Separation of Church and State

[Acriku]

Anybody wanna discuss this? I'm an eager beaver ;)

[Egeides]

Interesting but pretty hard subject.

I believe that a religious institution could give its opinion on a political subject, but should always mention that it is some human's opinion... Even then it is fairly complicated and I guess that Jesus' behavior in this was pretty wise: keep your politics, I'll stay on the personal level.

But the pope excommunicating people and so on, this is a bit out of hand... So I am not too sure about what should be done.

A second case is about if someone implicated on the religious level should also go on the political level. I tend to believe, even if I'm not sure, that someone could but shouldn't use religion to boost his PR, that he should let God out of human affairs with man-made laws. In politics, it shouldn't be about if you look nice but about if you're right and efficient.

So, what would you have to say Acriku? Anyone else?

[The_Sadukar]

I think the pope has every right to excomunicate people, as he is the supreme leader of the roman chatolic church

[Caid Ivik]

I think we talk about Catholic Church, am I true? Protestant and national churches are usually not more than state-wide. National churches can't be separated from state, it would destroy them (see Czech Republic, husites are now only in few numbers here, others lost faith or converted to catholics). If other state tries to minimalise Church's influence, it may go by two ways: creation of a national church, puppet in the government's hands and thus my be a dangerous tool of possible fall to clerofascism, or creation of fanatically atheistic state, like i.e.France after first revolution. But if it allows something, catholics will enjoy favor of Vatican support for their schools and diecesis, what will lead to weakening of protestants, which will then feel oppressed. And liberals will start to call for "fall of theocracy", which they see in every thesis of cds, i.e.questions of assissted suicides.

But if we choose christian or liberal way, it should be a choice of people. You know what we have elections for...

[Acriku]

Err, I meant this to be a discusson of whether or not there is, was meant to be, a separation of church and state, not catholicism and the rights of popes ;)

I believe that a religious institution could give its opinion on a political subject, but should always mention that it is some human's opinion... Even then it is fairly complicated and I guess that Jesus' behavior in this was pretty wise: keep your politics, I'll stay on the personal level.

Well, they should be careful on giving political opinion, because not all members abide by the same political views as the leaders, and can lead to misrepresentation. Jesus was very wise when saying that, as well. Keep politics out of religion, and religion out of politics is a good thing in my opinion.

A second case is about if someone implicated on the religious level should also go on the political level. I tend to believe, even if I'm not sure, that someone could but shouldn't use religion to boost his PR, that he should let God out of human affairs with man-made laws. In politics, it shouldn't be about if you look nice but about if you're right and efficient.

I agree, and as far as I know, people like Reverend Jackson are very adament about their religious views, and political views, and has used his religion to gain votes from what he has said before, which should not be done. Although, it's hard to keep from doing that when it comes to such moral issues like abortion, when your morals for or against it come from your religion.

[ordos45]

Acriku, is this because I showed you the stuff on See You At The Pole?

[Inoculator9]

I think we contradict the constitution more then the Bible contradicts itself... any explanation necessary? :D

[Navaros]

Akriku: don't refer to the Adulterer named Jackson as "religious". there is nothing religious about anyone who commits Adultery.

and you don't have to be religious to know that butchering children is wrong.

[Acriku]

Not quite Ordos, as I've been in the middle of such a debate in another forum, and wanted to see what people thought here. You can find some pretty bizarre arguments sometimes :O

Inoc, indeed ;)

Nav, if you say so :) But this isn't abortion, this is the separation of church and state.

[Navaros]

Not quite Ordos, as I've been in the middle of such a debate in another forum, and wanted to see what people thought here. You can find some pretty bizarre arguments sometimes :O

Inoc, indeed ;)

Nav, if you say so :) But this isn't abortion, this is the separation of church and state.

you are the guy who mentioned in this thread that only religious people think murdering children is wrong.

btw aren't *you* the guy who IMs me and everyone else to tell us that using multiple smilies in one post is against the Rules? and now i have caught you doing it. a bit hypocritical, eh?[attachment archived by Gobalopper]

[Tio_Holtzmann]

Akriku: don't refer to the Adulterer named Jackson as "religious". there is nothing religious about anyone who commits Adultery.

ok i know its not right, but what about forgiveness Nav?

[Acriku]

you are the guy who mentioned in this thread that only religious people think murdering children is wrong.

For the people who derive their morality from their religion, is what I meant.

btw aren't *you* the guy who IMs me and everyone else to tell us that using multiple smilies in one post is against the Rules? and now i have caught you doing it. a bit hypocritical, eh?

Not at all. I used a single smiley for each comment, each pointed to a different person. As you can see in the rules, repetitions like ;D ;D ;D ;D would be against the rules.

[ordos45]

*chuckles* Everyone commits the sin of lust Nav.

[sneezer3]

What is that attachment he posted? ???

[Acriku]

A picture of my IM to him posting 3-5 smilies in a row. Too bad he can't differentiate between what I did and what he did.

Now back to topic!

[Navaros]

A picture of my IM to him posting 3-5 smilies in a row. Too bad he can't differentiate between what I did and what he did.

Akriku's *EXACT* words as proven by my screenshot, and i quote:

"You do not need 3 or 5 smilies to express yourself, 1 will do, and 3 or 5 is against rules. Please refrain from future involvements consisting of too many smilies."

NOTE: *NOWHERE* does he say "do not use 3 or 5 smilies ***IN A ROW***.

face it Akriku, i caught you in a lie. now you do the exact same thing Bill Clinton did when he was caught: deny the proven Truth of the matter and try to put your own malarky "spin" on it.

[ordos45]

This is what the Rules say...

Avoid repeated use of the same character or smilies. ie "!!!!!!!!!!" and ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

[Edric O]

Guys, you should know better than to allow Nav to take the discussion off-topic! ;)

Now, where were we? Ah yes, the separation of Church and State. I am completely and absolutely in favour of it.

Fundamentalists who want to combine the two often forget that they are in fact also supporting government involvement in the Church's business. If the Church and the State are not separated, that doesn't just mean putting religion in the government - it also means giving the government power over religion. And that always leads to the head of state being worshipped as some sort of representative of God.

But separation of Church and State does NOT mean separation of Church and public life. If a person wants to pray or show his faith in public, he has every right to do so. Children have the right to pray in school, to talk about religion with their peers, and to display religious items. They also have the right to wear shirts with "There is no God" written on them.

The concept of "separation of Church and State" is often used as an excuse to restrict freedom of speech, and that is something I am firmly against.

[Acriku]

Nav, I was IMing you about a post where you put them in a row, so you're wrong.

But, back ontopic.

Edric, yes of course, many are fortunately aware of the benefits of such a separation for the religious and the nonreligious. It works out for everybody. And I agree, people should be allowed to show his/her faith in public (although 'public' is misleading, as places where the government does not own helps it become more specific), and children have every right to pray in school, and to not pray. But, only if it is solely the children. Government officials (teachers, judges, etc) do not have a freedom to practice their religion while on duty. This freedom is restricted, but not prohibited at all.

However, does the separation of church and state exist in America, and was it meant to exist by the founding fathers?

[Caid Ivik]

EdricO, christian fundamentalists call for the widest separation. Idea of "national church" is a thing of reformation. Main carriers of fundamental teachings, like dominicans or jesuites, tough they had many clashes, were both for specifical place of one Church, like a watcher over population and their spiritual needs - when those physical are provided by state. Fundament is easily readable, to caesar what caesar's is and to God what's God's...

Religion shouldn't be a tool of rulers. But when people vote for religious leaders, why shouldn't they have them? That's a big error which Americans made in Iraq, instead of discussing with muslim activists, they try to weaken them. Being muslim doesn't mean it is against democracy.

[nemafakei]

"face it Akriku, i caught you in a lie"

Well, his sentence was rather ambiguous; and, given that you should have read the rules, you should have realised what he meant. I assume you HAVE read them?

"Akriku: don't refer to the Adulterer named Jackson as "religious". there is nothing religious about anyone who commits Adultery."

Does not religion consist simply of the belief in a god or other divine entity? (Note this is a rhetorical question) Believeing in a god does not mean you will necessarily conform to any particular set of rules written down by certain believers in the past, or even be moral at all.

Religious institutions should not have automatic influence in governments simply because they are the main religion associted with the country. Here, we have the House of Lords, in which sit high-ranking clergymen. A political party which is (openly) christian or muslim or atheist is acceptable within the gounds of modern democracy.

[Edric O]

Edric, yes of course, many are fortunately aware of the benefits of such a separation for the religious and the nonreligious. It works out for everybody. And I agree, people should be allowed to show his/her faith in public (although 'public' is misleading, as places where the government does not own helps it become more specific), and children have every right to pray in school, and to not pray. But, only if it is solely the children. Government officials (teachers, judges, etc) do not have a freedom to practice their religion while on duty. This freedom is restricted, but not prohibited at all.

Indeed. I totally agree.

However, does the separation of church and state exist in America, and was it meant to exist by the founding fathers?

I can't answer that question, because I don't live in America. But I just don't understand something: Why does it even matter what your founding fathers wanted? Didn't they always say that THE PEOPLE should decide for themselves? Well, then go and do that!

The aura of ineffability that some Americans put around your founding fathers strongly reminds me of the aura of ineffability that the stalinists put around Lenin, even while they intentionally twisted his words to suit their own purposes. But neither your founding fathers nor Lenin were any more than simple human beings. They were all just plain wrong on certain things, and you should accept that.

Support ideas, not persons.

[Navaros]

Nav, I was IMing you about a post where you put them in a row, so you're wrong.

Prove it!

To Nema: anyone who publically claims to follow the teachings of God yet behind closed doors goes around committing Adultery is not religious; he does not respect or believe in God, otherwise he would not commit Adultery.

as for the topic, it's bollocks. Christ commanded his followers to boldy go into the World and change it. not bury their heads in the sand and allow the corrupt, evil "laws" of man to plague mankind like the evil pestilence that they are. the laws of man mean nothing. man is inherently evil, and hence so will any society that is run by natural man be evil. those who are re-born with the Holy Spirit and follow God's teachings are the ones who know how things should be (no one who has posted in this thread so far seems to fall into that boat; the only "Christians" posting in this thread do not believe or follow the Bible's commands whatsoever as proven by their asinine posts about this issue). it is the *DUTY* of every real Christian to fight back against the repugnant government that mankind will *ALWAYS* develop if it is made in his evil, natural state. anyone claiming to be a "Christian" yet who says that Christians are not *COMMANDED* to boldly and pro-actively proclaim God's Truth and effect the changes that God wants into the government is nothing other than a disgusting Hypocrite.

[TMA_1]

good grief, it really is pretty simple, but some people like to interprit it non-objectively.

Any non government worker can express their views anywhere they want and any time they want, except for obvious cercumstances that I think all of you intelligent people know of.

people who work for the government can too express their spiritual views, but not while they are on duty, and not on government property where they work and are associated.

The state cannot support a religion, or denomination, it also cant hinder private citizens from doing so, and people lately are going a bit too far.

It is one thing to take out the ten commandments from schools, which makes sense.

It is another thing to not allow a private citizen to pray at a public school by themselves or with friends. I personally think praying out loud in front of people is both arrogant and childish, but people should have the right to do so.

people go way too far on this issue, and it really is a matter of reasonability.

[Acriku]

I personally think praying out loud in front of people is both arrogant and childish, but people should have the right to do so.

You can pray all you want in a classroom, but not if it is disruptive.