Live-Wire Posted October 17, 2003 Report Posted October 17, 2003 I'd argue with you on that Akai Hamilton led the federalists and wrote much of the Federalist Papers, Jefferson led the states-rights supporters and became president, and Madison was one brilliant sunuva-*BAD WORD*- who's theories on politics and economics are still well read and applicable today.
Aileron Posted October 17, 2003 Report Posted October 17, 2003 I am afraid the the US is slowly becoming the Ottoman Empire. For those who don't know, the Ottomans were the ULTIMATE in being nice to their many religions, races, and cultures. For instance, every local municipality had their own little national language. Also, you would never be held accountable for crimes of a religion that was seperate from your own. ...and now for the down side... The fact that every little province had their own language really hurt the country. Merchants would have to learn several languages to sell their wares. Government edicts would have to be translated to be emplaced. They could not build an effective military because orders would have to be shouted in several langauges. As for the second part, the fact that this happened allowed for no national law. Since laws and punishments vary from religion to religion, some people would be immune to laws that others would be executed for. I don't know what would have happened if there was a sect of aethiests in the country. Not only that, but criminals who had traveled would have to be shipped back to their home province to be tried. All in all, the problem with the Ottoman Empire was that it had no cultural iden!@#$%^&*y. Because of this, the nation was in actuallity a group of loosely-alligned provinces. This made the country incredibly weak, putting it in a long downward spiral until WWI. What is the relevence of this? It shows that a nation needs to have a cultural iden!@#$%^&*y. This cultural iden!@#$%^&*y includes a religion. Thus, we need to have one religion that happens to be predominent. This doesn't justify any discrimination against those who are not of the majority. It just means that we should not take an active part in supporting a minority over a majority. Thus, the seperation between church and state can only go so far, because it is in the state's interest that one religion is dominent. In my opinion, a hint of christianity in things like this is a good thing because it maintains national iden!@#$%^&*y while keeping the boundary between church and state distinct.
Bacchus Posted October 17, 2003 Report Posted October 17, 2003 so basically, you're saying that if the Ottoman have had their religion and state separate enough, they would have been more fit to survive? I mean, there wouldn't have had any problem with laws, legal and civil rights, etc, if the state heads had built a senate and wrote a cons!@#$%^&*ution granting it powers over those issues. then the forefathers could have proposed this Big Book and everyone would have voted on it et voila! I think that if the state is strong enough, it doesn't need religion. religion have this knack for creating injustice and discrimination (like so many other things). and a culture can be quite colorful and mixed and still be call "national" or an iden!@#$%^&*y. Isn't it the case in say..New-York? or in the US as a whole? In occident in general? Why would we need half a theocracy to run a country? I can't think of anything aside from more power, spiritual and temporal. that's what Philippe Le Bel (France king in 1300), he wanted a french pope...for a little while there was 2 popes, anyway...He wnated both powers. power over the mind and power over the land. then the hundred years war begun... Too much power in the same place isn't good. That's why there's cons!@#$%^&*utions written; to split the power so that abuse can be contained. Hence a legifering body (spelling) and an executive one. President, Prime minister, higher court of law, senate, congress, etc.
madhaha Posted October 17, 2003 Report Posted October 17, 2003 Basically its a gamble. You can gamble on a majority of individuals in your country agreeing with you and somehow (no idea how in practise) communally sorting out all your differences and respecting each other's beliefs OR you can gamble on 1 individual who effectively rules to country to make the choice you want and then oust him if you disagree. Compare the Roman republic to the Roman state under Julius Caesar if you want an example. Getting back on topic, the danger of the phrase "One Nation Under God" in the US cons!@#$%^&*ution is that the US is not "One Nation Under God". The country has a large ethnic mix and a background of Religious intolerance mixed with people escaping from Religious Persecution. One or the other has to give way eventually and "One Nation Under God" suggests that the goverment stance should be one of religious intolerance. So far only extremists have taken the line in this context but until that line is changed, it gives religous puritans some validity. However changing that line is likely to be met from a lot of resistance from Chistians and conservatives who wish to preserve the traditional reading. Which you see as the lesser of two evils is a matter of opinion but from the view of politicians, keeping the line is safest as no-one will blame you for maintaining the status-quo.
Darkflare Posted October 17, 2003 Report Posted October 17, 2003 and if it is "an army of one"? then it is by an individual Army: n A large body of people organized and trained for land warfare. War: n A state of open, armed, often prolonged conflict carried on between nations, states, or parties. One person doesn't make an army and can't wage a war. Granted though - individuals can join a war for whatever reason they choose - but usually only one reason is sanctioned by the State. Most people don't fight in wars for strictly personal reasons. Monte. ok so technically you cant have an army of one, but you could technically wage a war by yourself. that "party" could be a party which contains only yourself but still be considered a party...or something? maybe.
Yupa Posted October 17, 2003 Report Posted October 17, 2003 All in all, the problem with the Ottoman Empire was that it had no cultural iden!@#$%^&*y. Because of this, the nation was in actuallity a group of loosely-alligned provinces. ...because the Ottoman Empire was just a bunch of states the Turks went through and conquered - they ruled pre-existing states I think that was a rather bad analogy, Aileron
Aileron Posted October 18, 2003 Report Posted October 18, 2003 You do have a point there, although it doesn't disqualify my use of the analogy. My point was that they were weak because they did not have a single strong central iden!@#$%^&*y. The reason they did not have a strong central iden!@#$%^&*y is irrelevent.
MonteZuma Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 those are some of the dumbest comments i've ever heard. who said this country was founded on christianity? There is a difference between what the country was "founded" on, and what the religion of the first europeans off the boat was.WTF? Read a history book. As far as European history is concerned, America was a religious colony before it was anything else. The religious emphasis in US culture carried through to independence and is still evident today - albeit in a diminished form. The country was founded on christian principles - whether that is stated in the cons!@#$%^&*ution or not is irrelevant. Unlike nearly every government preceding it, the government of the united states was created with the fundamental purpose of having logic, rather than faith, dictate what people did. The government of the US does not require that you be a good or moral person, but that you simply refrain from breaking some simple laws.-*BAD WORD*-. Remember this famous quote: "We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." A recent US president went so far as to say that he considered that atheists were not proper American citizens. The christian 'ethic' pervades US society more than most other free western societies. Our forefathers did NOT think differently.WTF? Would a successful modern politician demand that wiches be burned at the stake? Or that alcohol be prohibited? Of course not. The first amendment, which was ratified by the first congress which consisted of, among others, Madison, Jefferson, and Hamilton, expressly states the position on religion of the United States. Trust me when I say none of the three afformentioned players were highly religious, and they were by and large the 3 most important players in the creation of the US as we know it.God is mentioned in EVERY US State cons!@#$%^&*ution. You conveniently ignored the Declaration of Independence which refers to 'the laws of nature and of nature's God', 'the Supreme Judge of the world' and 'the protection of Divine Providence' The importance of being a christian in order to be a moral and ethical person is implicit and explicit in most parts of US politics and society. It was much more explicit AND implicit in the days of your forefathers. The move away from the beliefs of your founding fathers is evident in attempts by some people to dis!@#$%^&*ociate the Cons!@#$%^&*ution from the D of I, and to remove symbols of God and religion from government and political ins!@#$%^&*utions.
madhaha Posted October 20, 2003 Report Posted October 20, 2003 WTF? Would a successful modern politician demand that wiches be burned at the stake? Or that alcohol be prohibited? Of course not. Yes actually but they're populararity differs greatly depending on which region you look at... If we're talking metaphorically many politician's organise "witch hunts".
Aileron Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Um, not to be rude Monte, but last time I checked this was a US-domestic issue. It really is none of your business.
Bacchus Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Whatever about it really?A nation under god...lol, if it makes them feel better...why not?We (in Québec) had a period in the 50' which had basically the same sett of mind toward religion...God was everywhere, under every rugs, etc... we ended up so paranoid that we stopped believing in the "trust"...the god-fearing french-canadian began smoking weed, getting laid and they enjoyed life now yea, yeaa...Jesus walks with me, he's my pusher
Aileron Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 The christian 'ethic' pervades US society more than most other free western societiesThat simply isn't true. Latin America is way more religious than the US. Also, take Spain with a 99% Catholic population. More Spanish are Catholic than Spanish-Speaking. Also, take the UK - Ireland example. The ONLY difference between those two countries is religion. The Italian culture is also highly religious. Israel, if you count it a s a western society, is another good example. Note also that it is even WORSE for cases when these countries were founded. Yes, there is a christian element in the US society, but it isn't "more than most other wester societies." God is mentioned in EVERY US State cons!@#$%^&*ution. You conveniently ignored the Declaration of Independence which refers to 'the laws of nature and of nature's God', 'the Supreme Judge of the world' and 'the protection of Divine Providence' The importance of being a christian in order to be a moral and ethical person is implicit and explicit in most parts of US politics and society. It was much more explicit AND implicit in the days of your forefathers. The move away from the beliefs of your founding fathers is evident in attempts by some people to dis!@#$%^&*ociate the Cons!@#$%^&*ution from the D of I, and to remove symbols of God and religion from government and political ins!@#$%^&*utions. The D of I was left out because it as no current legal status. We are not diss!@#$%^&*ociting it with the Cons!@#$%^&*ution, it was never !@#$%^&*ociated in the first place. I also highly doubt that you have read every US state cons!@#$%^&*ution. If you did, you need a life. Seriously though, as an Australian, you probably haven't been let in on the intricities of what is going on. According to their theory, the reason why they considered the separation of church and state and the numerous references to God compatible was because in 18th century America, that was close enough. The only people here were christian, because no non-christian would have interest to travel all the way around the world by boat. I only agree with the references because of what they do. First off, they keep the government is a place under religion in the most universally way possible. Secondly, it gives a tiny hint of an endorsed religion that every nation needs. Just as pure democracy doesn't work, pure seperation between church and state won't work either.
Yupa Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Just as pure democracy doesn't work, pure seperation between church and state won't work either. well virtually nothing is completely pure, so ya
Bacchus Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 i'm just curious, when you say :"Just as pure democracy blabla", may i ask on what grounds? Is it just your personal understanding of what a nation is and need or an actual sociological/anthropological theory? Short of marriage, our civil and criminal justice system and our everyday life is practically devoid of religion...oh we swear a lot but that doesn't count I mean, religion isn't part of our social tissue as it used to be...what makes a nation is something else. sure we still have issue about life after death, abortion, etc...but those hardly counts either. Morally speaking, we still are "tainted" or influenced by virtues that sprang from the christian faith (sharing, not killing, not stealing, respect, blabla) but those aren't use to exact justice. I mean, we won't judge someone's action by the virtues as they're shown by the church but as dictated by the majority. Church and State here are separate. oh and sorry for the bad phrasing.
Yupa Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Morally speaking, we still are "tainted" or influenced by virtues that sprang from the christian faith (sharing, not killing, not stealing, respect, blabla) those virtues preexist Christianity
Aileron Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Well, a nation by definition requires four componants: land, population, sovreignty, and culture. If it fails to have any of these, it cannot be a nation. Culture also has to have similar componants, such as race, lifestyle, language, religion, and other things. Since religion is part of culture, and culture is part of the defignition of nation. Thus, without ANY set religion, a nation will cease to exist. What I am referring to here is COMMON religion. If there were a state with all athiest citizens, they may not have a religion, but they would all share common beliefs. What I am referring to is a state in which every single person had a different religion. This group is what would not be a nation. They would have religion, but it is COMMON religion that they lack. Also note that this doesn't have to be ONE common religion. While this would create the strongest state, a nation could survive off of several religions. However, the more religions there are, the closer the nation is to no common beliefs and the weaker the nation. This alone does not prove my arguement. By this, a nation could coincidentally have a somewhat uniform religion without government support. However, since a nation requires by defignition that it has some uniformity in it's religion, the majority or atleast several groups of people must share a common religion. !@#$%^&*uming that there is sovreignty (another requirement for being a nation) and that the populace's voice affects the decisions of the government, (and this happens even in a dictatorship) the opinions of the populace will invariably define the government. Thus, since the populace must show some uniformity in religion and since the populace will always affect the government, a government cannot be completely seperate from religion. That was kind of lengthy, so I will sum it up: A nation requires culture and thus requires a common religion. Also, a nation is required to be sovreign, so it's government must be affected by its populace. Since the government must be affected by the populace and the populace must have a common religion, the government must have some hint of that common religion in it.
Bacchus Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 off course they preexist christiannity, i meant that we owe our undertsanding and interpretation of virtues to the christian faith/religion...But yea, these virtues predates about any religion but some were not as strictly upholded as in christianity. No offense but..i thought it was obvious And ail, if you mean that any structure/sett of beliefs, which aren't restricted to religious belief, would solidify a nation. Like cultural similarity, social tissue, etc. I agree. So, a culture could be devoid of religious !@#$%^&*ets and still be functionnal? God is dead.~Nietszche~
madhaha Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Depends on how you define culture and religion. Humans will always have irrational beliefs or misbeliefs for any number of reasons.
Yupa Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 I think humans will end up creating a culture regardless of all else true, many nations of today exist because a bunch of people of the same religion and culture wanted to govern themselves, but to say there MUST be a nation and that nation MUST have religion...well it's just ridiculous
MonteZuma Posted October 21, 2003 Report Posted October 21, 2003 Um, not to be rude Monte, but last time I checked this was a US-domestic issue. It really is none of your business.Then take it to a private forum. Seriously. Consider me a personal adviser to the US people. I like to help. Monte.
MonteZuma Posted October 22, 2003 Report Posted October 22, 2003 Latin America is way more religious than the US.Latin America isn't a western country. Also, take Spain with a 99% Catholic population. More Spanish are Catholic than Spanish-Speaking. Also, take the UK - Ireland example.....etcWell yes, I did say 'most' western countries. Most of the countries that you have picked out (southern European) are basically in the 'bible belt' of the west. Ireland is a special case. But what about countries that are similar to the USA? The UK, Australia, Canada, western and northern Europe. I would argue that religion and politics are more separated in all of those countries compared to the US. I'm not talking about the proportion of people that are religious. I'm talking about the integration of religion and politics. In the UK for example, the Anglican church seems to be a big influence, but more so with royalty than politicians. Religion in the UK is more ceremonial and less pervasive in day-to-day politics than in the US. I could be wrong. There are people here who know more about US and UK politics than I. I'm yet to be convinced. Note also that it is even WORSE for cases when these countries were founded. Yes, there is a christian element in the US society, but it isn't "more than most other wester societies."Yes. Most of the countries were around when Jesus Christ walked the Earth. But Americans are in denial if they think that religion doesn't play a big part in political life. A big part that is compared to Canada, western and Northern Europe and Australasia. The D of I was left out because it as no current legal status. We are not diss!@#$%^&*ociting it with the Cons!@#$%^&*ution, it was never !@#$%^&*ociated in the first place.In 1897 the US Supreme Court declared that "the Cons!@#$%^&*ution is the body and letter of which the Declaration of Independence is the thought and the spirit, and it is always safe to read the letter of the Cons!@#$%^&*ution in the spirit of the Declaration of Independence." There is your legal status right there. Sure, the legal status has diminished over time, but that is my point. Religion, although still very important in the US political sphere, is in decline. The US is gradually catching up to the rest of the 'civilised' world. I also highly doubt that you have read every US state cons!@#$%^&*ution. If you did, you need a life.Of course. But I've read enough to get by. Seriously though, as an Australian, you probably haven't been let in on the intricities of what is going on.Undoubtedly. But I've seen, heard and read enough to formulate an opinion. Most Americans that I have met have been much more religious than most Australians, and more religious than most other people that I've met from western countries. According to their theory, the reason why they considered the separation of church and state and the numerous references to God compatible was because in 18th century America, that was close enough. The only people here were christian, because no non-christian would have interest to travel all the way around the world by boat.Granted. Except maybe the slaves. But that is a whole new debate. But I think it is a fair bet that most people back then felt that non-christians were non-humans. I only agree with the references because of what they do. First off, they keep the government is a place under religion in the most universally way possible. Secondly, it gives a tiny hint of an endorsed religion that every nation needs. Just as pure democracy doesn't work, pure seperation between church and state won't work either.I disagree - somewhat. Governments don't need to endorse religion and the bigger the separation between church and state the better. I support your view from one perspective though...I think that christian principles are principles that most of us in the west value highly, whether or not we are religious or even christian. I would like to see leadership - and a society - that endorses those principles without the religious connection. Maybe thats impossible, and maybe that is why you think separation of church and state won't work? If thats the case then I agree - to some extent. Monte.
MonteZuma Posted October 22, 2003 Report Posted October 22, 2003 ...A nation requires culture and thus requires a common religion. ...and the populace must have a common religion...Well I'm with Akai on this. Culture does not need to be based on a common religion. It does not need to be based on religion at all. Culture is an artifact of history though, so religion will probably always have some influence - at least for the foreseeable future. Monte.
Aileron Posted October 22, 2003 Report Posted October 22, 2003 A religion is essentially a group of people with similar beliefs, and a culture DOES have to be based on similar beliefs. In order to have a culture with multiple religions, there has to be a national belief in that religious tolerance is a good thing. Thus, you have a belief and since it is on a national scale, you have a group. Since you have both, you have a religion. In this case, all the national religion includes is that one should tolerate other beliefs. Yes, a culture doesn't have to include any RECOGNIZED religion. However, it order for people to consider themselves members of the same community, they have to share some form of common belief, even in its simplest form.
Bacchus Posted October 22, 2003 Report Posted October 22, 2003 Sorry to interrupt but you seem to see an analogy between culture and religion, it would be incorrect to picture both being the same thing. Consensus over beliefs doesn't make such beliefs "religious". e.g.: The fact that everyone agrees on the fact that Budweiser is US national beer doesn't make Budweiser a religion . Althouhg religion maybe an important part of any given culture, it is not culture. It is cultural though.
Aileron Posted October 23, 2003 Report Posted October 23, 2003 Yes, Religion is merely a piece of culture. However, it is at least in some amount essential. Basically, if there is NO religious concensus, there can be no culture. There has to be some sort of religious agreement, even if it is merely to "agree to disagree".
Recommended Posts