Separation of the Church and the State, the wall of separation is getting thinner Options

[MangoBoy]

The separation of church and state is a political doctrine which states that the institutions of the state or national government should be kept separate from those of religious institutions. The concept has been a topic of political debate throughout history. Some denominations trace the principle back to the founding of Christianity 2000 years ago. The term "church" refers to religions and religious institutions in general and their relationship to government; in countries with religions more predominant than Christianity, the words mosque, temple, or synagogue are often substituted. However, the "church" is far more similar to the religious institutions of other monotheistic faiths. Other religions (such as The Baha'i Faith, Buddhism, Hinduism, Taoism, Confucianism, Shinto, Sikhism, Jainism, and hundreds of animist faiths) have religious institutions with varying levels of authority within the faith. For example, there is no centralized Hindu "temple", in the way that there is a centralized Roman Catholic Church. There is no contemporary dominant authoritative body for Taoists, Confucianists or Muslims. There is no similarity between religious institutions even inside monotheism.

now according to the first amendment of the united state, there should be no state religion:
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution is a part of the United States Bill of Rights. Textually, it prohibits the federal legislature from making laws that:
Establish a state religion or prefer certain religion (the "Establishment Clause");
Prohibit free exercise of religion (the "Free Exercise Clause");
Infringe the freedom of speech;
Infringe the freedom of the press;
Limit the right to assemble peaceably;
Limit the right to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

but now the line is getting thinner. Religon is starting to merge with the goverment. I mean one of the main reason why Gay marriage isn'/t allowed is because certain religion doesn't allow it to be, another is the following term "One nation under God" in "In God we trust" this implied that there is a God. are these the thing that should be in a country that support the policy of "seperation of Church and state"? Here are some laws that I found on wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians)

The Bill of Rights of the texa$ Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being." [8]
North Carolina's Constitution, Article 6 Sec. 8 states "Disqualifications of office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office: First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God...." [9]
South Carolina's Constitution, Article 4 Section 2: "Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office. No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution." [10]
Tennessee's Bill of Rights: Article 9, Section 2: "No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state." [11]

[Cullinan Lover]

If the president is religious then the government will also be religious. However, look at Obama right now. There's a lot more stem cell research under his administration.

[lenn]

Have U noticed that most of the wars were due to religion. And we say that religion is peace and love !!! Lol

[redding]

USA is a democracy, therefore they people are ALLOWED to vote whether religion should be a part of the goverment or not, right? this isnt a dictatorship. people are allowed to choose. and seeing how most people in US is religious, they choose it upon themselves.

[attesa]

Did you even bother to read the original post? I'll include links to the state government websites in case you think the Wikipedia might be wrong.

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION ARTICLE 1 - BILL OF RIGHTS

Sec. 4. RELIGIOUS TESTS. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

NORTH CAROLINA STATE CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI - SUFFRAGE AND ELIGIBILITY TO OFFICE

Sec. 8. Disqualifications for office. The following persons shall be disqualified for office:
First, any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.

SOUTH CAROLINA CONSTITUTION ARTICLE VI - OFFICERS

SECTION 2. Person denying existence of Supreme Being not to hold office.

No person who denies the existence of the Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

If atheists are barred from public office, how is that democracy? Who, may I ask, would change the laws if all the people against them are not allowed to take office?

This post has been edited by attesa: Oct 19 2009 12 02 AM

[redding]

idk why you quote this stuff man, i read it all.

lets say more than 50% of americans somehow change their hearts and want religion to be seperated. well, USA is democracy, then majority votes to have religon seperate. but today, the majority is religious people, so everything you see today about how religon is part of the state, its like that because the people want it like that.

again back to what i said, the majority brought it upon themselves.

[attesa]

These are state constitutions not parking bylaws... changing them is not easy.

Furthermore, true democracy does not discriminate that certain groups cannot participate in government. Read up on majority dictatorship vs. democracy... there is a huge difference.

Tyranny of the majority

The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a dissenting individual's interest that that individual would be actively oppressed.

Ayn Rand, Objectivist novelist, wrote against the idea, saying that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Democracy

Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power. Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by a constitution.

The very documents that are supposed to entrench equality and freedom (constitutions) are being used to entrench religious discrimination. You don't see any problem with that?

[redding]

umm what does the tyranny of the majority have to do with this arguement? are u saying that getting rid of religion from the state is tyranny? and when the majority votes for that its called tyranny of the majority? ..weird

doesnt matter if its 'hard' to change constitiutions. what matters is that most people in america are religious, and that is why the system is the way it is. if more and more and more people start to think opposite and want religion to be seperate, to the point where 95% of the people want it gone, you think the consititution will still stay the way it is? now thats what i call oppression.

[attesa]

Let me simplify it for you...

USA is a democracy

If atheists are barred from public office, how is that democracy?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy

...all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority

...dissenting... individual... oppressed

... your original argument about democracy is not valid if the definition of democracy is not satisfied... clearly not all citizens are equal if atheists are being oppressed by exclusion from holding political office... they are denied access to power...

This post has been edited by attesa: Oct 22 2009 8 56 AM

[Majestic]

but now the line is getting thinner. Religon is starting to merge with the goverment. I mean one of the main reason why Gay marriage isn'/t allowed is because certain religion doesn't allow it to be, another is the following term "One nation under God" in "In God we trust" this implied that there is a God. are these the thing that should be in a country that support the policy of "seperation of Church and state"? Here are some laws that I found on wikipedia: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_persecution_by_Christians)

That's just stupid. Wikkipedia is falsified interpretations not facts. Note carefully. What you just said about religion merging with government. Rubbish. Look up official stats please - look at the CDP and tell me how "religious" is the government. Do you even know who runs the security guards in Parliament? Satanic worshippers are part of the board for security guards...

"Religion" isn't merging with the government, in fact it is "loosening" e.g. the growing Islamic influence in UK. "Religion" is central to a government, and a good society relies on religion for stability. Religion is to politicians as Napoleon described it, "an effective tool of control". I speak of religion that should be part of government, is what the US and many European colonies were founded on, "In God we trust". In these morals we shall abide. This is what creates a healthy society - not like how we live today.

What constitutes a religion? A religion requires followers? Therefore if a lot of people are against homosexuals then if democracy rules, then it is so. Therefore technically not religion.

The Bill of Rights of the texa$ Constitution (Article I, Section 4) last amended on September 13, 2003 states that an official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

So...?
Are you suggesting that "acknowledgement" does anything? Last I checked, the Aust. govt ackowledged Aboriginals but do nothing to help them even though the majority of problems are from the government.

Have U noticed that most of the wars were due to religion. And we say that religion is peace and love !!! Lol

People who say that only skim the surface of religion - and that my friend (like you) is just stupid. Remove the worship in religion, input the laws and rules. Does a person following a philosophy neccesarily follow it to the full extent? Does an utilitarinist neccessarily always follow his principle?

Religion is about "peace" and "love", though it is not explicit in most cases. Religion as I said Napoleon has exclaimed, "a tool". To many, especially politicians it is just that. Religion is also open to interpretation etc...

If atheists are barred from public office, how is that democracy?

That's just another stupid observation. Want honesty? Your too naive. There is no "democracy". Isn't that clear? Democracy has never existed - not in Athens nor in our present society. Democracy has always been defined as who "has the choice". In Athens it was the male citizens... in our present society, it's become more complex, but basically "places" a lot of limitations all the same, especially in who "we really want" to be elected etc...

lets say more than 50% of americans somehow change their hearts and want religion to be seperated. well, USA is democracy, then majority votes to have religon seperate. but today, the majority is religious people, so everything you see today about how religon is part of the state, its like that because the people want it like that.

again back to what i said, the majority brought it upon themselves.

He's correct.

Ayn Rand, Objectivist novelist, wrote against the idea, saying that individual rights are not subject to a public vote, and that the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities (and that the smallest minority on earth is the individual).

Objectivist? More like a subjectivist. That works for the inverse - by working with the majority, the "group with more people" are protected from minority groups... It works two ways.

Even though there is no specific, universally accepted definition of 'democracy', there are two principles that any definition of democracy includes, equality and freedom. These principles are reflected by all citizens being equal before the law, and having equal access to power. Additionally, all citizens are able to enjoy legitimized freedoms and liberties, which are usually protected by a constitution.

Theoretically but not in practice...

[redding]

Let me simplify it for you...





http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyranny_of_the_majority


... your original argument about democracy is not valid if the definition of democracy is not satisfied... clearly not all citizens are equal if atheists are being oppressed by exclusion from holding political office... they are denied access to power...

omgggg it doesnt matter what your definition of democracy or tyranny of majority, or what the law says. what matters is what the majority wants. there is no right, no wrong. what you see today in america, is all because of the majority.

[xiaolongbao]

omgggg it doesnt matter what your definition of democracy or tyranny of majority, or what the law says. what matters is what the majority wants. there is no right, no wrong. what you see today in america, is all because of the majority.

Absolutely untrue. You think the majority of people in Mississippi or Alabama in the 60's would've voted for equal rights and integration for black people? Hell no. The majority opinion is not always the correct one.

[redding]

^ i dont know, would they? can you provide a report or some statistics or something like that?

[Anime_UK]

In a democratic system the wishes of the majority is the way things will be done. But yeah the majorities view is not always correct though, like in Nazi Germany.

But a seperation of state and church is right! But in America the line is very thin! If the line wasn't thin then in US schools, they would not have to teach the approved bibles version of evolution in science lessons as another version of evolution. In the UK there is a clear seperation between the state and the church, which is why its possible to allow same sex civil partnerships.

[MangoBoy]

^ i dont know, would they? can you provide a report or some statistics or something like that?

Well for one, Mississippi and Alabama is one of the last state to repeal Jim Crow Law, and is notorouis for the racisim that is rampant in the states. Arkansas, for example, did not support intergration of the public school... the governor even sent troops to prevent black students from attending a high school. With response like that after segregation is declared illegal... you think that they will vote to end segregation in the first place? It take a Supreme Court ruling, AND action from the president in order to allowed black kids to attend the same school as white... Examples include the Little Rock 9, and the "Stand at the school house door"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Jim_C..._State#Arkansas

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/...1663841,00.html

This post has been edited by MangoBoy: Oct 24 2009 2 54 PM

[The Watcher]

USA is a democracy, therefore they people are ALLOWED to vote whether religion should be a part of the goverment or not, right? this isnt a dictatorship. people are allowed to choose. and seeing how most people in US is religious, they choose it upon themselves.

Democracy does not mean the majority imposes its will on the minority. If that were the case asians, blacks & latinos would still be restricted to living in certain neighbourhoods, separate but unequal education would still be the law of the land and Asians would still be unable to become American citizens no matter where they were born

This post has been edited by The Watcher: Oct 24 2009 9 27 PM

[MangoBoy]

Democracy does not mean the majority imposes its will on the minority. If that were the case asians, blacks & latinos would still be restricted to living in certain neighbourhoods, separate but unequal education would still be the law of the land and Asians would still be unable to become American citizens no matter where they were born

Well in most democracy is majority rule, but there are still miniorities rights, ie. The current united states... but I agree, before, pre 60's, there were hardly any rights for miniorites.

[attesa]

omgggg it doesnt matter what your definition of democracy or tyranny of majority, or what the law says. what matters is what the majority wants. there is no right, no wrong.

What a ridiculous argument! Your point of view leads to mob rule. Next thing you know, you get gangs of people roaming the streets doing whatever they please. Rioting, looting, ethnic cleansing... what is the point of having a government at all if laws don't matter and there is no right or wrong?

Mob rule

Ochlocracy (Greek: οχλοκρατία or okhlokratía; Latin: ochlocratia) is government by mob or a mass of people, or the intimidation of constitutional authorities.

_________________________________

What constitutes a religion? A religion requires followers? Therefore if a lot of people are against homosexuals then if democracy rules, then it is so. Therefore technically not religion.

There is no "democracy". Isn't that clear?

Why are you contradicting yourself in the same post? First you say democracy rules, then you say it doesn't exist. Make up your mind before you start calling everyone else stupid...

That's just stupid...

People who say that only skim the surface of religion - and that my friend (like you) is just stupid...

That's just another stupid observation. Want honesty? Your too naive. There is no "democracy". Isn't that clear? Democracy has never existed - not in Athens nor in our present society. Democracy has always been defined as who "has the choice". In Athens it was the male citizens... in our present society, it's become more complex, but basically "places" a lot of limitations all the same, especially in who "we really want" to be elected etc...

BTW, I was making an argument... YOU were making an observation... and I think you meant "you're too naive" instead of "your"...

Anyway, debating is about making arguments "for" and "against" certain positions. There is no point at all in merely stating how things are now or were in the past... you might as well be talking about the weather.

The question is "for" or "against" Separation of Church and State... more specifically "for" or "against" certain laws in the USA that are based on religious discrimination. redding did not really say whether he was for or against, just that those laws were "acceptable" because they were written "democratically".

I said that I am "against" those laws because they are, in fact, not democratic. If a person wishes to defend those laws based on mob rules, fine, but they can't defend them by hiding behind "democracy". The word "democracy" has a certain meaning... it means that all the people being governed have equal access to power.

If you are a criminal (refusing to being governed) or a foreigner (not subject to government), then you can be denied access to power. Any other exclusions are not democratic. People try to use "democracy" to defend all sorts of bad things because of the positive feelings associated with the word, but that is not legitimate.

You claimed that nobody has ever achieved a real democracy. Your observation is pointless because:

1. it does not change my objection that those laws are not democratic in principle
2. it does not support your position "for" or "against" these discriminatory laws

So...?
Are you suggesting that "acknowledgement" does anything? Last I checked, the Aust. govt ackowledged Aboriginals but do nothing to help them even though the majority of problems are from the government.

Are you suggesting that the discriminatory laws prohibiting atheists from taking office in some American states are acceptable because an atheist could just lie to get into office? Should they just say that Supreme Being(s) exist even though they don't really believe it? If they did that, would that be the kind of person you want to have in office?

Religion is to politicians as Napoleon described it, "an effective tool of control".

Restricting freedom of press, keeping the peasants illiterate and ignorant, spreading propaganda, martial law, etc. are also effective tools for controlling a population. Are you also in favour of those, too? If not, then you must argue in favour of religious gov't based on something other than effectiveness...

Does a person following a philosophy neccesarily follow it to the full extent? Does an utilitarinist neccessarily always follow his principle?

I have no idea what relevance that has to the topic...

This post has been edited by attesa: Oct 25 2009 3 41 AM

[Roy88]

"Religion" isn't merging with the government, in fact it is "loosening" e.g. the growing Islamic influence in UK. "Religion" is central to a government, and a good society relies on religion for stability. Religion is to politicians as Napoleon described it, "an effective tool of control". I speak of religion that should be part of government, is what the US and many European colonies were founded on, "In God we trust". In these morals we shall abide. This is what creates a healthy society - not like how we live today.

Would you care to explain what do you mean by the citing the growing Islamic influence in UK as an example of the link between religion and government loosening?

Yes, religions are effective tools of control yet it's also tools for abuse for some leaders and politicians.

Even if a "good" society as you put it relies on religion for stability, so does it make discrimination legal?

What is a "healthy" society? A society where laws and rules could be influenced by religions which could led to conflicts or a society where laws and rules are written to protect and benefit its people regardless of their religious preference or being non-religious?

[The Watcher]

Well in most democracy is majority rule, but there are still miniorities rights, ie. The current united states... but I agree, before, pre 60's, there were hardly any rights for miniorites.

Racist laws remain on the books until they are challenged in court. For example mixed race marriages were illegal in Alabama until 2000. That was only 9 years ago

[Majestic]

Why are you contradicting yourself in the same post? First you say democracy rules, then you say it doesn't exist. Make up your mind before you start calling everyone else stupid...

Because I believe democracy doesn't exist in the manner that it isn't really a people's choice. If you read it carefully in the context, I referred to democracy not really being "democracy" therefore not existing. It exists to some extent, but not to what the OP or someone else was talking about.

You claimed that nobody has ever achieved a real democracy. Your observation is pointless because:

1. it does not change my objection that those laws are not democratic in principle
2. it does not support your position "for" or "against" these discriminatory laws

No one has achieved "democracy", so why would there be laws that are democratic in principle...
I disagree with the separation of religion and the state. For a multiple reasons... The major one is that religion has helped nations rather than hinder it. Religion especially the Church has done more "good" than ill if eveyrthing it has done is added up.

Are you suggesting that the discriminatory laws prohibiting atheists from taking office in some American states are acceptable because an atheist could just lie to get into office? Should they just say that Supreme Being(s) exist even though they don't really believe it? If they did that, would that be the kind of person you want to have in office?

They are... politicians. That word embodies everything. Everyone lies, and I would rather they lied about that than all the other lies that they have and their own stupidity in being Atheist, in believing a big lie that there is no God.

Restricting freedom of press, keeping the peasants illiterate and ignorant, spreading propaganda, martial law, etc. are also effective tools for controlling a population. Are you also in favour of those, too? If not, then you must argue in favour of religious gov't based on something other than effectiveness...

- Because religion does so much good, no other organisation in the world has helped those in need as much as the Church. Yes the Church is corrupt in some parts of the world, and has been in history. BUT if we look at the "true" church, how much have they done...? If we look at the faithful Buddhists and Muslims, how much have they done - they've done plenty. If we look at the Atheists - what have they done, nothing but produce absurdum and nihilism and all that rubbish. They've done nothing to help humanity. As I said, and you ignored, Napoleon abused religion, not everyone does so. For example, the CDP in Australia actually helps the "unspoken" voices, people who don't want smoking in the restaurant. If your going to say anything about minorities, majorities and the utilitarian perspective or greater good...

The CDP has done so much good, but i don't see them getting voted into Parliament...? So who cares if the Atheists can't get into Parliament either? If "democracy" exists, then people choose what they want.

I have no idea what relevance that has to the topic...

You fail... I can't be bothered explaining everything.

Would you care to explain what do you mean by the citing the growing Islamic influence in UK as an example of the link between religion and government loosening?

What is a "healthy" society? A society where laws and rules could be influenced by religions which could led to conflicts or a society where laws and rules are written to protect and benefit its people regardless of their religious preference or being non-religious?

The government is loosening from its biblical principles... remember what Queen Victoria said in her coronation, her pledge...? John Dee?

A "healthy" society is one which should follow certain obvious guidelines such as "no killing". Many democratic and constitutional governments are formed on either biblical or other religious principles. Many societies have deviated from them however, and that isn't "very good", I think if a govt. doesn't follow a religion, it shouldn't follow one e.g. China. At least then it has suitable punishment for those who break the law and keep society healthy.

Racist laws remain on the books until they are challenged in court. For example mixed race marriages were illegal in Alabama until 2000. That was only 9 years ago

They got changed didn't they?

[Roy88]

- Because religion does so much good, no other organisation in the world has helped those in need as much as the Church. Yes the Church is corrupt in some parts of the world, and has been in history. BUT if we look at the "true" church, how much have they done...? If we look at the faithful Buddhists and Muslims, how much have they done - they've done plenty. If we look at the Atheists - what have they done, nothing but produce absurdum and nihilism and all that rubbish. They've done nothing to help humanity. As I said, and you ignored, Napoleon abused religion, not everyone does so. For example, the CDP in Australia actually helps the "unspoken" voices, people who don't want smoking in the restaurant. If your going to say anything about minorities, majorities and the utilitarian perspective or greater good...

Heard of rice Christians? As in people in poor areas converted to Christianity just to get more food? Is that a good deed to you? Maybe, cause those Christian helpers will be more than willing to convert them.

Religious and Atheists both contributed to our world, to say otherwise will be bullsh*t.

They are... politicians. That word embodies everything. Everyone lies, and I would rather they lied about that than all the other lies that they have and their own stupidity in being Atheist, in believing a big lie that there is no God.

In the United States, atheism is considered equivalent to religion under the First Amendment's Free Exercise Clause. In August 2005 the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed previous Supreme Court precedent by ruling atheism was equivalent to a religion for 1st amendment purposes.

The government is loosening from its biblical principles... remember what Queen Victoria said in her coronation, her pledge...? John Dee?

So why single out Islamic Influence?
Sorry, but what are the biblical principles of the UK government?
And is it good/bad or neutral to you that the UK government is loosening from its "biblical" principles.

A "healthy" society is one which should follow certain obvious guidelines such as "no killing". Many democratic and constitutional governments are formed on either biblical or other religious principles. Many societies have deviated from them however, and that isn't "very good", I think if a govt. doesn't follow a religion, it shouldn't follow one e.g. China. At least then it has suitable punishment for those who break the law and keep society healthy.

Pardon me, you got me lost there. First you said that abiding by "religious" morals is what make a healthy society and now you said it isn't very good...care to explain?

I still feel there is a need for separation of religion and state. Religion is a personal belief and the Government is there to serve the people. And people who try to bring religion into government is basically trying to bring the Government to side with their religion.

Look at South Korea's president, he openly display his Christianity beliefs and openly favor people from his religion and Church by bringing them into his government. What is the aftermath?

Buddhist temples and shrines etc were attacked. Hostility towards Buddhism has always been expressed by some Korean evangelical Christians and with a openly Christian president, I think they got "high" and bold...

We all are living in countries that has people of different religions, we can't have them attacking each other and government siding for one side. If that's the case, the government should be overthrown cause it's not serving the population rather it's serving a group of people. Religious harmony must be maintained and also harmony between the religious and the non-religious must be maintained for a healthy society.

This is one of the reasons why religion and government must be separated.

This post has been edited by Roy88: Oct 26 2009 3 43 PM

[attesa]

Therefore if a lot of people are against homosexuals then if democracy rules, then it is so.

Because I believe democracy doesn't exist in the manner that it isn't really a people's choice.

If "democracy" exists, then people choose what they want.

You still don't see that you are contradicting yourself? Is it the people's choice or not? Nonsense! Pick one or the other. If you dislike homosexuals based on religion, then just say so. Don't hide behind "people's choice" in one case and then say it doesn't exist in another.

No one has achieved "democracy", so why would there be laws that are democratic in principle...

Epic logic fail... no one has achieved "justice"... so why would there be laws that are just in principle?

They are... politicians. That word embodies everything. Everyone lies, and I would rather they lied about that than all the other lies that they have

Cynicism can be used to tear things down... not build up. How does this statement support banning atheists from public office?

This post has been edited by attesa: Oct 27 2009 2 11 AM

[MangoBoy]

That's just stupid. Wikkipedia is falsified interpretations not facts. Note carefully. What you just said about religion merging with government. Rubbish. Look up official stats please - look at the CDP and tell me how "religious" is the government. Do you even know who runs the security guards in Parliament? Satanic worshippers are part of the board for security guards...

"Religion" isn't merging with the government, in fact it is "loosening" e.g. the growing Islamic influence in UK. "Religion" is central to a government, and a good society relies on religion for stability. Religion is to politicians as Napoleon described it, "an effective tool of control". I speak of religion that should be part of government, is what the US and many European colonies were founded on, "In God we trust". In these morals we shall abide. This is what creates a healthy society - not like how we live today.

What constitutes a religion? A religion requires followers? Therefore if a lot of people are against homosexuals then if democracy rules, then it is so. Therefore technically not religion.



So...?
Are you suggesting that "acknowledgement" does anything? Last I checked, the Aust. govt ackowledged Aboriginals but do nothing to help them even though the majority of problems are from the government.


People who say that only skim the surface of religion - and that my friend (like you) is just stupid. Remove the worship in religion, input the laws and rules. Does a person following a philosophy neccesarily follow it to the full extent? Does an utilitarinist neccessarily always follow his principle?

Religion is about "peace" and "love", though it is not explicit in most cases. Religion as I said Napoleon has exclaimed, "a tool". To many, especially politicians it is just that. Religion is also open to interpretation etc...


That's just another stupid observation. Want honesty? Your too naive. There is no "democracy". Isn't that clear? Democracy has never existed - not in Athens nor in our present society. Democracy has always been defined as who "has the choice". In Athens it was the male citizens... in our present society, it's become more complex, but basically "places" a lot of limitations all the same, especially in who "we really want" to be elected etc...


He's correct.


Objectivist? More like a subjectivist. That works for the inverse - by working with the majority, the "group with more people" are protected from minority groups... It works two ways.


Theoretically but not in practice...

1.) Wikipedia might be unreliable, but I don't see how me using wikipedia is in any way "stupid" or that using the arguement that wikipedia tend to falsify thing would work here. I use wikipedia to get example of laws that prohibit atheist from taking office, even if I don't use wikipedia, I can always use another source to get the same information. ie. The Texas Consitution can be found in many academic site.

2.) Society does not need to rely on religion. Religion, in my opinion, is just a mean to control the masses, and to explain something that was a mystery several centuries ago. There are many non-theist source that we can draw moral code from, why should we stick with religion alone? Really Democracy has nothing to do with anything here, even though in a Democracy, majority rule but there is still minorities' right, why should an Atheist have to lied to get into office, and accept something that he doesn't want to belived in? Why should the belief in "god" should be even taken into account here. An Atheist has as much right as ANY body in taking office. Politican may lie, but they should all be treated the same, why would a perfectly honest atheist politican have to lie to get into office, while the same can not be said for a perfectly honest christians. Why would one have to acknowledge something he doesn't belived in, even if they can lie about, why the other don't have to?

The problem is not that the government is promoting religion, the problem is that the government is promoting one religion over the other. And not to mentioned that the first amedment clearly stated that "congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion..." so really this has nothing really to do with Democracy (which by the way, you insist doesn't truly exist), but sticking to what the founding father had in mind.

And interestingly, many of the founding father did not believed in Democracy, they linken it with Mob Rule...

And just to remind all of you, especially Majesty, you all have the right to your own opinion, and so do a lot of people, but personal attack, insult, and degrading remark against anyone or their belief, is both uncalled for, and against AF's rules.

This post has been edited by MangoBoy: Oct 28 2009 6 07 AM

[Anime_UK]

The sepereation between state and church is very important because there is no place for religion in government. The government should make decsions based on what is good for their citzens and not what is good for religion. In America the seperation between state and church seems to be very thin indeed, lke for instance having to teach the Christian version of evolution in a school science lesson is laughable. Teaching unproved truths in a science lesson is totally wrong and also to tell people that darwins theory of evolution is just another possible version that sits beside the Christians version is unbelieveable!!!

If you want to see an example where religion dictates the law, look at countries in the middle east that adopt Islamic Sharia Law!!!

In the UK there is a clear line that seperates state and church, this is why its legal in the UK for same sex marriages to take place. In the US it would never be legal nationwide to endorse such acts because of the Church and Christian values!

Science and religion just don't get along, take a look at the renaissance period of Western Europe when then catholic church were literally running catholic countries like Italy and any deemed as unholy acts (a lot of science related acts like autopsys) were punishable by death.

This post has been edited by Anime_UK: Nov 4 2009 9 15 PM

[lustformavi]

In the UK there is a clear line that seperates state and church, this is why its legal in the UK for same sex marriages to take place. In the US it would never be legal nationwide to endorse such acts because of the Church and Christian values!

UK does not have a seperation of Church and State. There is an estabished Church in the UK, the Queen is the governer of the Church of England. The House of Lords is occupied by Bishops. Christian values are not universal and monolithic, some Christian churches actually allow same sex marriages. Eg; Swedish Lutheran Church.

Science and religion just don't get along, take a look at the renaissance period of Western Europe when then catholic church were literally running catholic countries like Italy and any deemed as unholy acts (a lot of science related acts like autopsys) were punishable by death.

I would say that it was Protestantism that encourage the Enlightenment and Science during the Renaissance.

[Anime_UK]

The House of Lords is occupied by Bishops. Christian values are not universal and monolithic, some Christian churches actually allow same sex marriages. Eg; Swedish Lutheran Church.

The house of lords is just the unelected half of the government, but they are not made up of 100% bishops, only about 20% are bishops, the rest are either lords or baronesses with no religious positions. Bishops who are also lords only make up a tiny minority of the House of Lords.

Yes the ruling monarch is the figure head of the Church of England with thanks to Henry 8th. But the Queen does not have any say in the government or polictical issues.

[lustformavi]

The house of lords is just the unelected half of the government, but they are not made up of 100% bishops, only about 20% are bishops, the rest are either lords or baronesses with no religious positions. Bishops who are also lords only make up a tiny minority of the House of Lords.

Yes the ruling monarch is the figure head of the Church of England with thanks to Henry 8th. But the Queen does not have any say in the government or polictical issues.

So? there is still no seperation of religion and state in England. Why do you think one of the longesat word "antidisestablishmentarianism" for?

[MangoBoy]

The house of lords is just the unelected half of the government, but they are not made up of 100% bishops, only about 20% are bishops, the rest are either lords or baronesses with no religious positions. Bishops who are also lords only make up a tiny minority of the House of Lords.

Yes the ruling monarch is the figure head of the Church of England with thanks to Henry 8th. But the Queen does not have any say in the government or polictical issues.

1. The Queen is the head of state, and technially she represent the nation, the prime minister is the head of goverment, to have any of them as the head of any church, is not separting church from state.

2. The offical religon of England is Anglican Christian... A nation that have a offical or state religion... is in no way secular.

England allowed the freedom of religion, but is still a religous nation.

[Anime_UK]

^ The Queen has no influence on polictical decissions, the fact that she is the head of church of england and also the unofficial head of other religions in the UK does not mean that government would let religious views affect their decisions. The way I see it is that if the church has the power to influence decisions made by the government then there is no seperation of state and church. Its like saying yes amrica has a seperation of stete and church but then again christian churches do have influence on the governments decision making process. In the UK the church has little to no influence on the government.

[lustformavi]

^ The Queen has no influence on polictical decissions, the fact that she is the head of church of england and also the unofficial head of other religions in the UK does not mean that government would let religious views affect their decisions. The way I see it is that if the church has the power to influence decisions made by the government then there is no seperation of state and church. Its like saying yes amrica has a seperation of stete and church but then again christian churches do have influence on the governments decision making process. In the UK the church has little to no influence on the government.

You are simply twisting the meaning of Seperation of Church and State. This concept does not depend on the amount of influence the Church has on the government. Rather it addresses whether the state has an established religion, which England does. Hence, there is no Seperation of State and Religion in England. You can thank the antidisestablishmentarianists for that.

[MangoBoy]

^ The Queen has no influence on polictical decissions, the fact that she is the head of church of england and also the unofficial head of other religions in the UK does not mean that government would let religious views affect their decisions. The way I see it is that if the church has the power to influence decisions made by the government then there is no seperation of state and church. Its like saying yes amrica has a seperation of stete and church but then again christian churches do have influence on the governments decision making process. In the UK the church has little to no influence on the government.

Separation of church and state mean, that there is a secular government and no government recongnation of ANY religion... it doesn't matter if the queen have any influence on political decision or not.... as long as she is head of the church and head of state, religion and government are not separated.... same can be said with the fact that the UK have a offical religion.... either way, government and church are not separated... I would reccomend that you read up more on the defenition of Separation of church and state...

You are simply twisting the meaning of Seperation of Church and State. This concept does not depend on the amount of influence the Church has on the government. Rather it addresses whether the state has an established religion, which England does. Hence, there is no Seperation of State and Religion in England. You can thank the antidisestablishmentarianists for that.

can't put it better myself...

[Anime_UK]

Look, on paper there is a seperation of state and church in america but in reality there isn''t because religious views effects gevernment decsions. Russia on paper is a democratic country like america but in reality its not.

Its pointless for people to say that the legal deifinition of seperation of state and church because it only exists on paper and not in the real world. but oh well.

[MangoBoy]

Look, on paper there is a seperation of state and church in america but in reality there isn''t because religious views effects gevernment decsions. Russia on paper is a democratic country like america but in reality its not.

Its pointless for people to say that the legal deifinition of seperation of state and church because it only exists on paper and not in the real world. but oh well.

There is a difference between, making decison based on influenced from the church or other religous group, and having a state religion...

Political decision that is influenced by relgious belief is a matter of the politican personal belief...

Having a state religion, is the same as having a religious government, it has nothing to do with the people...

A government that has a state or official religion, is not secular... A politican that based his reasoning on his religious belief can exist in a secular government... again is the politlcan that is religious, not the government itself...