political agendas.
America was founded by Christians. A lot of old government stuff has the Commandments or "In God we Trust" on it or something.

Not entirely, a lot of the founders were Deists.

There is a difference between the county's history and modern political agendas.
America was founded by Christians. A lot of old government stuff has the Commandments or "In God we Trust" on it or something.
However posting that on government property today would be pushing a modern political agenda, just as passing laws banning, say, gay marriage or stem cell research, would also be pushing a religious agenda.

Religious people don't have to stay out of government, but they should not push their agendas on a nation that does not all beleive the way they do. They can participate in government as long as they do not mix relgion with their politics. Not "Apolitical" necessarily, just "Areligious"

yeah but IIRC, In God We Trust and One Nation Under God are products of the 50's.

Also many of our founding fathers spoke of the problems that arose from organized religion as well as it's involvment in politics.

No it's not because the church's political freedoms extend to where they abut my freedom FROM religion (and vice versa).

How is it harming your freedom of religion, if a church participates in the electoral process. I hold that it doesnt, and as such, how do you have any right to tell them that they differ from any other assembled people in thier freedom to endorse candidates?

...just as passing laws banning, say, gay marriage or stem cell research, would also be pushing a religious agenda.
Religious people don't have to stay out of government, but they should not push their agendas on a nation that does not all beleive the way they do. They can participate in government as long as they do not mix relgion with their politics. Not "Apolitical" necessarily, just "Areligious"

Since when are people required to justify the reason that they believe something? You cannot overpower someones ideas on politics simply because you dont like the reason they do it. If it truly a government of the people, they have just as much right to their opinions (For any reason) as you do to yours.

Why should any free organization be forbidden to take part in the politics of their own nation?

I agree that government should not recognize religion, but to force religious groups to be apolitical is rather discriminatory.

Because if a church manages to force its views into politics, the barrier between church and state has been broken.

Religious people don't have to stay out of government, but they should not push their agendas on a nation that does not all beleive the way they do. They can participate in government as long as they do not mix relgion with their politics. Not "Apolitical" necessarily, just "Areligious"

What makes your moral values politically valid, while theirs are not?

How is it harming your freedom of religion, if a church participates in the electoral process. I hold that it doesnt, and as such, how do you have any right to tell them that they differ from any other assembled people in thier freedom to endorse candidates?

It's in the intent. If the intent of a religion is to subvert the separation of church and state, which advocating a political candidate is (by definition), then there is no "right" to do it.

I think people are far too jumpy & squimish about religion and politcs moving together. Many people fail to understand that, for instance, there is a diffrence between legislating religion (all people should be of X religion and carry out the following religious practises) and legislating from a moral world view of a religion. For instance, a law that forced everyone to pray to X at Y, Z and A times during the day would be legislating religion. But a law that put an end to no fault divorce would not be, but it could come from the moral viewpont of a particular religion.

I think most would agree that in order for a democracy to function in a way that respects all of its citizens, laws cannot be made restricting religious beliefs. That being said, how far does this "separation" between church and state need to be taken in order to be successful in preventing religious persecution? In the United States, some feel that the first amendment to the Constitution, which expressly bans laws made "regarding an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof", clearly calls for a complete separation of all things secular from all things religious. Others feel that symbols such as the Ten Commandments and wording such as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in association with government schools, courts, and other establishments are passable as they do nothing to restrict anyone's religious beliefs or force anyone to abide by a certain set of religious beliefs contrary to their own.

Opinions? How far should the "separation" be taken?Seperate. No Government cannot support any one religion, neither can they censor or limit any religion's speech. If someone donates something to city hall that is religously baised, then It sould be displayed, however, if others want to and do donate items baised on other religions, they cannot be turned away. If workers want to display crosses, cresents, stars of david or icons of the FSM in their office cubical, then by all means they should. the Government has no right to say what each worker can post on their desk... yes, even if it's pictures of Playboys or Playgirls.

Religous slogans on any changable government certificate (i.e. Money) should be voted upon by the masses. and once voted, then it cannot be voted upon for 10 years. (just a nice round number) thus it takes a grand measurement of the will of the people.

Government cannot silence, limit, endorse, or even spotlight any one or few Religions.

What makes your moral values politically valid, while theirs are not?

You don't get it. My moral values are NO MORE VALID than theirs. The difference is, I don't try to push mine onto you. They do.

It's in the intent. If the intent of a religion is to subvert the separation of church and state, which advocating a political candidate is (by definition), then there is no "right" to do it.

So even if a vast majority say 80% of the American populace wants to do away with Seperation of Church and State, they shouldn't be able to?

How is that "Majority Rules"?

It's in the intent. If the intent of a religion is to subvert the separation of church and state, which advocating a political candidate is (by definition), then there is no "right" to do it.

Seperation of Church & State claims the state may not establish a religion. The religious have every right to vote for any candidate they think will vote their way, and endorse any candidate they choose. Their opinions are not invalidated by the fact that they hold them for reasons you consider nonsensical.

You don't get it. My moral values are NO MORE VALID than theirs. The difference is, I don't try to push mine onto you. They do.

No, I do get it.

Why would you say that the Separation of Church and State isn't itself a moral principle?

Yes, but it can go too far. People should have freedoms to practice their religions, wherever they want without fear of getting expelled or fired.

I think people are far too jumpy & squimish about religion and politcs moving together. Many people fail to understand that, for instance, there is a diffrence between legislating religion (all people should be of X religion and carry out the following religious practises) and legislating from a moral world view of a religion. For instance, a law that forced everyone to pray to X at Y, Z and A times during the day would be legislating religion. But a law that put an end to no fault divorce would not be, but it could come from the moral viewpont of a particular religion.

I would posit that it's impossible to differentiate between the two, therefore no distinction exists for any practical purposes.

You don't get it. My moral values are NO MORE VALID than theirs. The difference is, I don't try to push mine onto you. They do.

That is a sweeping generalization. Say I'm a economic libertarian- couldnt I interpret an attempt to raise my taxes as having others views forced(literally) upon me? What if I'm a Stoic, and oppose welfare- having to fund it regardless would be having others views forced upon me.

No, I do get it.

Why would you say that the Separation of Church and State isn't itself a moral principle?

Because it's taking morality out of the equation. Doing something for "the public good" is not the same as morality. Murder isn't illegal because it's a moral crime, it's illegal because of the harm it does to the public order and the impingement on your freedom to live.

I would posit that it's impossible to differentiate between the two, therefore no distinction exists for any practical purposes.

You havent given an argument. I have given an example that specificly explains the differnces.

Seperation of chruch and state means that the state cannot endorse one religion (IE the state cannot make Zoroastrianism the offical religion, which everyone must adhear to). But what it can do is look at the moral world view of Zoroastrianism and see how it can be fitted in to the state in which they live.

That is a sweeping generalization. Say I'm a economic libertarian- couldnt I interpret an attempt to raise my taxes as having others views forced(literally) upon me? What if I'm a Stoic, and oppose welfare- having to fund it regardless would be having others views forced upon me.


As I said, the public interest is kept, which is not morality. Low taxes and welfare aren't inherently moral decisions. Interpreting them thusly does not make them so. Welfare provides a basic subsistence payment to prevent people from being forced into starvation on the public streets until they can get back on their feet. You can talk about the morality of man helping man, but that reasoning has no basis in law.

They should be separate in practice. Depending on the circumstances this doesn't necessarily require legislation, or even the end of theoretically established religion.

For example, in England we are, legally speaking, a Christian nation, with an established church (Anglicanism)and our unelected head of state is also 'Defender of the Faith'. Despite all of this we still enjoy a level of church-state separation beyond that of some countries (i.e. the US) which actively enshrine it in the constitution. Sure, we have Nativity plays and Christmas carols in state schools, but they are generally regarded as tradition or as nice stories to tell children rather than genuine events. An Anglican clergyman on newsnight tonight pretty much admitted that there are hardly any practising Anglicans anymore (they are predicted to make up under 1% of the population by 2020). Given this I actually quite like having an established church: with the benign Church of England nominally our national religion it promotes religious apathy and provides a bulwark against more extreme groups gaining power.

Because it's taking morality out of the equation. Doing something for "the public good" is not the same as morality. Murder isn't illegal because it's a moral crime, it's illegal because of the harm it does to the public order and the impingement on your freedom to live.

I would argue that "The public good" and any results thereof being based upon morality is entirely a matter of perspective and point-of-view. I have no problem with any views on the problems of religion. My posts in this topic are a result of some coming dangerously close to declaring some should be disenfranchised or at the very least politically immaculate because of their beliefs.

People dont have to be religious to do horribly immoral things "for the common good".

Doing something for "the public good" is not the same as morality.

*cough*bullshit*cough*

Now I am a strong agnostic libertarian who has NO respect for any religious views nor any respect for nearly all of government functions, but I just wish to point out the hypocrisy of most people who advocate the separation of church and state. In our present order, everyone must be subservient to the government, and therefore a secular government, by its very nature, enforces moral views upon those who seek a theocracy.

Without a drastic change in governmental systems (a change that is unlikely to ever occur), you are simply arguing morality vs. morality.

I think most would agree that in order for a democracy to function in a way that respects all of its citizens, laws cannot be made restricting religious beliefs. That being said, how far does this "separation" between church and state need to be taken in order to be successful in preventing religious persecution? In the United States, some feel that the first amendment to the Constitution, which expressly bans laws made "regarding an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof", clearly calls for a complete separation of all things secular from all things religious. Others feel that symbols such as the Ten Commandments and wording such as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in association with government schools, courts, and other establishments are passable as they do nothing to restrict anyone's religious beliefs or force anyone to abide by a certain set of religious beliefs contrary to their own.

Opinions? How far should the "separation" be taken?

The separation of church and state should be complete and absolute. Any promotion of religious belief by the nation is unfair to those who disagree with that particular belief. It's an endorsement of one religious belief system over others.

You havent given an argument. I have given an example that specificly explains the differnces.

Seperation of chruch and state means that the state cannot endorse one religion (IE the state cannot make Zoroastrianism the offical religion, which everyone must adhear to). But what it can do is look at the moral world view of Zoroastrianism and see how it can be fitted in to the state in which they live.

And by imposing Zoroastrianism's worldview on the state, they force others who don't believe in Zoroastrianism to adhere to that worldview, whether they are adherents to the religion or not. How is this distinguishable from forcing Zoroastrianism on the people. Of course I didn't make an argument for something that is obvious if you look at it for more than a second. That's what posit means -- "to lay down or assume as a fact or principle; postulate."

You havent given an argument. I have given an example that specificly explains the differnces.

Your example is horribly lacking. A government that makes laws that prohibit behavior based on religious moral dogma forces people to practice the religion even if they are not forced to pray or recognize the religion.

I think most would agree that in order for a democracy to function in a way that respects all of its citizens, laws cannot be made restricting religious beliefs. That being said, how far does this "separation" between church and state need to be taken in order to be successful in preventing religious persecution? In the United States, some feel that the first amendment to the Constitution, which expressly bans laws made "regarding an establishment of religion or preventing the free exercise thereof", clearly calls for a complete separation of all things secular from all things religious. Others feel that symbols such as the Ten Commandments and wording such as "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance in association with government schools, courts, and other establishments are passable as they do nothing to restrict anyone's religious beliefs or force anyone to abide by a certain set of religious beliefs contrary to their own.

Opinions? How far should the "separation" be taken?

http://www.abestweb.com/smilies/beat_deadhorse.gif

*cough*bullshit*cough*.

You can say "bullshit" all day long, but that doesn't make me less right. "The public interest" is not a moral viewpoint.

You can say "bullshit" all day long, but that doesn't make me less right. "The public interest" is not a moral viewpoint.

Actually it is. Any obligation to try and fulfill the intrests of the public is a moral objective. Why even the United Nations is based on basic natural law (the same set of moral principles the catholic church is based on).

You can say "bullshit" all day long, but that doesn't make me less right. "The public interest" is not a moral viewpoint.

You are able to make an objective, amoral statement as to what requirements best provide for the "public good/interest"?

I did say a lot more than "bullshit."

Actually it is. Any obligation to try and fulfill the intrests of the public is a moral objective. Why even the United Nations is based on basic natural law (the same set of moral principles the catholic church is based on).

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, then.

You can say "bullshit" all day long, but that doesn't make me less right. "The public interest" is not a moral viewpoint.

I still cannot make any serious distinction between a religion and any other of thousands of groups in society. why they can be seperately legislated because of a percieved difference is beyond me. That they are recognized as such an entity is likely the cause of more aggravation than their views.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree, then.

Fair enough.

The separation of church and state should be complete and absolute. Any promotion of religious belief by the nation is unfair to those who disagree with that particular belief. It's an endorsement of one religious belief system over others.

Ordinarily I agree with you, but by that logic, we should never have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Doing so was an impingement upon Southerners definition of what constituted civil society on the basis of largely religious appeals from Martin Luther King.

Moreover, I would say that it is simply impossible to create the standard of seperation that you insist on. It's one thing to say that a hypothetical Catholic president shouldn't try to push through a bill banning abortion on the simple basis that "The Pope says it's immoral". Such a bill would undermine the very notion of constitutional rule, because it supposes that the highest authority the people must appeal to is a religious figure, not themselves. But it is impossible for a person to simply seperate and isolate his political and religious selves into their own respective spheres, and foolish to posit. As a Christian, I can no more stop myself from, say, opposing torture for what are essentially Christian moral reasons than I can flap my arms and fly to the moon. I can find other ways of justifying my opposition, certainly, but in the end, my Christianity is impossible to seperate from my views of how the world ideally ought to be ordered.

Ordinarily I agree with you, but by that logic, we should never have passed the Civil Rights Act of 1965. Doing so was an impingement upon Southerners definition of what constituted civil society on the basis of largely religious appeals from Martin Luther King.

Moreover, I would say that it is simply impossible to create the standard of seperation that you insist on. It's one thing to say that a hypothetical Catholic president shouldn't try to push through a bill banning abortion on the simple basis that "The Pope says it's immoral". Such a bill would undermine the very notion of constitutional rule, because it supposes that the highest authority the people must appeal to is a religious figure, not themselves. But it is impossible for a person to simply seperate and isolate his political and religious selves into their own respective spheres, and foolish to posit. As a Christian, I can no more stop myself from, say, opposing torture for what are essentially Christian moral reasons than I can flap my arms and fly to the moon. I can find other ways of justifying my opposition, certainly, but in the end, my Christianity is impossible to seperate from my views of how the world ideally ought to be ordered.
I don't think that's what DCD was saying. The idea that the government should not be promoting any one religion or type of religion through its laws, policies, or procedures is NOT the same as saying that politicians and public officials cannot use their own personal religions to guide their personal judgment. The individual is free to use whatever moral/ethical guide they like. They should only be barred from forcing that system on others.

So, it should not matter if a politician votes against the death penalty because of his personal Christian beliefs. But it does matter if that same politician tries to get legislation passed that would mandate prayer in public schools or steer more money to faith-based social programs than to secular ones.

In the first situation, such legislation does not cause me to have to conform to the beliefs and practices of his religion because there is nothing inherently religious about the death penalty. An atheist could easily also vote against the death penalty because of a different set of ethical beliefs. Therefore, his vote and the resulting legislation do not equate to a governmental endorsement of religion.

In the second situation, however, the legislation would force me to conform to his religious beliefs because it is all about religion and religious practices. There is no way anyone with different beliefs, such as an atheist, would vote in any similar way. So there is no way for such legislation to be considered in any way secular, and it does equate to a governmental endorsement of religion.

I have never understood why this is a difficult distinction for some people to follow. What the individual politician believes is not important and is not covered by separation of church and state. All that matters is what the government does, and that is covered by it.

And by imposing Zoroastrianism's worldview on the state, they force others who don't believe in Zoroastrianism to adhere to that worldview, whether they are adherents to the religion or not. How is this distinguishable from forcing Zoroastrianism on the people.

Simple. You do not have to nessecarly believe in Zoroastrianism to believe the things they are suggesting are good ideas. Where it stops is where something is religiously motivated instead of morally motivated. For instance, you do not need to be Christian to believe that no fault divorce is a bad idea.

Simple. You do not have to nessecarly believe in Zoroastrianism to believe the things they are suggesting are good ideas. Where it stops is where something is religiously motivated instead of morally motivated. For instance, you do not need to be Christian to believe that no fault divorce is a bad idea.

Can you give a secular reason as to why it's a bad idea? Seriously. Why should we need to prove a marriage isn't working for it to be dissolved? If it's not working for me, why should I be required to seek the permission of the other person before a divorce?

Can you give a secular reason as to why it's a bad idea? Seriously. Why should we need to prove a marriage isn't working for it to be dissolved? If it's not working for me, why should I be required to seek the permission of the other person before a divorce?

Simple.

If something is easily damaged or destroyed, its value is lessened, which is why fake rolex's are cheep as they break the second a molicule of water touches their surface.

In the same way marriage, if too easily broken down, will loose its value

Marriage has been, for the better part of over several dozen centruries, the ideal situation for families to develop in, and thus far no alternative (despite many experiments) has succedded in replacing it.

Thus marriage should be protected and renforced by the same entity that gives it its significence in the first place, the state.

Simmilarly, if marriage isnt working for you, you alone should not have the power to break it down because you alone did not have the power to enter into it. A marriage is a two way partnership, and thus so should be a divorce a two way agreement. This of course only applies in the case of no fault divorce. Obviously if abuse or infidelity has come into play, that is diffrent.

There is a fine line between promoting freedom of religion and freedom from religion. For example making kids pray in school is too far one way, but not letting them too far the other. Government should try to ignore religion as best it can, so not endorse or infringe upon it. and vice versa.

As a theocrat, I'm against the separation of Church and state. But even without that, I just don't think that separation of religion from the state is possible. Secularism is just the religious belief that Man is capable of making decisions without considering God. But that's my opinion and you are allowed to disagree.

As a theocrat, I'm against the separation of Church and state. But even without that, I just don't think that separation of religion from the state is possible. Secularism is just the religious belief that Man is capable of making decisions without considering God. But that's my opinion and you are allowed to disagree.
It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and as you know I disagree, but that is neither here nor there, as frankly, the view of a theocrat on separation of church and state is so extreme and predictable as to be not at all instructive in this conversation. Why don't you provide some examples of theocracy and how it works and how you think it is superior to secular government, which we could consider when debating amongst ourselves how much separation of church and state we want?

It is your opinion, and you are entitled to it, and as you know I disagree, but that is neither here nor there, as frankly, the view of a theocrat on separation of church and state is so extreme and predictable as to be not at all instructive in this conversation. Why don't you provide some examples of theocracy and how it works and how you think it is superior to secular government, which we could consider when debating amongst ourselves how much separation of church and state we want?

I have examples of how dictatorial theocracy does not work, which is exactly what you want. But I have only theory and theology to support why a republican (system not party) theocracy could work (that is assuming it stays as free as possible from human corruption).

If God (I know you like this beginning), gave a system of government to be used, should we not use it? Now we can argue whether He really did and which system He gave (which religion should be the basis). But, if you think that God is perfect and His infallible, perfect Word sets was given to us, you cannot think otherwise on the issue of government. But many do. How is it superior to secular government? Again, it is based on the idea that a perfect God can only give perfect things, including perfect political systems. Can Man corrupt it? Yes, and He will, but that's not an excuse for not using it. Under that argument, Man should not touch anything and we would be in anarchy, because all the "good ideas" for government would and have become corrupted.

Anyway, that's the theory behind it. I am in favor of no separation of Church and state, but that's for you to decide. Regretfully and thankfully.

I would be happy to discuss this more, but I was only waiting for my phone to finish charging before I went to bed, and it is now finished. So, I'll respond tomorrow, should you wish. I'll have time tomorrow, because I don't need to take the trolley home. :)

As a theocrat, I'm against the separation of Church and state. But even without that, I just don't think that separation of religion from the state is possible. Secularism is just the religious belief that Man is capable of making decisions without considering God. But that's my opinion and you are allowed to disagree.

Freedom of Religion and freedom from Religion is what the establishment clause is all about.

There is no oppression of Christians in this country. How could there be? You are the dominate Religion. If you are being oppressed you need to prove it.

The establishment clause is a beautiful piece of work. It is what keeps you guys from being oppressed. In 100 years we could see say Hinduism as the dominant Religion. They won't be able to press their ideals on you because of the establishment clause.

Muslims can't force the shiera (sp?) on people because of the establishment clause.

Madison and Jefferson had the religious wars of Europe in their minds when they came up with the concept.

Separation of Church and state is beautiful.

As Madison himself said (if you can't see the sig)

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"

Nothing will be gained from a quasi-theocracy. It didn't work for the pilgrims. It won't work now.

I have examples of how dictatorial theocracy does not work, which is exactly what you want. But I have only theory and theology to support why a republican (system not party) theocracy could work (that is assuming it stays as free as possible from human corruption).

The religious wars of Europe, the crusades and the inquisition show that a theocracy will not work.

If God (I know you like this beginning), gave a system of government to be used, should we not use it? Now we can argue whether He really did and which system He gave (which religion should be the basis). But, if you think that God is perfect and His infallible, perfect Word sets was given to us, you cannot think otherwise on the issue of government. But many do. How is it superior to secular government? Again, it is based on the idea that a perfect God can only give perfect things, including perfect political systems. Can Man corrupt it? Yes, and He will, but that's not an excuse for not using it. Under that argument, Man should not touch anything and we would be in anarchy, because all the "good ideas" for government would and have become corrupted.


That only works if everybody believes like you. Christians are not the Borg so there are always divisions. Then there are the people that don't believe in Christianity.

The establishment clause keeps the peace as you are allowed to worship as you see fit and not worry about others telling you what to worship or what lifestyle you have to live.

Not entirely, a lot of the founders were Deists.

ABSOLUTELY CORRECT: The Founding Fathers were all, if not full-blown "Christians", then at least Deists, which means they recognized and acknowledged the existence of a God or Gods. And I believe they intended for government to not promote/force/make compulsory/mandate any religion or sect or group of religions or sects, but yet nevertheless to recognize and acknowledge the existence of a God or Gods, whether Jesus Christ, Allah, or some other deity or group of deities, and respect religious people's reverence for their god(s) by:

1. Not forbidding Their names to be spoken on public property or in court.
2. Acknowledging His/Her/Its/Their (the deities') superiority to mankind by not taxing churches, synagogues, mosques, or other religious organizations, because "only a greater entity" (the deities) "can tax a lesser entity" (the gov't), not vice versa.
3. In spite of the foregoing, allowing people to disbelieve in, be skeptical of, or question, the existence of any higher power of any kind (Atheism, Skepticism, Agnosticism).

This does NOT resemble 21st and late 20th century America because:

1. Prayer to ANY god is forbidden in public schools.
2. Bibles are not allowed in public schools.
3. Creation and Intelligent Design are forbidden to be taught in public schools.

If THAT is freedom of religion, I'm Charles Darwin's grandmother!

THAT is not freedom of religion; it is mandated, state-sponsored atheistic brainwashing.

As a theocrat, I'm against the separation of Church and state. But even without that, I just don't think that separation of religion from the state is possible. Secularism is just the religious belief that Man is capable of making decisions without considering God. But that's my opinion and you are allowed to disagree.

Whether or not I'm a theocrat depends on which god is being spoken of. To be more accurate, I'm a Christocrat; i.e., I am in favor of Jesus Christ to govern (and I believe that one day He WILL govern) the world, but otherwise, because He is currently NOT governing the world, and because there are people who don't believe like I do, I believe in Separation of Church and State.

1. Not forbidding Their names to be spoken on public property or in court.


The problem with that is that certain God(s) would be preferenced over others. For example do you think that lunkhead in Alabama would have allowed for Allah to mentioned?


2. Acknowledging His/Her/Its/Their (the deities') superiority to mankind by not taxing churches, synagogues, mosques, or other religious organizations, because "only a greater entity" (the deities) "can tax a lesser entity" (the gov't), not vice versa.


That has nothing to do with it. Churches etc, are not taxed simply because there are registered as a non-profit.


3. In spite of the foregoing, allowing people to disbelieve in, be skeptical of, or question, the existence of any higher power of any kind (Atheism, Skepticism, Agnosticism).

This does NOT resemble 21st and late 20th century America because:



1. Prayer to ANY god is forbidden in public schools.


Nope. Class led prayer is forbidden. You are free to pray on your own and groups(depending on the school) can have after class time, etc prayers. A couple schools around here allow for it.


2. Bibles are not allowed in public schools.

Bibles are for church and home. They don't have to be around as Christians (well some of them) can't contain themselves if some kid happened to look at one out of curiosity.


3. Creation and Intelligent Design are forbidden to be taught in public schools.

In the science room sure. They are not science.

No reason they can't be in a religious theory or a comparative religions class.


If THAT is freedom of religion, I'm Charles Darwin's grandmother!

THAT is not freedom of religion; it is mandated, state-sponsored atheistic brainwashing.

That's called freedom from Religion. Which you have to have if you want to have freedom of Religion.

My child's religion is my responsibility and not the teachers.

I have examples of how dictatorial theocracy does not work, which is exactly what you want.
That question was completely straightforward and told you the kind of information a theocrat could add to a debate about separation of church and state. If you want to read it as some kind of "baiting" that's your deal, not mine. Don't presume to "know" what I want or what I like beyond what I tell you. What I say is what I mean.

But I have only theory and theology to support why a republican (system not party) theocracy could work (that is assuming it stays as free as possible from human corruption).

If God (I know you like this beginning), gave a system of government to be used, should we not use it? Now we can argue whether He really did and which system He gave (which religion should be the basis). But, if you think that God is perfect and His infallible, perfect Word sets was given to us, you cannot think otherwise on the issue of government. But many do. How is it superior to secular government? Again, it is based on the idea that a perfect God can only give perfect things, including perfect political systems. Can Man corrupt it? Yes, and He will, but that's not an excuse for not using it. Under that argument, Man should not touch anything and we would be in anarchy, because all the "good ideas" for government would and have become corrupted.

Anyway, that's the theory behind it. I am in favor of no separation of Church and state, but that's for you to decide. Regretfully and thankfully.

I would be happy to discuss this more, but I was only waiting for my phone to finish charging before I went to bed, and it is now finished. So, I'll respond tomorrow, should you wish. I'll have time tomorrow, because I don't need to take the trolley home. :)
Do what you like. Good night.

Opinions? How far should the "separation" be taken?

For a religion like Christianity or Islam, where the oppression of other religions is implicit (and often also explicit) in their doctrine, the separation should be as complete as it can reasonably be, if you intend to have a nation where people are free to follow their beliefs at all or at least without having to pay a tax for the privilege.

For others, for instance if you had a state religion of fluffy eclectic Wicca, it is not so urgent. Potential infringements on others' rights to practice their own religion would be minimal if current followers are anything to go by (they tend to bend over backwards to be accommodating.)

However, in general principal, the very serious, real world business of politics should not be beholden to supernatural religious nonsense, be it from Christian theocrats, Islamic zealots or chirpy, lovey Wiccans in nice suits (though of the three, the last would be preferable.) Now, because politics is basically all about people and people still have a habit of indulging in all kinds of silly supernatural beliefs, you obviously can't completely excise it from politics.

The deliberate mixing of the two should be discouraged and at least one good way to do this is to prohibit the government from using public funding and public assets to display a religious preference of its own. Allowing it do so only encourages one particular religious group to think that it has the government on its side and that is therefore fine for them to impose their religion on other people who do not share it. If you want a nation where people free in religious matters, you don't want this.

So unless you're also putting extracts of the Bhagavad Gita, the Wiccan Rede, some pertinent suras from the Qu'ran, a page or two from the Guru Granth Sahib, a few of the maxims of Ptahhotep, a passage from Tao Te Ching... well, you get the idea. Unless you also want to put all these up in your courts as well, maybe devote a whole wall to pieces of literature from various religions, you shouldn't be putting the 10 Commandments up there either. That is a government endorsement of religion and elevates one religious group above another.

Freedom of Religion and freedom from Religion is what the establishment clause is all about.

There is no oppression of Christians in this country. How could there be? You are the dominate Religion. If you are being oppressed you need to prove it.

The establishment clause is a beautiful piece of work. It is what keeps you guys from being oppressed. In 100 years we could see say Hinduism as the dominant Religion. They won't be able to press their ideals on you because of the establishment clause.

Muslims can't force the shiera (sp?) on people because of the establishment clause.

Madison and Jefferson had the religious wars of Europe in their minds when they came up with the concept.

Separation of Church and state is beautiful.

As Madison himself said (if you can't see the sig)

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the Priesthood, & the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the Church from the State"

Nothing will be gained from a quasi-theocracy. It didn't work for the pilgrims. It won't work now.

I never said that I wanted a quasi-theocracy. And I never said I was being oppressed. At least not as you mean by it.

Like the founders say, a "wall of separation."

That question was completely straightforward and told you the kind of information a theocrat could add to a debate about separation of church and state. If you want to read it as some kind of "baiting" that's your deal, not mine. Don't presume to "know" what I want or what I like beyond what I tell you. What I say is what I mean.

You misunderstand the intention of my statement. You said that you wanted examples of how theocracies have worked. Well, you wanted me to provide them if I was going to add to the debate, rather than just state my opinion. What you want (what any opposition wants) is for the speaker to provide an example where his/her system does not work. I was pointing out that you (as the opposition) want me to speak about the theocracies which have been in the past, because they have all failed. The statement was directed to you as the opposition, not to you as Muravyets.

Okay, that's all.

Opinions? How far should the "separation" be taken?
Religion has exactly as much place in government as does belief in the Tooth Fairy, as far as I'm concerned.

In the science room sure. They are not science.

No reason they can't be in a religious theory or a comparative religions class.

Evolution is not really science either. It is a proposed hypothesis not a tested one. Unlike gravity, which can be taken and tested in a lab, we cannot demonstrate evolution of the kind that is elaborated in the minds of many. Evolution and natural selection are very diffrent things. The latter is demonstratable, the former is not.


Bibles are for church and home. They don't have to be around as Christians (well some of them) can't contain themselves if some kid happened to look at one out of curiosity.

I think they would be very useful in a comparative religion lesson

Evolution is not really science either. It is a proposed hypothesis not a tested one. Unlike gravity, which can be taken and tested in a lab, we cannot demonstrate evolution of the kind that is elaborated in the minds of many. Evolution and natural selection are very diffrent things. The latter is demonstratable, the former is not.



I think they would be very useful in a comparative religion lesson

Evolution is science because it's falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability). One observation of the natural world that makes evolution impossible would be the end of that theory. Creationism and ID aren't science because they appeal to a supernatural agent and that simply isn't falsifiable.

Evolution has been and continues to be tested through observation of nature and of mutations and adaptations in living things. It's passed the tests so far and is confirmed to a high degree.

Evolution is not really science either. It is a proposed hypothesis not a tested one. Unlike gravity, which can be taken and tested in a lab, we cannot demonstrate evolution of the kind that is elaborated in the minds of many. Evolution and natural selection are very diffrent things. The latter is demonstratable, the former is not.



I think they would be very useful in a comparative religion lesson

Why doesnt your kind send people to college, and why dont you pay attention?

You misunderstand the intention of my statement. You said that you wanted examples of how theocracies have worked. Well, you wanted me to provide them if I was going to add to the debate, rather than just state my opinion. What you want (what any opposition wants) is for the speaker to provide an example where his/her system does not work. I was pointing out that you (as the opposition) want me to speak about the theocracies which have been in the past, because they have all failed. The statement was directed to you as the opposition, not to you as Muravyets.

Okay, that's all.

You know it's interesting how often we pose that "What are past examples of this working?" question to folks when they propose either a new form of government or a reform of an old one. I understand the inclination, because I have strong tendencies towards pragmatism and empiricism.

But after looking at history as a whole, I have yet to find one form of government that has not ultimately failed. Democracies, monarchies, empires, republics, anarchies; all have failed, none could stand the test of their own overbearing existence or the attacks on them by others. And what I conclude from this is that the form of goverment in use is not all that relevant. What seems relevant is that folks keep screwing up. It's a problem with the people, not the system.

That said, I do find that on a personal level, I prefer government to have certain qualities. Continuity, flexibility, adaptability, impartiality, efficiency, and efficacy. And as a function of impartiality (a quality I advocate in the interest of true justice), I do not want my government taking theological positions.

So even if a vast majority say 80% of the American populace wants to do away with Seperation of Church and State, they shouldn't be able to?

How is that "Majority Rules"?

Well, here's the really funny part.

We're not a nation of Majority rules. Never have been.

That is all.

Problem is, too often people act as if they're somehow injured at the mere sight of a religious icon of some sort. I truly believe, in my heart, that by the end of my lifetime I will hear reports of people wanting churches/temples/synagogues to remove all externally visible crosses, stars of David, etc because they're visible in public, or from a public building.

I mean, is it that hard to imagine? "That church across the street should remove the steeple with the large cross on it because it's clearly visible from the bay windows in the county courthouse, and thus by implication is endorsed by it."

Sounds stupid now, but just wait...

I think sometimes people are a little too insulated from one another. It sort of goes along with the mentality of people who advocate the illusion that people have a Constitutional right not to be offended. People offend each other. There are 6,000,000,000 of us on this planet. Get used to it. And 99% of them believe in some religion or another. Get used to that, too. It's not a bad thing.

Problem is, too often people act as if they're somehow injured at the mere sight of a religious icon of some sort. I truly believe, in my heart, that by the end of my lifetime I will hear reports of people wanting churches/temples/synagogues to remove all externally visible crosses, stars of David, etc because they're visible in public, or from a public building.

I mean, is it that hard to imagine? "That church across the street should remove the steeple with the large cross on it because it's clearly visible from the bay windows in the county courthouse, and thus by implication is endorsed by it."

Sounds stupid now, but just wait...

I think sometimes people are a little too insulated from one another. It sort of goes along with the mentality of people who advocate the illusion that people have a Constitutional right not to be offended. People offend each other. There are 6,000,000,000 of us on this planet. Get used to it. And 99% of them believe in some religion or another. Get used to that, too. It's not a bad thing.
I seriously doubt that 99% of the people on earth believe in some religion or another. Europe has a large number of atheists and agnostics. China probably does too.

It kind of is a bad thing. Look at all the stupid laws and stupid conflicts started by someone's blind faith in some deity.

Knowing the massively large liberal population on NationStates, I wasn't expecting this thread to go anywhere. I'm glad to see there was some debate.

I agree with those who have said that people have the right to advocate for legislation based on their personal religious beliefs just as atheists have the right to do so based on their moral values. I also agree with those who have said that it is ridiculous to ban religious symbols from being present on government or government-sponsored grounds; symbols of particular religious faiths in no way establish a religion. Even if one makes the argument that certain symbols work to promote a certain set of religious beliefs, so what? "Promotion" is in no way expressly banned or implied in the first amendment, nor is teacher-led prayer in classrooms as long as students have the right to opt out, nor are moments of silence (where justices discovered the sinister intent to allow students to pray during this time!), nor are teachers/judges wearing religious symbols, etc. etc. I think the courts have stretched the establishment clause (among other Constitutional provisions) way beyond absurdity.

Good talk, everyone.

Knowing the massively large liberal population on NationStates, I wasn't expecting this thread to go anywhere. I'm glad to see there was some debate.

I agree with those who have said that people have the right to advocate for legislation based on their personal religious beliefs just as atheists have the right to do so based on their moral values. I also agree with those who have said that it is ridiculous to ban religious symbols from being present on government or government-sponsored grounds; symbols of particular religious faiths in no way establish a religion. Even if one makes the argument that certain symbols work to promote a certain set of religious beliefs, so what? "Promotion" is in no way expressly banned or implied in the first amendment, nor is teacher-led prayer in classrooms as long as students have the right to opt out, nor are moments of silence (where justices discovered the sinister intent to allow students to pray during this time!), nor are teachers/judges wearing religious symbols, etc. etc. I think the courts have stretched the establishment clause (among other Constitutional provisions) way beyond absurdity.

Good talk, everyone.

Even if I agreed that the establishment clause doesn't prevent government promotion of religious belief and teacher led prayer, which I don't, what about the 14th amendment?

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Couldn't it be argued that the free expression of religion is a liberty entitled to every citizen and that forcing a religious minority to pay into government promotion of a religious belief that they don't subscribe to is a violation of that right? Couldn't it be argued that such a thing violates not just the first ammendment, but also the guarantees of equal treatment made in the 14th?

I seriously doubt that 99% of the people on earth believe in some religion or another. Europe has a large number of atheists and agnostics. China probably does too.

Out of the ~6.7 billion humans on Earth, about 1.1 billion do not believe in some religion or another. So, yeah.

You misunderstand the intention of my statement. You said that you wanted examples of how theocracies have worked. Well, you wanted me to provide them if I was going to add to the debate, rather than just state my opinion. What you want (what any opposition wants) is for the speaker to provide an example where his/her system does not work. I was pointing out that you (as the opposition) want me to speak about the theocracies which have been in the past, because they have all failed. The statement was directed to you as the opposition, not to you as Muravyets.

Okay, that's all.
Oh, I get it now. I'm sorry that I took your post the wrong way.

For a religion like Christianity or Islam, where the oppression of other religions is implicit (and often also explicit) in their doctrine, the separation should be as complete as it can reasonably be, if you intend to have a nation where people are free to follow their beliefs at all or at least without having to pay a tax for the privilege.

For others, for instance if you had a state religion of fluffy eclectic Wicca, it is not so urgent. Potential infringements on others' rights to practice their own religion would be minimal if current followers are anything to go by (they tend to bend over backwards to be accommodating.)

However, in general principal, the very serious, real world business of politics should not be beholden to supernatural religious nonsense, be it from Christian theocrats, Islamic zealots or chirpy, lovey Wiccans in nice suits (though of the three, the last would be preferable.) Now, because politics is basically all about people and people still have a habit of indulging in all kinds of silly supernatural beliefs, you obviously can't completely excise it from politics.

The deliberate mixing of the two should be discouraged and at least one good way to do this is to prohibit the government from using public funding and public assets to display a religious preference of its own. Allowing it do so only encourages one particular religious group to think that it has the government on its side and that is therefore fine for them to impose their religion on other people who do not share it. If you want a nation where people free in religious matters, you don't want this.

So unless you're also putting extracts of the Bhagavad Gita, the Wiccan Rede, some pertinent suras from the Qu'ran, a page or two from the Guru Granth Sahib, a few of the maxims of Ptahhotep, a passage from Tao Te Ching... well, you get the idea. Unless you also want to put all these up in your courts as well, maybe devote a whole wall to pieces of literature from various religions, you shouldn't be putting the 10 Commandments up there either. That is a government endorsement of religion and elevates one religious group above another.
I agree completely with you on this -- and very well put, by the way -- except that I wouldn't want cuddly Wiccans yakking on about their religious beliefs while they're supposed to be doing the nation's business in Congress or the Whitehouse, either. I agree that the serious, practical business of government should not be beholden to or controlled by superstitious nonsense, and under that heading I include even my own beliefs.

I'm with the majority of the US's founders in wanting a wall of separation between church and state, and pretty damned high wall at that.

Evolution is not really science either. It is a proposed hypothesis not a tested one. Unlike gravity, which can be taken and tested in a lab, we cannot demonstrate evolution of the kind that is elaborated in the minds of many. Evolution and natural selection are very diffrent things. The latter is demonstratable, the former is not.

Evolution is probably the best theory in terms of both simplicity, testability, and utility that the science has ever produced.

Unlike gravity, there has never been any evidence to cause the theory of evolution to be questioned.

Also, evolution is demonstrable through mitochondrial DNA and the fossil record.

Evolution is not really science either. It is a proposed hypothesis not a tested one. Unlike gravity, which can be taken and tested in a lab, we cannot demonstrate evolution of the kind that is elaborated in the minds of many. Evolution and natural selection are very diffrent things. The latter is demonstratable, the former is not.
I think they would be very useful in a comparative religion lesson

Every science institution in the world disagrees w/ you.

Do some reading and educate yourself.

http://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/home.php

You know it's interesting how often we pose that "What are past examples of this working?" question to folks when they propose either a new form of government or a reform of an old one. I understand the inclination, because I have strong tendencies towards pragmatism and empiricism.
I pose such questions because I also tend towards pragmatism and empiricism, and also because there are no really new ideas, especially not in politics. The means of administering government change with the times and with technology, but there is no form of government which has not been tried. History can provide us with working (or non-working) examples of just about anything.

But after looking at history as a whole, I have yet to find one form of government that has not ultimately failed. Democracies, monarchies, empires, republics, anarchies; all have failed, none could stand the test of their own overbearing existence or the attacks on them by others. And what I conclude from this is that the form of goverment in use is not all that relevant. What seems relevant is that folks keep screwing up. It's a problem with the people, not the system.
This is true. Edwardis sort of touched on this in his complaints about humans corrupting perfect systems. I happen to disagree with him about the supposedly perfect source of this or that system or idea, but that's beside the point. Macchiavelli's book The Discourses is instructive on this topic because it examines, using many historical examples, all the different forms of government and the ways in which they both succeed and fail. He examines both their strengths and their weaknesses. Each form of government is a little different, but they ALL are vulnerable to the will of the people most involved with them. Every single form of government can be destroyed if the will of the governed turns against it. And every single form of government can be corrupted, leading eventually to its collapse, if the people most involved with its power structure (whether dictator or voters) work in a way that is out of keeping with the government's founding principles.

The US was founded on the principles of reason, rule of law, government by consent of the governed, and above all, in my opinion, limitation on the power of the government over the individual. The separation of church and state is part and parcel of those principles because it forces the government to rely on reason over the assumptions of religous faith and because it cuts off a proven tool for amassing and cementing governmental power. Regardless of how religious individual Americans might be, if we abandon these principles and the systems that go with them, we will inevitably end up corrupting our own government by forcing it to do something it was not designed to do. In every historical case that I know of, such corruption has led to the collapse of government and, sometimes, even the loss of the nation.

Maybe the American theocrats can have their theocracy someday, but it won't be the United States of America.

That said, I do find that on a personal level, I prefer government to have certain qualities. Continuity, flexibility, adaptability, impartiality, efficiency, and efficacy. And as a function of impartiality (a quality I advocate in the interest of true justice), I do not want my government taking theological positions.
I think this way, too.

Couldn't it be argued that the free expression of religion is a liberty entitled to every citizen and that forcing a religious minority to pay into government promotion of a religious belief that they don't subscribe to is a violation of that right? Couldn't it be argued that such a thing violates not just the first ammendment, but also the guarantees of equal treatment made in the 14th?

No, because paying for the promotion of a religion in no way infringes on a minorties' rights to worship their own deities (or the non-existence thereof), nor does it force them to into practicing the belief system that is being promoted. This is speaking in a strictly consitutional sense -- although religious promotion is not disallowed by the first or fourteenth amendments, I still do not support it. There's no reason for government to go around promoting a particular set of religious beliefs.

No, because paying for the promotion of a religion in no way infringes on a minorties' rights to worship their own deities (or the non-existence thereof), nor does it force them to into practicing the belief system that is being promoted. This is speaking in a strictly consitutional sense -- although religious promotion is not disallowed by the first or fourteenth amendments, I still do not support it. There's no reason for government to go around promoting a particular set of religious beliefs.
But the point of separation of church and state is not JUST to avoid establishing an official religion and disallowing others. It is also to avoid corrupting BOTH government and religion by mixing them together. In fact, I think this point was even more important to the founders, based on their writings about it. And approached from another angle, it is about maintaining the kind of egalitarian society that allows for individual social mobility and self-determination -- precisely what the class system of 18th century England did not allow for.

So, when we quibble about whether "promotion" of religion is technically allowable under the Constitution, I think we are missing the point of separation.

Meriam-Webster says:

Main Entry: pro·mote
1 a : to advance in station, rank, or honor : RAISE b : to change (a pawn) into a piece in chess by moving to the eighth rank c : to advance (a student) from one grade to the next higher grade
2 a : to contribute to the growth or prosperity of : FURTHER <promote international understanding> b : to help bring (as an enterprise) into being : LAUNCH c : to present (merchandise) for buyer acceptance through advertising, publicity, or discounting
3 slang : to get possession of by doubtful means or by ingenuity
synonym see ADVANCE

According to this standard English definition, if the government is promoting a religion or even just religion/religiousness in general, it is cannot help but harm social equality because it is already creating a situation in which one religion is considered better than others, or religiousness is considered better than non-religiousness. And because the promotion is a function of government, there will inevitably be a set of privileges that will attach to that better status -- such as tax breaks or public funding for projects, etc -- because there is no other way for that promotion of religion to be shown.

EDIT: And actually, I disagree about the paying for religion (through taxes) part. Even if I could be certain that MY religion would get its fare share (which so far has not been the case; all money for faith-based initiatives, for instance, has gone to Christian churches, and according to "Tempting Faith," even the Christians are getting stiffed), I would still have to answer to the atheists and secular organizations who don't get any share at all for their worthy programs.

Not entirely, a lot of the founders were Deists.

Deism, agnostism and atheism were all 'in fashion' during the Enlightenment. It's only later that people turned Franklin and Jefferson's deist 'God' into Yahweh-El, the god of the Israelites. Both are called 'God' in English, but they're certainly different concepts.