Separation of Church & State

[AstroProdigy]

Sever your system is perfect for manipulation of the system and the creation of an ever shrinking aristocracy and thus is a perfect precursor to the rise of Marx's communist revolution.

[SeVeR]

Some people seem to think the opposite, and that the aristocracy would consolidate their position. I agree with you that the existing aristocracy would be whittled down by the dilution of power to those who are intelligent enough to succeed. But then wouldn't the new aristocracy just be a mixture of the rich and poor, except it would be based on intelligence and success rather than inherited wealth? I like that image.

 

A removal of aristocracy isn't exactly communism. I'm one of those geeks who always liked Star Trek, and tbh that is an ideal society, yet it could be described as communist. I'm not proposing a removal of wealth, or capitalism. I would just rather see an economy centred around intelligence.

Edited July 3, 2007 by SeVeR

[NBVegita]

The problem is that you can buy intelligence, so there would be a small faction of people like you and me, who came from poor families and made something, and there would be an ocean of rich people who have diploma's and good jobs, and know less about world dealings than someone who does not.

 

No matter how you slice the cake it doesn't look good.

[ThunderJam]

I don't think any of us whould venture to say that the founding fathers original intent with separation of church and state was bad. Many of the colonists came here so they could practice whatever religion they wanted, and the only point of the clause was so that the government couldnt force people into any specific religion more so than other religions.

 

The problem is now-adays is that the issue has been blown out of proportion to take new meaning that it was never intended to in the first place. In my high school newspaper (which I wrote for 1 year) there was an article about how the county public school superintendent forced one of the high schools to change their graduation location. It had been planned to be at an evangelical church because of the number of people that it was capable of holding. The article ridiculed the superintendent for this, pointing out that he approved of us taking AP tests at local synagogues. Its similar to racism being somewhat reversed by affirmative.

 

Dumb crap like this, and constantly tryign to be politically correct (PC) is ruining the country. In my opinion, trying to be PC will be the major downfall of one of the greatest nations ever conceived.

[AstroProdigy]

And allowing the religious right more control would be the downfall of our democratic system. The system may have gone overboard in isolated cases, but the way Bush reverses things even creating an office of religion which would be STRICTLY FORBIDDEN by the founding fathers is disgusting. Not only that, but continuing that trend threatens to destroy our freedom of religion and with that comes less freedom overall. It is very well known that religious extremists are the WORST operators of democracy. What Christianity teaches evangelicals is that there is all powerful being that should be followed to the letter. If a leader claims to be a messenger of God (Bush) then you will see that group follow every single thing he says and try to claim even his most re!@#$%^&*ed actions as brilliance. Why do you think there's 30% of people who will continue to say Bush is a great president in every way and support him 100% no matter what. Imagine if the whole country was like that democracy would give way to a dictatorship in a day. If it's a choice between France styled more extreme secularism and a theocracy I'd choose the extreme secularism ANY day.

[Dav]

I don't think any of us whould venture to say that the founding fathers original intent with separation of church and state was bad. Many of the colonists came here so they could practice whatever religion they wanted, and the only point of the clause was so that the government couldnt force people into any specific religion more so than other religions.

 

The problem is now-adays is that the issue has been blown out of proportion to take new meaning that it was never intended to in the first place. In my high school newspaper (which I wrote for 1 year) there was an article about how the county public school superintendent forced one of the high schools to change their graduation location. It had been planned to be at an evangelical church because of the number of people that it was capable of holding. The article ridiculed the superintendent for this, pointing out that he approved of us taking AP tests at local synagogues. Its similar to racism being somewhat reversed by affirmative.

 

Dumb crap like this, and constantly tryign to be politically correct (PC) is ruining the country. In my opinion, trying to be PC will be the major downfall of one of the greatest nations ever conceived.

 

You highlight here a slightly unrelated topic in political correctness can can sometimes find a bit of itself in this debate.

 

Whilst its true that if the church and state were integrated you would do it in the church and like it, people can play their minority card to get their way in a separated system. That said in a separated system you can remve the PC at!@#$%^&*ude and still have a separated system.

[ThunderJam]

Bush reverses things even creating an office of religion which would be STRICTLY FORBIDDEN by the founding fathers is disgusting. Not only that, but continuing that trend threatens to destroy our freedom of religion and with that comes less freedom overall. It is very well known that religious extremists are the WORST operators of democracy.

Bush has created an office of religion? The majority of all candidates play to a religion to gain more support, the office is not an office OF religion just because the man in the office is outspoken about his religion. And this is not forbidden by the founding fathers at all. The majority of the founding fathers were all Christian, but thats beside the point. The thing that is forbidden is the state favoring one religion and "forcing" people to take part in religions against their will. That was the founding fathers' intentions.

 

What Christianity teaches evangelicals is that there is all powerful being that should be followed to the letter. If a leader claims to be a messenger of God (Bush) then you will see that group follow every single thing he says and try to claim even his most re!@#$%^&*ed actions as brilliance. Why do you think there's 30% of people who will continue to say Bush is a great president in every way and support him 100% no matter what.

This is simply BS. Just because someone claims to be a "messenger of god" (which i dont think bush has ever claimed) doesn't mean all christians are obligated to follow him. The antichrist himself is supposed to claim to be a messenger of god before he reveals his true self (according to Revelations, which i dont really believe, but im just pointing out that its part of christianity). Any random joe could claim to be a messenger of god. I'm a christian and I don't support bush anymore. I wouldn't say im against him either, but in his second term he's lost my support.

[AstroProdigy]

Bush reverses things even creating an office of religion which would be STRICTLY FORBIDDEN by the founding fathers is disgusting. Not only that, but continuing that trend threatens to destroy our freedom of religion and with that comes less freedom overall. It is very well known that religious extremists are the WORST operators of democracy.

Bush has created an office of religion? The majority of all candidates play to a religion to gain more support, the office is not an office OF religion just because the man in the office is outspoken about his religion. And this is not forbidden by the founding fathers at all. The majority of the founding fathers were all Christian, but thats beside the point. The thing that is forbidden is the state favoring one religion and "forcing" people to take part in religions against their will. That was the founding fathers' intentions.

 

What Christianity teaches evangelicals is that there is all powerful being that should be followed to the letter. If a leader claims to be a messenger of God (Bush) then you will see that group follow every single thing he says and try to claim even his most re!@#$%^&*ed actions as brilliance. Why do you think there's 30% of people who will continue to say Bush is a great president in every way and support him 100% no matter what.

This is simply BS. Just because someone claims to be a "messenger of god" (which i dont think bush has ever claimed) doesn't mean all christians are obligated to follow him. The antichrist himself is supposed to claim to be a messenger of god before he reveals his true self (according to Revelations, which i dont really believe, but im just pointing out that its part of christianity). Any random joe could claim to be a messenger of god. I'm a christian and I don't support bush anymore. I wouldn't say im against him either, but in his second term he's lost my support.

 

None of them actually officially put religion in the executive branch. Saying you're a Christian to get votes and reversing the separation of church and state are completely different. No one before has ever actually put religion in the executive branch until now. Being Christian and making a Christian state are completely different which seems to be something a lot of people forget. Taking steps to encroach on religious freedoms gradually is much more effective than outright declaring a Christian state. The founding fathers would have seen the government actively promoting Christianity (the office of faith based initiatives) as uncons!@#$%^&*utional.

 

I find many people have said Bush is a genuine Christian and is representing God. Bush plays on this too, because he knows there's a 30% base that will always support him like a king as long as he continues to look like he represents God. I'm not trying to say those people are getting Christianity right (they are getting it completely wrong), but they are also the most susceptible group when it comes to manipulation. I didn't say all Christians support Bush or otherwise Bush would have a commanding lead in the country, but the fact that someone so utterly a failure more than ever before still gets those 30% die hards even when his party has abandoned him just goes to show what they'd be willing to support if he goes to church every week and espouses religious rhetoric.

[Guest Knightflame]

Confess you are right in the origin of the seperation.

Thank you for pointing that out.

[NBVegita]

I don't see where bush is encroaching on church and state. Yes most of his morals and ideals are based off of his religion, and most decisions made, by anyone, are based off of their morals and beliefs, but he has done nothing to formally infringe, that I know of, on peoples rights with religion, nor has he done anything more then using his morals and beliefs, which if you are religious, in any religion, are influence by that religion.

 

If you can point out things he's done that I've missed please do.

[AstroProdigy]

You can't create a government agency for the promotion of select religions. That's uncons!@#$%^&*utional and Bush has done it for the first time in history. Even the conservative Reagan recognized putting religion directly in the government was wrong.

[NBVegita]

Maybe I'm just too tired to think, but what agency is that?

[Confess]

I'd like to point out one more thing: America was founded by Christian and Religious people. The rules, laws, and everything are based off of religous morals. In this world today, you "have" to be politcally correct. However, America is for a religous group of people. If you arent religious, then America really isnt for you.

[Falcoknight]

However, America is for a religous group of people. If you arent religious, then America really isnt for you.

 

Umm.. I don't know what America you live in, but certainly not the same one as myself.

What you said before that was correct, America was founded by Christian morals and value, but made into what it is today through being a melting pot of different beliefs and cultures.

And I still don't understand the "America is for a religious group of people." comment. I'm not religious at all, and, with the exception of my grandmother, no one I know in person is very religious, either. And this is coming from someone that lives in a city that is literally 85-90% Roman Catholic.

[AstroProdigy]

Maybe I'm just too tired to think, but what agency is that?

Office of faith based initiatives.

 

I'd like to point out one more thing: America was founded by Christian and Religious people. The rules' date=' laws, and everything are based off of religous morals. In this world today, you "have" to be politcally correct. However, America is for a religous group of people. If you arent religious, then America really isnt for you.[/quote']

Here's where a lot of Christians get it wrong. Just because America was founded by religious people, doesn't mean those people wanted to persecute others based on religion, so while Confess tries to say you must be religious only, I'm sure he wouldn't like groups of religious Muslims or Hindus here precisely because he does not support what the founding fathers did; religious toleration. It's funny that religious toleration was one of the major reasons why people came to the colonies originally and the founding fathers wanted to preserve it because they saw it as one of the things that make our country unique. Today many are trying to reverse the precedent that our country was founded on and turn the country into a stagnant theocracy.

 

Without the melting pot America would be a !@#$%^&* hole. It's our diversity that makes us great and in case you haven't noticed, the wealth and advancement is not found in the bible belt. It's found on the "liberal" states and us secularists actually support religious people otherwise they'd be quite poor living in their backward ways. Name me one country that lets religion control the government and is well off barring huge resources. Secular Europe? How about Japan or South Korea? The best off Islamic states like Qatar and the UAE are actually quite tolerant compared to their neighbors. Secularism is a fact in the Christian world and some extremists trying to make technicalities while ignoring huge contradictions aren't going to change that.

 

Christianity didn't teach us that murder and stealing are wrong. It's common sense. The most civilized and peaceful civilizations were either not Christian or were secularized Christians which should show you there's a contradiction there, but I'm sure you don't care. France was founded by Christian and Religious people good luck trying to get them to become a theocracy.

Edited July 10, 2007 by AstroProdigy

[SeVeR]

If you arent religious, then America really isnt for you.

That's a nice way of telling atheists and agnstics to !@#$%^&* off.

 

Even Iran doesn't tell non-Muslims to leave...

[NBVegita]

Astro what you are saying is speculative, you are saying that he has created an office of faith based initiatives. Now on the other hand, being his morals are all guided by his faith, what else would you expect his decisions to be influenced towards?

 

Now I'm not supporting bush here, but you can't say that he's created an office of faith, simply because his decisions are based off of his morals, which have a strong base from his religion.

[AstroProdigy]

Reagan never had the audacity to do so. When the former director admits that "no direct federal grants from his program had gone to a non-Christian religious group" then there is a clear breach of the separation of church and state. All other religious presidents we've had have understood you should not try to merge church and state. It's not just that his decisions are based off of his religious morals it's that he's trying to make Christianity the state religion! I also like how the new supreme court judges who Bush claimed will follow precedent as Bush claimed "activist" judges are the problem have decided to throw all precedence out the window and take an extreme hardliner stance on every issue. These people would call crowning Bush as king cons!@#$%^&*utional.

[Dav]

I'd like to point out one more thing: America was founded by Christian and Religious people. The rules, laws, and everything are based off of religous morals. In this world today, you "have" to be politcally correct. However, America is for a religous group of people. If you arent religious, then America really isnt for you.

 

The UK was once a country where religion counted above all else. Throughout its histiory you could be killed for being a different denomination to the monach. Its even been illigal to do things that go against the bible.

 

Today the church and the state are quite seperate, much more so then the US.

 

As i have stated in many debates here, nations change over time. Ideologies and forms of government can have a lot of influence by the past but this is not always the case. Over time the church has become a lesser and lesser part of the UKs government and the same can also happen to the US in the future.

 

Histiory is no barrier to future happenings.

[jacob hunter!]

Churches should not have more power then the states for example Utah !@#$%^&* moron church rules over it All though it only involves itself in politics that beniefit them It still gets on my nerves that the have more power then the state. Edited July 10, 2007 by attraction

[Greased_Lightning]

Churches should not have more power then the states for example Utah !@#$%^&* moron church rules over it All though it only involves itself in politics that beniefit them It still gets on my nerves that the have more power then the state.

 

I think you meant "mormon"

 

At least I hope you did

[Tiq]

Religion can provide good guidelines for individuals, but I can't remember the last time religious groups have had a positive effect on society. Somethings are just better left to interpretation, and individuals ought to interpret things like religions for themselves. But of course, someone is always going to feel the need to force their beliefs on other people, and so we will always have religious groups.

 

Besides, wasn't it Jesus who first hinted at separation of Church and state? I think it went something like this: "Let that which belongs to Caesar, be given to Caesar. Let that which belongs to God, be given to God." Rough paraphrasing, but you all get the idea.

Edited August 9, 2007 by Tiq

[Greased_Lightning]

Positive effect on society, how about John Paul II's stand against the USSRs power in eastern Europe? Mother Teresa? The thousands of organizations set up by all religious denominations that work to help the poor, sick, hungry around the world? The REVEREND Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.? lol

[Tiq]

John Paul II was an individual, not a group. Perhaps you are referring to his fan club? Mother Teresa, individual. The Reverend was also an individual. The thousands of religious denominations do help the poor, sick and hungry. But I am talking about the large groups. The religious right, the crazay characters behind the Crusades.

 

The 3 people who you listed had influence over a large number of people, yes, but that is because they offered their own INDIVIDUAL interpretations of the bible. Furthermore, I do not think MLK Jr.'s campaign for civil rights was really a religious crusade...more of a political/human rights deal.

 

I started my earlier by saying "Religion can provide good guidlines for individuals", and you respond by listing religious individuals who have done good. It's not really a "read between the lines" type thing, it's a "read the entire post" type deal.

[Greased_Lightning]

You said you couldnt remember the last time religious groups had a positive impact on society, groups are made up of individuals. As for a specific example, how about the YMCA? YWCA? In fact, just google 'Christian Charity' and you get quite a few charitable religious groups. Collecting food/money for the poor, building hospitals and clinics, providing medicine in third world countries, yeah I suppose that really isn't a positive impact on society. My bad. Yes, I mentioned individuals who represent groups that have done/do a lot of good in the world and have a very positive impact on society.

 

You just said, the crazy ASSS behind the Crusades, wouldn't that be a small part of a group, maybe some individuals rather than the group as a whole? Are you condemning the whole group for what a few crazies do, when the leaders of the rest of them condemn them? There's a few crazies who claim to follow Islam, does that make the entire religion a negative impact on society?

 

Don't give me grief for citing individual examples when you yourself are painting vast groups as somehow bad for what a tiny minority of them have done over generations. It's a 'more than the sum of its parts' type thing, not a 'a couple bad apples spoils the bunch' type deal.