|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/25/2010 3:09:14 AM
|
|
|
dboe
Posts: 128
Joined: 1/19/2009
Status: offline
|
Im glad this has been a civil forum, I had to leave another one because it actually started to scare me. I thought I had had too much Kool-Aid to drink passed on by someone in the forum because I was started to use the same emotionally charged language they were! Scary! Glad I left. Thanks for keeping it, um nice?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/25/2010 7:42:19 AM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 628
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dboe
Im glad this has been a civil forum, I had to leave another one because it actually started to scare me. I thought I had had too much Kool-Aid to drink passed on by someone in the forum because I was started to use the same emotionally charged language they were! Scary! Glad I left. Thanks for keeping it, um nice?
dboe this is the third thread I have seen you post this same comment in. If it bothers you so terribly that people on here actually have feelings about certain issues, maybe you need to find another forum. Either that or grow thicker skin. But I don't think it's very conductive to conversation to constantly tell everyone that they are too stupid to debate or are not "intellectual" if they use any emotion in their posts.
Btw, the bolded parts of your post seem to infer an emotion, fear. I wonder if you noticed that.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/25/2010 8:52:33 AM
|
|
|
heremainsfaithful
Posts: 1137
Joined: 10/14/2009
From: Alabama
Status: offline
|
Actually, since we are all past puberty, any emotional action or reaction we choose to have is on us and not someone who "made" us act that way. Blameshifting is not a very intellectual act either.
_____________________________
Jer. 29:11, II Tim. 2:13, Jude 24, 25
https://www2.xlibris.com/bookstore/bookdisplay.aspx?bookid=58896
Eihstein's IQ may be higher than mine, but God's IQ is higher than anyone's.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/25/2010 9:38:38 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dboe
How would Christians feel if instead of creation theory being taught in schools (which christians think should be taught), the only thing allowed to be taught was evolution and how Muslims believed the world came into being.
uhh... aren't Muslim's monotheistic creationists?
On what moral basis would you prefer to be governed? Are you interested in creating an (unconstitutional) religious test for office? eg to be eligible to govern you must either be a secular atheist, agnostic or person of faith who believes in practicing their faith but not applying it?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/25/2010 5:10:01 PM
|
|
|
dboe
Posts: 128
Joined: 1/19/2009
Status: offline
|
Actually yes, I do think being overly emotional indicates a lack of intellect and dare I say ignorance. And I think there needs to be a place for civility. I don't see your point about Muslim being a monotheistic religion. It doesn't matter what it was. The point I was making is simply, how would you feel if instead of Creation theory, the theory of the world from some other religion (mono or pantheistic) was the norm along with evolution (the scientific theory), because so many people want Creation theory taught along with evolution, or evolution not taught at all. There was no point to me saying Muslim, it could be Buddhist or anything else. The point was to turn the tables, does that make sense? Like, put yourself in someone else's shoes? As far as a test for being in office, I would not venture to have the moral astuteness, wisdom, or intellect to even venture trying to come up with a "test" for who should be in office. Nor would I pretend to be so egotistical as to think only agnostics or atheists should be in government (that would be stupid of me since I'm a Christian). I think there should not be a test at all. The way we elect people to office is quite fine, (perhaps too much big money involved but otherwise okay). Election by the majority (for the most part except for that whole electoral college thing which still eludes me a bit). I would prefer to be governed by the closest moral points to all religions that are in the United States. So, take the ten commandments, take the pillars of Buddhism, take the Koran,also take agnostic and atheist philosophy, take whatever else, and then couple that with philosophy, reason, and govern moral issues accordingly. But preferably to an extent where the seperation remains. That is, except with outright laws, like killing, stealing, etc. But keeping government out of church and church out of government.I think the constitution for the most part does this, I have no problem with the way its set up I just hope it stays that way...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/25/2010 5:35:41 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 628
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dboe
Actually yes, I do think being overly emotional indicates a lack of intellect and dare I say ignorance. And I think there needs to be a place for civility.
You are a joke. All you talk about is how everyone else here is so dumb and you are so intelligent, and you are so civil even though you constantly insult nearly everyone on the forum.
Please....
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/25/2010 8:07:59 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dboe
...indicates a lack of intellect and dare I say ignorance.
I don't see your point about Muslim being a monotheistic religion. It doesn't matter ...how would you feel
I have no problem with the way its set up I just hope it stays that way...
Are you directing a charge of low intellect and ignorance at me?
I just reacted to your proposal to consider how I'd feel if creation was taught because Muslims believed it. It was your rhetorical, not mine. So, please understand... we already ARE seeing this from another perspective. Evolutionary theory is taught as fact, it's moral basis is secular humanism and it has usurped the Judeo/Christian basis of origins. It has nothing to do with majorities, since the majority of people still believe in some supernatural aspect of origins, not undirected evolution from inorganic to sentient life.
The system we have now is a LONG way from how it was set up btw and based on your reactions I'm pretty sure you would NOT have liked it as originally set up. For instance -- the establishment clause was federal ONLY, there were already state churches in several colonies and no one was about to give them up. I personally think it was a good idea that they were later abandoned, but not to the degree we have now excluded religious expression in any aspect of public discourse.
Finally, it seems that you object to anything that has emotion in it, so let me dispassionately suggest that you not ask how people feel about things, if hearing it will incite you to emotional outbursts about intelligence and reason.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 1:02:42 AM
|
|
|
relady
Posts: 634
Joined: 4/11/2005
From: Greater St. Louis Metro
Status: offline
|
quote:
Um, I never said you said that relady. LOL. So defensive.... And you are so literal. I don't think we communicate very well at all. I didn't mean that you literally said that, but it certainly could be inferred from your statement. Sorry if I took it the wrong way.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 7:34:17 AM
|
|
|
sallyannester
Posts: 140
Joined: 1/7/2010
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
Someone may have already asked this. Sorry if you have. But I would like to know, when the church and state were separated?
_____________________________
We are so insignificant compared to the size of the known universe. But, we were significant enough for the Creator of the Universe to visit us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 10:19:02 AM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sallyannester
Someone may have already asked this. Sorry if you have. But I would like to know, when the church and state were separated?
The constitution contains some notable clauses about religion - the "free exercise" clause, the "establishment clause", and prohibition of a "religious test" for holding office. The Federal government cannot stop religion, start religion or require religion.
Some context helps. We had just declared independence from England where the Church of England was the state church. To hold office you had to be a member of that church. Also, several of the colonies were dominated by one religious group and in some cases there was little to no tolerance of other groups. The constitution set out to avoid some issues and correct others. However, with the establishment clause the immediate impact was to avoid a fight over WHICH of the existing state churches (funded by state taxes...) would become the Federal church. Let's be clear here - there WERE state churches.
However there are some good arguments for the church being independent from the state and more than a few in government wanted to move that direction. In 1801 the Danbury Baptist association asked President Jefferson to intervene in Connecticut - there were differences between different protestant groups there and the smaller group wanted some Federal help. Jefferson responded in 1802, dodging the issue and using the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" to explain why he did not want to be involved. Interestingly he signed the letter "may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his heavenly kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator"
The phrase is NOT constitutional and does NOT bear the weight of law. The objection that I (and others) have is NOT that we want the government running churches. Under a later amendment the equal protection clause essentially extended the Federal establishment prohibition to the states (however by then the state churches were gone anyway). What I object to is the assertion that all government decisions must be made on the basis of secular humanism and any basis rooted in religion is somehow prohibited by the separation of church and state "law".
In my view this becomes a defacto religious test for office - eg you must either be an atheist or act like one to hold office.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 11:31:42 AM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3519
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
The phrase is NOT constitutional and does NOT bear the weight of law. The objection that I (and others) have is NOT that we want the government running churches. Under a later amendment the equal protection clause essentially extended the Federal establishment prohibition to the states (however by then the state churches were gone anyway). What I object to is the assertion that all government decisions must be made on the basis of secular humanism and any basis rooted in religion is somehow prohibited by the separation of church and state "law".
In my view this becomes a defacto religious test for office - eg you must either be an atheist or act like one to hold office.
Government is a secular enterprise. Therefore one may not expect the government at any level to make decisions for the convenience of religious practice. Nor should one expect the government impair one's ability to worship as long as that worship does not cross into someone else's freedom.
Voters are free to consider a candidate's religious background and candidates are free to discuss their religious views in campaigns. But, elected and appointed officials are to serve all the citizens, not just the ones of similar faith.
The Constitution is consistent with many Christian values. But, it is also consistent with the values of many other religions. It references God, but never Christ.
The Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the phrase "under God" until 1956.
_____________________________
"It's an effort to elevate one's language to sound more academic, more scholarly," Lucas said. "I don't think I'd give her an A for anything."- Brad Lucas of TCU on Palin's refudiate gaffe
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 1:51:38 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Government is a secular enterprise. Therefore one may not expect the government at any level to make decisions for the convenience of religious practice.
I don't think anyone is advocating decisions for convenience.
I happen to think a Christian, Biblical basis for morality is in the best interest of everyone in the population. I don't understand how someone can say "this is right because it is right apart from the Bible" and "this is 'only' right because God said so and doesn't apply to good civil order" How in the world do you create such separation?
I do not mean to advocate that all aspects of Biblical morality end up in legislation with penalties to force compliance. The point many have made before is that all laws legislate moral behaviors and those morals all have some basis.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 2:32:42 PM
|
|
|
Sophie11
Posts: 628
Joined: 1/24/2008
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: relady
quote:
Um, I never said you said that relady. LOL. So defensive.... And you are so literal. I don't think we communicate very well at all. I didn't mean that you literally said that, but it certainly could be inferred from your statement. Sorry if I took it the wrong way.
I meant no offense at all by my statement. I simply stated that the framers were religious and didn't want this country to be Godless. I was not trying to twist your words, it was my own comment. I don't understand why you would see that as a personal attack.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 3:23:44 PM
|
|
|
cow451
Posts: 3519
Joined: 5/6/2005
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Government is a secular enterprise. Therefore one may not expect the government at any level to make decisions for the convenience of religious practice.
I don't think anyone is advocating decisions for convenience.
I happen to think a Christian, Biblical basis for morality is in the best interest of everyone in the population. I don't understand how someone can say "this is right because it is right apart from the Bible" and "this is 'only' right because God said so and doesn't apply to good civil order" How in the world do you create such separation?
I do not mean to advocate that all aspects of Biblical morality end up in legislation with penalties to force compliance. The point many have made before is that all laws legislate moral behaviors and those morals all have some basis.
And we Christians would like to think we have cornered the market here, but have not. The main thing that sets Christianity apart is Christ. Otherwise, Christianity isn't unique among religions.
_____________________________
"It's an effort to elevate one's language to sound more academic, more scholarly," Lucas said. "I don't think I'd give her an A for anything."- Brad Lucas of TCU on Palin's refudiate gaffe
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 5:12:16 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
And we Christians would like to think we have cornered the market here, but have not. The main thing that sets Christianity apart is Christ. Otherwise, Christianity isn't unique among religions.
I never claimed anything different. I am just asserting that the Bible is truth (this IS a distinctive from Hindu or Muslim or Buddhist belief btw) and that using it as a moral basis for civil laws is a very good idea. Now... there is certainly plenty of room for debate over what and how you apply the truth we have but saying that we need to wall off that truth and give it no place in public discourse makes no sense.
Unless I've misunderstood... the argument seems to be that the BEST way to govern is to base all choices on the reasoned secular logic of men and the FARTHER from a religious basis you are the BETTER the idea must be... while the closer to a Biblical basis you get the more you must "separate" this idea from public policy.
Keep the state out of the church? YES
But given the way Washington operates I'd like to see MORE church in the the state... not less.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 6:33:39 PM
|
|
|
lemon_sorbet
Posts: 318
Joined: 11/6/2009
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
In my view this becomes a defacto religious test for office - eg you must either be an atheist or act like one to hold office.
I'm confused. Are you saying that politicians must be or act like atheists to get elected? Because I think it would be quite a challenge to come up with the names of even a handful of politicians who do/have done this.
As it is, you must either be or say you're a Christian to get elected in America.
_____________________________
Q. Why are we violent but not illiterate? A. Because we are taught to read." -David Allan
I'm an ex-christian! :D
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 8:06:02 PM
|
|
|
DNP
Posts: 797
Joined: 5/30/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lemon_sorbet
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
In my view this becomes a defacto religious test for office - eg you must either be an atheist or act like one to hold office.
I'm confused. Are you saying that politicians must be or act like atheists to get elected? Because I think it would be quite a challenge to come up with the names of even a handful of politicians who do/have done this.
As it is, you must either be or say you're a Christian to get elected in America.
quote:
The Pledge of Allegiance did not contain the phrase "under God" until 1956
In a Republic the representative has to represent the wills and desires of his/her constituents not that of his religious convictions. Likewise a judge has to rule on the law of the land not on the Bible. If a judge has a religious view that will maybe in conflict with the law he/she can remove themselves from the case. A representative (ie, congressman or senator) has a much harder time though.
Where I am there are politicians of many believes. I never vote on a candidate based on them SAYING they are a Christian. My vote is based on their views on the issues and what I believe will be their effectiveness in office. Some people are pure and well intentioned but don’t have the personality to be in the political dogfight. It is very messy.
As for Pledge of Allegiance phrase “under God” it was added about the same time “In God We Trust” was place on U.S. currency. That was done during the “Communism Red Scare” of the 1950’s. IMHO both are inappropriate. Let me start with the “under God” phrase. The United States of America is not a theocracy like Saudi Arabia. It does not have a Federal religion. The individual states do not even have their own religions. Any one can be in office regardless of their religious beliefs, lifestyle or sexual practices. I like it when Christian organization uses the term though because it proper characterizes the organization.
I don’t agree with “In God We Trust” being printed on money either. It is blasphemy. Jesus became very angry with the money changes doing financial transactions outside of the temple. Another thing I will not do is swear on a Bible. I have testified in court several times and have been on a jury once. I have always refused to swear on the Bible or swear at all. I told the judges that I thought it was inappropriate to use the Bible as if I was a courtroom gavel. When they asked if I was a Christian I would tell them yes, that is why I can’t swear on the Bible. I would also tell them I don’t even swear on the Bible in Church! They are understood where I was coming from.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 9:36:21 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: lemon_sorbet
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
In my view this becomes a defacto religious test for office - eg you must either be an atheist or act like one to hold office.
I'm confused. Are you saying that politicians must be or act like atheists to get elected? Because I think it would be quite a challenge to come up with the names of even a handful of politicians who do/have done this.
As it is, you must either be or say you're a Christian to get elected in America.
No confusion - yes... you are correct. An avowed atheist would have a hard time being elected. In fact, in most cases politicians will self identify as some type of Protestant, Catholic, or Jew. It is STILL the case that US voters are favorably disposed to politicians who associate with some belief system (although no one likes to think that ANY beliefs should impact THEIR personal choices... so the more liberal your adherence to those nasty religious "rules" the more they are liked)
So here's the question I tried (without success yet) to pose. If the Utopia is an utter separation of church from state and legislators will be (in this view) doing the BEST job when they act upon rational, secular, non-religious "right" and "wrong" to (presumably) pick "right" as they rule.... What do you say to my assertion that secular humanism (agnostic/atheism etc) IS a belief system that rivals any religion in answering questions that matter? Now what? If a person who believes that Jesus is THE truth, THE way and the Bible contains the ultimate answer for ANY question that mattes is elected... what are you advising they do? Ditch that and go with their flesh? eg avoid using God's revealed truth and create their own private subset of truth that can be defended by logic an detached, unemotional reason?
My assertion is that every belief system will dictate certain morals. I choose Christian.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 9:46:36 PM
|
|
|
DNP
Posts: 797
Joined: 5/30/2009
Status: online
|
quote:
My assertion is that every belief system will dictate certain morals. I choose Christian.
Even there it gets complicated. Take the United States for example. Many of the founding fathers and nations residents were pro-slavery. Yet others Christian groups were anti-slavery. Some Christians on various threads on this website are for racial segregation. Others are not. Some drink alcohol some believe in abstinence. Some are divorced and remarried others don't believe in it. Christianity in the United States is extremely diverse and covers a wide spectrum of beliefs.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 10:10:49 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: dnp200450
Christianity in the United States is extremely diverse and covers a wide spectrum of beliefs.
for sure - which is why I previously posted that the issue here is WHAT you apply and HOW you apply it. Secular humanism ALSO encompasses a wide range of beliefs (do you need me to google the links? start with "peter singer" if you like), but I don' t hear anyone espousing the separation of human reason and state.
Given a choice between God's truth applied well, and human reason applied well... which do you pick and why? (PS - the answer only matters where those two diverge btw)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 10:32:11 PM
|
|
|
sallyannester
Posts: 140
Joined: 1/7/2010
From: Australia
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde: Some context helps. We had just declared independence from England where the Church of England was the state church. To hold office you had to be a member of that church. Also, several of the colonies were dominated by one religious group and in some cases there was little to no tolerance of other groups. The constitution set out to avoid some issues and correct others. However, with the establishment clause the immediate impact was to avoid a fight over WHICH of the existing state churches (funded by state taxes...) would become the Federal church. Let's be clear here - there WERE state churches.
Which country? My country is still a commonwealth.
I probably should have asked "when were was the state (government) initially separated from the church". I thought they were all one at first.
_____________________________
We are so insignificant compared to the size of the known universe. But, we were significant enough for the Creator of the Universe to visit us.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/26/2010 11:48:51 PM
|
|
|
davelinde
Posts: 1006
Joined: 5/5/2006
From: New Jersey
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: sallyannester
Which country? My country is still a commonwealth.
I probably should have asked "when were was the state (government) initially separated from the church". I thought they were all one at first.
OOPS - I should have checked your profile before I answered. I associate the terminology "separation of church and state" with the United States (specifically Jefferson). I don't know much about Australia, though I'd be interested in how it started and where it is now. With the US, for sure many of the colonies were founded as church/states, but as the colonies unified there were compromises and a (I think good) move towards religious tolerance. Actually one logical motive behind it was to STRENGTHEN the church... the thinking being that a church supported by the state would have adherents for convenience and conformity while true and vibrant religion could really only have voluntary adherents.
Does this debate exist in Australia? (or anywhere outside the US... we do get so myopic - sorry)
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 2/27/2010 5:24:57 AM
|
|
|
wolfvanzandt
Posts: 576
Joined: 4/12/2005
Status: offline
|
Actually, the idea of separation of church and state is ancient - Plato talked about it and it pops up frequently in philosophic thought throughout the history of philosophy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: separation of church and state - 3/1/2010 9:55:36 AM
|
|
|
NotreDame
Posts: 466
Joined: 4/14/2009
From: 5 hours south of the Golden Dome of Notre Dame
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: davelinde
quote:
ORIGINAL: cow451
Government is a secular enterprise. Therefore one may not expect the government at any level to make decisions for the convenience of religious practice.
I don't understand how someone can say "this is right because it is right apart from the Bible" and "this is 'only' right because God said so and doesn't apply to good civil order" How in the world do you create such separation?
I do not mean to advocate that all aspects of Biblical morality end up in legislation with penalties to force compliance. The point many have made before is that all laws legislate moral behaviors and those morals all have some basis.
quote:
I happen to think a Christian, Biblical basis for morality is in the best interest of everyone in the population.
Even for those who do not believe in the Bible or its morality? This is the point others have been attempting to make for the last several posts. It is not in the best interest of everyone in the population for a Biblical basis for morality to exist. Particularly I am referring to the atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, libertarians, Muslims, and other non-Christian and non-Bible believing people. It is not in their best interest and consequently, this weakens your contention it is in the best interest of everyone in the population.
quote:
The point many have made before is that all laws legislate moral behaviors and those morals all have some basis.
I think there is some exaggeration here, which is typically what Christians do on this subject matter. A law requiring a hunting license or a fishing license is a law legislating moral behavior? Since when was hunting for food to eat for one's survival a moral behavior? Is driving an automobile a moral behavior? What about the consumption of food? My point here is it is untrue all laws legislate moral behaviors.
Second, let's assume such exaggerations are true. I have yet to read, after all of these posts, why Christian and Bible based morality should be codified into law, and the argument of, "Someone's will be, so it may as well be mine," is not a good reason or a good argument.
_____________________________
I cannot undertake to lay my finger on that article of the Constitution which granted a right to Congress of expending, on objects of benevolence, the money of their constituents.
James Madison, Father of the U.S. Constitution.
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
|
Forum Tools
Printable Version
