Seperation of Church and State(serious discussion)

**Cleetus** · May 2nd, 2002, 02:23 PM

Complete and total democracy in a nation the size of the US would never work, the same as Communism would not work. They are ideals and great philisophical models but they take for granted basic human wants, needs and desires. Organized religion embraces our needs and utilizes it to its own power. A true democracy would not work on the basic principal that the masses are dumb(to paraphrase and make light of the works of great political philosphers) and fickle.
Also, this strict adherence to both Bible and Constitution is what should be watched more carefully. The constitution was written before Trans-Atlantic flights in the Concord of only a couple of hours; it was written before sturdy multiple shot firearms, let alone tanks, machineguns, missles, jets, bombs and so forth; it was written during a time of slavery; and so on. The bible has been rewritten and rewritten so many times we have bible stores that sell 8 million different versions yet we still call it the exact word of God, let alone the fact that we are completely missing 30 years of Jesus's life. Heck, just trying to find the book on Judith(from the great song by A Perfect Circle) was next to impossible, yet it is a biblical story. If the bible can be rewritten for our times, why can't the constitution? Heck, the Roman empire in one form or another(Byzantine) lasted hundreds upon hundreds of years after christianity and moving away from the senate rule.
The church and the state could work together and feed off of eachother for how people live(or should live). They can work together to provide for both earthly and heavenly good. The problem lies in man(or women) and the corruptabilty of power.

**gxavier** · May 2nd, 2002, 02:24 PM

Government and Religion don't mix.

If they do....then you ask for CONSTANT war.

**spinning** · May 2nd, 2002, 03:05 PM

Some more deep thoughts:

There is a Catch-22 to the religion in government issue. Where does a society learn morals and values? You can bet it isn't from the politicians and bureaucrats. Without a basis in religion (Christianity in particular)America would never have developed the code of ethics (ie: laws) that we have today.

OK, enought deep thoughts for today.

**Kymera** · May 2nd, 2002, 03:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by iateyourcat:
That's my point exactly. You think that in order to own a gun that I should have to verify it by saying I'm a hunter. That's not the way I look at it. I read the 2nd amendment as "it is my right to own a gun (arms) so that I don't become a servant of the oppressive government." I own a handgun because I will use it to defend myself against someone who would take my life. That's my right and if someone in the government goes mad tomorrow and starts executing people because they have brown hair then I'll use my gun against the government.<hr /></blockquote>Hey, I'm all for someone's right to feel all warm and fuzzy by strapping some kind of deadly phallic symbol to their thigh. It's protected by the Constitution, and I'm all for that. If we had a history of governmental upheavals, then carrying a gun might make sense. If we needed to constantly repel invaders from our country I might have a gun. As things stand right now people carry a gun for one reason and that is to kill things. Since killing humans is legal only in very specific circumstances, most gun toters kill defenseless animals or paper targets. I'm sorry if I think that "the right to bear arms" is an archaic throwback to another, completely different, time.

**Sowulo** · May 2nd, 2002, 03:55 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spinning:
Some more deep thoughts:

There is a Catch-22 to the religion in government issue. Where does a society learn morals and values? You can bet it isn't from the politicians and bureaucrats. Without a basis in religion (Christianity in particular)America would never have developed the code of ethics (ie: laws) that we have today.

OK, enought deep thoughts for today.<hr /></blockquote>So Christians have a monopoly on morals and values????? I'm so glad to learn that the billions of my brothers and sisters throughout the world who follow non-Christian beliefs are so immoral and valueless. Thanks for opening my eyes to see the truth in that immoral heathen, the Dali Lama.....

**spinning** · May 2nd, 2002, 04:14 PM

Sowulo:

Quote
"So Christians have a monopoly on morals and values????? I'm so glad to learn that the billions of my brothers and sisters throughout the world who follow non-Christian beliefs are so immoral and valueless."

I don't remember saying this.

I guess this is the reason for a religious free government. To avoid state sponsored discussious about which religion is better than the next. There can never be a winner. Someone will always feel left out. Just look at the events in the middle east for an example. When people deal with such topics it undoubtedly leads to conflict.

**silencio** · May 2nd, 2002, 05:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Kymera:
Hey, I'm all for someone's right to feel all warm and fuzzy by strapping some kind of deadly phallic symbol to their thigh. It's protected by the Constitution, and I'm all for that. If we had a history of governmental upheavals, then carrying a gun might make sense. If we needed to constantly repel invaders from our country I might have a gun. As things stand right now people carry a gun for one reason and that is to kill things. Since killing humans is legal only in very specific circumstances, most gun toters kill defenseless animals or paper targets. I'm sorry if I think that "the right to bear arms" is an archaic throwback to another, completely different, time.<hr /></blockquote>It's a brave new world.

We don't have political upheavals because polititians don't have absolute power. I'd like to live in ZEN but, until we all are there we're all not there. Sorry to be a realist but that's the way it is, on the other hand, I really love a good steak. Once you go down the path of killing you realize that you're a human and no amount of rationing is going to keep you in the shell of hipocracy that says "I'm above this." The carrots have souls man!!!

Can you tell me what the phallus reference means? I've just never completely understood it.

**silencio** · May 2nd, 2002, 05:22 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Sowulo:
Thanks for opening my eyes to see the truth in that immoral heathen, the Dali Lama.....

<hr /></blockquote>Every time I see the Dahlia Lama's face he reminds me of my Grandmother. At times she acts like she's five years old. I mean that in a good way.

**DiR[ëctory]** · May 2nd, 2002, 05:27 PM

"Seperation of church and state"

I really don't like how about 90% of americans do not know that this isn't directly in the Constitution. I believe it was written in a letter from Jefferson to a member of some committee (don't quote me on this but I do remember reading it)

If we relate this to what should be taught in our government's schools concerning origin of life.

I think it would be a good idea to share with the students two or three or heck even four different views of how man came into existence. The students need to weigh the facts for what they are worth and make their own decisions.

One cannot deny though that our Founding Father's set up the government we have today within a religious context. That is why they came here in the first place, to escape religious persecution. I admit the government we have today is not exactly religious in any way shape or form but I do believe that government was set up on what many would call "christian" morales.

**Major Kong** · May 2nd, 2002, 05:29 PM

Wow what a great topic! I love it! The separation of Church and State has it's roots with Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison. Both were advocates of separation. Separation has also been held since John Marshall (Marbury vs. Madison) of constituional review (separation being one issue) with some exceptions. The most notable is "In God We Trust" the courts have upheld this currency motto as not being a declaration of a State Religion. It is true that some of the early colonies (with Georgia being a notable exception) were set up on religious utopian grounds. For that very reason our founding fathers knew that the tenets of the Constitution (actually Bill of Rights) were paramount. Which Utopian dogma would be the state religion? The Puritans, Congregational, Quaker, Dutch Luthern, Catholic and a myriad of others. To prevent a fracturing of the original 13 colonies it had to be decided that a "State Religion" would not be established. Taken a step further Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Madison were the most prominant and influencial proponents of separation. Remember, although both Virginians, Jefferson and Madison were on opposite sides of the constitution issue (anti federalist and federalist). People have to remember it took our "founding fathers" nearly nine years to hammer out the details of the Constitution and then with the help of state legislatures the Bill of Rights, before then the country was a Confederation (Articles of Confederation). The original Virginia Declaration of Rights written by Thomas Jefferson and used as the outline for the Bill of Rights is this:
Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
Mr. Jefferson in later writings further expounded on this, most notably his 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptist.
Also most laws of the land of the US are based on the "common laws" and criminal codes of England. Remember that the most influencial colonies were "Commonwealths" and were the basis of the early laws of our young country. It should be further expounded that much of the code of laws that we have today are directly linked to the Code of Justinian (civil law) and the Magna Carta (common law). Well that's my 10¢.

**craigmodius** · May 2nd, 2002, 06:51 PM

Freedom of Religion is also freedom from religion.

Just as the Right to Bear Arms is also the right not to own weapons, and freedom of speech is also the right to choose not to say anything.

Or in Mathematical (Logical) terms... There is both the positive value and negative value, therefore the only neutral value is zero.

Logic then dictates that if you want to acheive true freedom of religion, you must maintain the neutral position. Hence, the State needs to stay out of the business of teaching/endorsing/influenceing it; the same as they should not force you to own a weapon, or make a political speech.

**Hippie_Tech** · May 2nd, 2002, 06:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by spinning:
Some more deep thoughts:

There is a Catch-22 to the religion in government issue. Where does a society learn morals and values? You can bet it isn't from the politicians and bureaucrats. Without a basis in religion (Christianity in particular)America would never have developed the code of ethics (ie: laws) that we have today.

OK, enought deep thoughts for today.<hr /></blockquote>I'd have to agree with Sowulo on this. Religion isn't the only source of morality and values. If someone doesn't believe in GOD, that doesn't mean he/she doesn't believe in what is right and wrong.

Just my 00000010 cents.

**ilovetheusers** · May 2nd, 2002, 10:50 PM

Very interesting all.

I don’t like church/doctrines of religion mixing itself in with the state. It’s a bad mix and in my opinion saying that religious views are the foundation of law is a load. Law existed far, far before Buddha reached enlightenment, God spoke to Moses or Gannesh started protecting highway travelers. The largest motivating factor in the formation of law was an unspoken covenant between all men and women of a particular tribe/group that let them live together for mutual survival. Law comes from being a part of a group/pack and it is instinctual. You can see order and a semblance of non-written law even in animals like apes, wolves and other pack/herding animals. You get along with the others and you survive or you are outcast and die. Little more than that and the law today is a simple survival technique taken to another level.

As for the separation of church and state in America – well, I’m glad we are kept apart but I don’t think that it was ever meant to keep religion entirely out of politics. That’s just not feasible when the majority are believers in some sort of deity. I personally think they meant it to be a system sans a particular religion that permeates government, but not one absent of it, though personally as a die hard atheist I’m more than glad to see a movement against influence of religion in law.

**Q (OHMSS)** · May 3rd, 2002, 05:44 AM

For iateyourcat

I'm British and I'm very happy with the gun laws over here, ie. you aren't allowed to have one. We have a special police force who are well trained and are permitted to carry guns when the need arises. (A relative of mine is part of this force.) If the government goes awry with their decisions over here, the result is (usually) fairly peaceful demonstrations and acts of civil disobedience. As with the poll tax revolts and mass non-payment of said poll tax. The government is still trying to recoup this lost revenue a decade after the event. I must say it's not been that successful. Recently we had a small fuel crisis, because of peaceful public action, the fuel providers were forced to keep fuel prices at the same level for a while. Public demonstrations work very well for us in this country.

I think everyone being allowed to bear arms would result in a lot more murder and manslaughter over here. Accidental killings would be a problem too. The whole gun thing was stopped because of a few nutters who decided to go into schools and shoot the children and teachers. It was horrifying to the British public and I think that most British people will tell you they are happy with the gun laws. If you want to shoot over here, you join a gun club and your gun is kept locked away at that club. Nice and safe.

I don't think we're in danger of a dictator over here, the gun laws were setup to protect the innocent and defenceless. You don't expect your kids to go to school and be shot by a disgruntled nutter.

As for church and state, I think the church should be seperated from the state. When the government starts to moralise, as the conservatives did, they find it very hard to live up to their own pious mouthings. (The national newspapers took great delight at exposing every politicians indiscretions that were at odds with their own policies. It was worth buying the papers then for who's been exposed today.) I won't go on any more. Good, I hear you say.

**NooNoo** · May 3rd, 2002, 06:16 AM

I sometimes become convinced that politicians only go to church because they believe it will sit better with the target voters.

Thread: Seperation of Church and State(serious discussion)

Thread Tools

Display

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions