Separation of Church & State

[AstroProdigy]

I think what he means that any group (including religious groups) will abuse power. What that means is as long as religious ins!@#$%^&*utions are separate from the state then they will have no room to abuse power. The people who want to abuse power won't be able to and only the people who want to help people will be able to. If anything, political power combined with religious power doubly corrupts. Also, Pope John Paul II and Mother Teresa had no ability to run states. Islamic leaders who are both religious and political leaders are corrupted just the same. Should I remind you of the wonderful examples of Saudi Arabia and Iran. People are almost never too good to be corrupted by power and there are few examples where people haven't been (George Washington is one of a few cases).

[Tiq]

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.

 

Yes, individuals make up groups. But the point I am making is that things like religion are better left to solitary individuals who do not seek to influence or manipulate the behaviors of other people looking for something to believe in. All I said was "I can't remember the last time a religious groups had a positive impact on society." Although I am flattered you took my lack of good memory as something worthy of a drawn out argument, I am also quite perplexed as to why you keep referring to religious individuals who have done good in society. I never denied that religion can be used for good in the hands of the right individuals. But I have always been skeptical of groups as they often tend to fall into the mob mentality. Psychology 101: An individual in a group is prone to following the group mentality regardless of an misgivings he or she may have about the groups actions. The individual will, in my eyes, always be more practical, thoughtful, and reliable than a group. Are there groups who have done good? Sure, you pointed out a few. But when you are talking about individuals and groups as though they are one in the same, I can't bring myself to agree. There have been good individuals who have led groups, but if those same good individuals asked the group to do something that is irrational or violent, then the group would have probably done just that. In fact, groups would probably prefer to create conflict. It CAN be righteous conflict, but the righteousness of groups often gets lost in the violent and irrational behavior of groups gone wild. Even good groups abuse their power. You can't deny that MLK Jr. had to do some manipulation; if he had not gotten the people willing to face the attack dogs and hoses of Bull Connor, then people would have remained blind to how blacks were being treated during peaceful protests.

 

I guess what I'm saying is that I don't really trust any groups. The good or the bad. Because it is so easy to get manipulated when you are in a group. Particularly, large groups.

 

As far as I'm concerned, the things you are talking about me condemning (religion, etc). Those are ideas, not groups. Ideas are more complicated than groups and harder to condemn or accept either way. I do condemn some ideas in Islam and other religions, but I also accept some. When it comes to ideas, I don't believe in taking the good with the bad; I believe in taking the good and abandoning the bad. However people choose to follow those ideas is up to them. Can I say that I condemn people whose interpretations I see as wrong, or intellectually dishonest? Yes. Should that matter to you? No. So I don't see the point of asking what I condemn and what I accept.

 

I'm going to be really careful of what I say in these forums. You people nitpick so much and take everyone's word seriously to the nth degree. I might have said "I don't remember the last time I've seen Jessica Alba look hot" and y'all would interpret that as "OMG, ARE YOU SAYING JESSICA ALBA HAS NEVER BEEN HOT? HERE IS 784 REASONS WHY SHE HAS BEEN HOT, AS TAKEN FROM THE BOOK "1000 REASONS WHY JESSICA ALBA IS HOT." I think if I had said "there has never been a positive result from the actions of religious groups", then I would understand why you're arguing. Maybe if I go back and edit...

[Greased_Lightning]

Sorry if I got too carried away in my earlier post... and this post.

 

Yes, a member of a group will more likely follow in the direction the group does, basic psychology. There's a difference between whether that direction comes from the choice of one person who is a leader, or if it is a concensus and compromise of the individual members into something they can all mostly agree with. That's not really that bad, unless the end result is. I disagree that groups will inherently choose a path to create conflict, it's on more of a case by case basis as to whether they will or not in my opinion. Most groups are formed by individuals with similar interests, backgrounds, beliefs, etc so the fact that members will go along with what is decided isn't too surprising given the likely similarities of the individuals. I don't agree that these groups will blindly follow irrational actions just because their leaders say so. If a girl scout troop leader suddenly has a wire snap and says let's go burn all the black people, I tend to believe that person will soon be in a mental ins!@#$%^&*ute with no harm to others (again, !@#$%^&*uming the group isn't made up of seriously disturbed people in the first place) ... forgive the extreme on that example.

 

As for myself, I've been in many organizations throughout high school and college and outside those, and I don't think I've been manipulated into doing something I wouldn't normally do. If the groups decide to do something I didn't agree with, I said (mentally usually) 'F*ck that'.

 

As far as corruption, yes it occurs more frequently in groups primarily because the power to use in a corrupt manner has been granted by others. Will everyone use whatever power they get to their own devices? No. Will some? Yes. Will those that do always do it in a severe way? No. Will some? Yes, and they hopefully will be caught and punished. Just because it can and does happen doesn't dictate that it will.

 

On the subject of religion and power as far as the topic goes, they should be totally separate in terms of authority. No state sanctioned religion, no gov't money to religions (unless a recognized charity). Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton and Billy Grahm and whoever else there is should either pick politics or religion. It pisses me off to no end when candidates are going on and on about how much they pray/don't pray and the media just hammers on it. It shouldn't matter as whatever office is being held, the first priority is to your responsibility as an elected official.

 

Anyhoo, hope that clears up my stand, apologies for any misunderstanding.

 

P.S. Jessica Alba is hot, and the book is '1001 Ways You Didn't Know Jessica Alba is Hot But Were Afraid to Ask'

 

I recommend Chapter 7: The Nudie Years

[Tiq]

Just to be clear, I am distrustful of all groups. ESPECIALLY the ones that I am in. You know me Greased, do you really think someone like me is a good reference when it comes to searching for any type of group? But that's besides the point. Although I am distrustful of all groups, I will say this: I am far more distrustful of larger, more powerful groups, than I am of smaller groups. In fact, that is how the founding fathers of the United States looked at things. Refer to federalist paper #10. I do not recall the author of that particular paper, (John Jay, Madison, or the other guy) but it is clear that they were far more in favor of small groups than large groups. Regardless of the intent of large groups, when a few people are in control of such large groups, then corruption is always a possible next step.

 

Anywhoo, I've said all I want to say about that.

 

Is the author of '1001 Ways You Didn't Know Jessica Alba is Hot But Were Afraid to Ask' the same guy who wrote "What Do Bret Michaels and Tommy Lee Have in Common? The Pamela Anderson Chronicles"? If so, I will most definitely look into it. His characterizations were memorable and plot twists original.

[Greased_Lightning]

Unfortunately, no. This book lacks the nuance and hepa!@#$%^&*is of that author's work.