Welcome to thebackpacker.com
create account login
Separation Of Church And State
Viewing posts 201 to 250 of 332 messages posted.
Jump to Page << prev   | 1   | 2   | 3   | 4   |  5 | 6   | 7   |  next >>
To add this thread as a favorites, you need to first login.
“wow what perfect timing for his kind of question. tree and I were talking about this this morning,
I was at school on Tuesday, I went to the library, which is in one of the main buildings, right there in the middle of the big room were 7 guys (i am not sure what religion) but they were all on there knees praying to a poll with some pic on it.
I was blown away by this. I mean there are so many other rooms they could be doing there praying in. I was not offened just surprised. if im going to pray, i would not do it in the middle of 100 people milling around me.
i guess they were making a statment..”
“Freedom built on the idea of and outlined by religion.”
“I've heard about those holy support-column worshippers.”
“The ideals and morals of religion don't tolerate freedom, so how can that be Nigal?”
“"The ideals and morals of religion don't tolerate freedom, so how can that be Nigal?"
What is freedom without moral absolutes? Religion played the part of setting moral standards which freedom is based upon. How does religion not tolerate freedom?”
“Freedom built on the idea of and outlined by religion.
Religion does not advocate freedom.ore than anything else it allows a majority of one faith to enforce their will on the other faiths.
As a perfect example I cite "Manifest Destiny", a doctrine created by Thomas Jefferson and used to steal the lands of, kill and relocate American Indians.
The conflict in the Middle East is fueled by religion, the Crusades were fueled by religion, The Spanish Inquest was justified by religion. The Salem Witch Trials used religion to prosecute and kill people who were different. John Ashcroft has said that this country has a mandate from God for it's action.
That enough proof for my argument or do ou need more.
BTW did you know that until 1978, Native American religion was outlawed in the United States? Look up the "Native American Religious Freedom Act"”
“A religious state is a house of cards.
Get ready for trouble in Iran.
Religious conservatives have taken over the legislative body.”
“Right ON, Redhawk!”
“This much I know....it was founded by the British and we should be kissing their arse because of it...”
“Your entire argument is meaningless Redhawk. I was speaking of the IDEAS found in religion, not an ORGANIZED religion. The framers of the country used the MORALS of the things FOUND in religion, not religion itself.
In reading the documents that this country stands on it is very clear that the framers were basing it on values found in religion.”
“This is probably lost with this crowd, but.................
When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. --Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.”
“And I rest my case...”
“Actually, I think the United States Supreme Court has done a pretty good job on this subject.
The various opinions are extremely good reading.”
“I wish the wackos would keep it to themselves. What is it with the door-to-door religion salesmen these days?
Can you get shotgun shells already loaded with rocksalt now or do you still have to reload them yourself?”
“You can still get them. I saw some not too long ago.”
“Are we talking about the American Taliban again?
Jerry, ... Jerry Fallllllwell?”
“I prefer a tazer myself. That way they have this nervous tick when they go to the next house and they look even crazier than they are.
Actually I have had many nice front porch talks with eveyone from Mormons to J's Whitnesses to fundies.”
“People who want to break down the separation of church and state need to remember that it's a two way street.
Let's say that a church opens a charter school that uses government funding. I would propose that the teachers in that charter school should be able to unionize with oversight from the National Labor Relations Board.
I'd also propose that the minute vouchers are approved, teachers in Catholic and Christian schools should be able to unionize with the same NLRB protection.
If you break down the separation of state funding and church, then you should also break down the separation of state labor law and church.”
“Absolutely, and then there are child-labor laws for altarboys and equal gender protection for Catholic priests. We'd need an equivalent number of women to men in the nunneries, and blah blah...”
“Religion by definition excludes self-determinism.”
“"Your entire argument is meaningless Redhawk. I was speaking of the IDEAS found in religion, not an ORGANIZED religion. The framers of the country used the MORALS of the things FOUND in religion, not religion itself."
My argument is MEANINGLESS? WHY?
Religion is based on Faith and Morality. How do you separate using the Morals of Religion without basing it on religion itself.
And, the Framers of the Constitution based it on the morals of THEIR religion. Point..Mormons believed in polygamy but that is/was against the law in this country.
SO I guess what is moral depends on what the predominent religion is in a country which is the point I made in the first place.”
“SO I guess what is moral depends on what the predominent religion is in a country which is the point I made in the first place."
exactly, and therin lies the problem.”
“"My argument is MEANINGLESS? WHY?"
Because you're talking apples and I'm talking oranges. The examples you give do not apply to what I was trying to get across.”
“"My argument is MEANINGLESS? WHY?
“"Because you're talking apples and I'm talking oranges. The examples you give do not apply to what I was trying to get across."
From your replies I don't think you know an apple from an orange. I think your whole theory got holes blown through it and you have difficulty accepting it.
Not getting personal here, but yu say sinething and when someone contradicts your rhetoric with facts, for whatever reason, it doesn't apply.
How in the hell do you apply the morals based on religion without applying the religion itslf? Take faith out of the equation and they are one and the same.
If not, explain why and tell me how what I am saying differs from yours instead of just dismissing what I say as not applying.
At least I am using examples in my argument, where are your examples or clarifications?
You sound like Bush during the debates hollering "fuzzy math" , yet not explaining where the non-existent billion was coming from.”
“ďNot getting personal here, but yu say sinething and when someone contradicts your rhetoric with facts, for whatever reason, it doesn't apply.Ē
Not getting personal? Haha! Thatís like saying, ďSome of my best friends are black just before you tell a #&%!$ joke. If youíre going to come at me just come. Donít try to play Nice guy. Buddha asked a question and I answered. He didnít like the answer so he made an ignorant comment so I clarified. If you donít like my answers thatís fine. Iím comfortable enough in my own skin to accept otherís views without feeling the need for an endless debate until someone breaks down and strokes my ego with an, ďYea, youíre right. Iím wrong.Ē.
There is morals without constructed religion. Your examples were deeds and acts perpetrated by organized religions. That is where youíre getting your apples and oranges. If this does not satisfy you, Iím sorry.”
“Mel will not save the church.”
“My Gods better then yours.......”
Elvis Is Ev'ry Where
“Long Live The King!”
“All I said was back up your mouth with facts.
I haven't seen a fact out of you yet.
And I really didn't want a flaming contest but you seem to have to twist everything.
So I'll be blunt and personal.
If you can't subsytantiate what you say with fact, then it's really not worth saying.
In other words, there are debaters and then there are mouths.
Until you can explain with examples of what you mean (which is what I have asked) then as far as I am concerned it's all mouth.
Is that plain enough and blunt enough?”
“It was a OPINION. Go find someone else to fight with.
Go ahead, take the last word...”
“It is interesting to read that no one who is argueing for these moral rights and the breaking down of the institution of marriage is pointing out "how the goverement and church is seperated" when these civil liberties are being abolished.
If two tax payers wish to be joined by marriage, they have as much right as I do. I don't disagree it conflicts with many church doctorines. Goverment officials can not look at Church doctorines when making policy. It is against the law. Yet, there is no politician who can say that and be elected.
This is a very interesting time we live in. The United states has the reputation as being loose, a trend setter, pushing the limits,always out in front in so many arenas. Yet, we are so conservative. We see one breast and people are getting fined, banned and fired.
This is going to be fun to watch and participate. The main problem I see is that most liberals are not as organized as the conservatives. I think that liberals have the majority if we could show it at the polls better.”
The whole issue of separation of church and state is very fuzzy. Politicians can, actually, look at church doctrine to make policy - no law against that.
As long as that politician respects minority rights and doesn't establish religion, he or she can look at church policy every day. And that's fine, as long as the majority is happy.
Other interesting separations: Church hospitals with nurses unions mediated by the NLRB. That's legal government intrusion into a church entity.
Also, church colleges have students who receive government aid. And Christian colleges like Harvard receive government research money all the time.
The question is where to draw the line.
In terms of the gay marriage issue, we give benefits - tax and inheritance preference - to married couples because they provide a valuable, and costly, service - raising kids.
However, our world has changed. The tax code should be changed to allow anyone - single mom, gay parent - with a kid to gain preferential tax treatment. And it shouldn't give a benefit to married couples with no children.
I'd also change inheritance law to allow anyone to designate an automatic inheritor. If the wife dies, the husband gets the inheritance with no penalty right now. Two old sisters who live together should be able to do the same. An older widowed parent who lives with a daughter or son should be able to pass that house or farm on to them penalty free.
Really, I think our entire system of "official" personal partnerships/marriages should be updated. Then gay marriage would be a moot point and privately-run churches can decide who gets "married."
Render unto Caesar what is Caesar. Render unto God what is God's.”
“Thanks to savage (ya damned lurker) to posting the text. I guess there is two ways you could view this.
1. This countyr was founded on relious ideals.
2. This country was founded upon freedom (due to freedom of religious ideals).
I think it was number 2, and that the Separateion of church and state discourages #1, because the FF's knew of the evils.”
“The evils of drink?”
“Hereís an offbeat questionÖif we should not base our freedom on religious ideals are things like murder, sodomy and theft be illegal? Hey, itís religion based morality. Should we abolish these laws because it is forcing religious ideals on our freedom?”
“There are "natural rights" which were referred to by our founding fathers that are "self evident" that do not rely on any particular religion to make them defensible by our society. The right to life, privacy, etc. ensures protection from all of your above-mentioned evils, Nigal.
As if you didn't already know this.”
“Even in "godless" places like China they have laws against murder, etc.
I don't believe people in that part of the world ever really had a Xian tradition.”
“How are they self evident? What are they based on? How do we know these things are moral/immoral?”
“I wonder if murder and theft were already deemed to be 'bad' before various religions adopted these views. I wasn't there, so I don't automatically assume any 'religion' came first.
If that's the case, the religion-based morality argument goes out the window.”
“I guess there are a couple of issues that are intertwined here when it comes to "marriage"
"Marriage" in the legal sense is a joining of two people (I'm not going to get into the what sexes here)with the sanction and protection of the state.
"Holy Matrimony" is a sacrament in the Roman Catholic Churh and sacred in most Christian religions.
Beyond the emotional and religious reasons for marriage, comes the legal recognition and certain legal and civil rights that are afforded married Couples. Health Insurance Coverage, Survivor benefits, etc, etc.
I think what has led to the controversy occuring today is simply because, once again, greed comes into play. Institutions and Companies who would have to pay a "married" partner because of ill health or death or other reason just will not recognize Civil Unions in the same manner as marriage because it cut's into their bottom line.
The solution is a Federal Law requiring that Civil Unions be recognized in the same way as marriage and the partners entitled to all benefits as in a "conventional" marriage. It would have to be on a federal level or else the unions would be recognized as legal in some states and not in others.
Besides causing an inequity in rights in different states, some of the entities that would be affected financially might move to states where civil unions are not recognized, much the way most credit card companies go to states like North Dakota, Delaware, etc that allows them to charge interest that would be ursurous in other states.
So, if Bush really wants to do the right thing (and he could care less unless it gets him votes), he could push Congress for a law legalizing Civil Unions Nationally. He doesn't need to mess with the Constitution.
I am sure that the Gay community would find this not only acceptable, but welcome and would support it, except for a few die hard militants.
Just one last shot, because I really do have an intense dislike, no make that contempt, for Bush. Second president in my 62 years that I have really despised. Nixon was the other and next to this man, he comes off like Mother Theresa.
Bush is Grandiose, he goes to extremes. Takes us into war, make sweeping changes to exert his and the conservative right's minority onto the people, even though he lost the popular election and has no mandate. Now he wants to change the Constitution. Can you say meglomaniac!”
“And how, redhawk!”
“As a side thought: These reporter are talking about Gay and lesbians. Am I the only person who think that this is as stupid remark by an educated person. Is not a lesbian -gay? When did the term "gay" become gender specific. Heck, being gay puts you in a gender query.”
“I'm a metrosexual.”
“I haven't had the time to review this thread so I have no idea what's been said, nor will I have time to follow it, but there is a huge misperception of what "separation of church and state" means. It does not mean "freedom FROM religion", it means "freedom OF religion". Jefferson coined this phrase to make it a State's issue, not a Federal issue. In the context of the political/religious environment they founders just came from, they didn't want another religion entangled with politics, and hence an "official religion". It wasn't meant that God must be taken out of politics (God was a big part of politics and still is), but it was meant to say that anyone can believe as they wish, and it is not ILLEGAL to either believe in God, or not believe in God. And it's not ILLEGAL to believe how you wish about God, even if it differs from others, unlike the Church of England. This was not meant to take God OUT of the government, but that the government couldn't legally endorse one religion over another religion and hence put you in jail if you disagreed. Many State Constitutions explicity talk about "God".
Here is the preamble to the California State Constitution:
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."
This is the constitution of our great State. Obviously it wasn't illegal back then, nor is it illegal now, even though it mentions Almighty God. It's not illegal because if someone doesn't believe in God, it's okay, you won't get thrown in prison. But that doesn't mean it's to be removed from government. That's silly and missing the whole point. People today have a totally wrong perception of what separation of church and church meant back then, and what it means today.”
“Take into account, Mr. Buck, that at least two of the founding fathers, (and some important ones at that), were free thinkers. Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson both wanted to assure that we did, indeed, have freedom from religion. That's the way I read history.
As an American citizen, you have the right to worship as you please. You do not have the right to infuse your religion into the governing of the U.S.”
“As an American citizen, you have the right to worship as you please. You do not have the right to infuse your religion into the governing of the U.S.
Of course that right to worship as you please did not apply to American Indians until 1974.
We were "saved" almost into oblivion!”
“Of course no one has the right to infuse beliefs or religion on the government. Who is saying that? Who is saying, "believe this way or you shall go to prison"? Freedom OF religion is far different than freedom FROM religion. And the converse is true as well... atheists and anti-religious people cannot force their views on the government as well.
Dunadan, I'll respond to your post later when I get time.
Again, the LEGAL preamble to the Constitution of the California:
"We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."”
Jump to Page << prev   | 1   | 2   | 3   | 4   |  5 | 6   | 7   |  next >>
Post a MessageIn order to post a response to this thread you must first be logged in. If you do not already have an account, you must first create a new account.
Ready to Buy Gear?
Great Outdoor Sites