What's new
By:
Filters

Separation of Church and State

But Hitler believed that the mortal and the divine were one and the same: that the God he was seeking was in fact himself.
Not everyone has a conscience,Black! And what I am referring to is deeper than conscience.
 
ANGLOIRISH said:
But Hitler believed that the mortal and the divine were one and the same: that the God he was seeking was in fact himself.
Not everyone has a conscience,Black! And what I am referring to is deeper than conscience.
Click to expand...
From what I've read what people would generally consider a conscience is most likely inborn. Even "lower" primates possess a basic moral code, as such a code is more or less necessary for a social group to function. However, in my psychology reading I came across an interesting finding. In a study of emotional response violent criminals were found to have "deadened" emotions. Since a conscience would affect the individual through emotion (making them feel good about helping others and bad about harming others) for those with deadened emotions the volume of that little voice would be turned down to near inaudible. However, the basic pathways, and thus conscience, would still exist even if it was not able to exert the same control over behavior.
 
People that kill and commit suicide are not in their right minds. Since a normal person wouldn't do it.
 
maybe the murderers are normal and everyone else is strange. (note: do not take statement seriously, just my way of illustrating the difficulty with defining "normal", not that I don't agree with Chris' statement in regards to murderers not being right in the head)

In anycase back to the original topic: I think the seperation of church and state is important. The rule was created so that the opinion of the church wouldn't affect policy and law, but rather policy and law would be affected by the will of the people. That being said, when the majority of the people are one religion, religious opinion is going to affect policy and law. It's a difficult balance.
 
That might be true but the majority (people who don't kill or kill themselves) rule.
 
ANGLOIRISH said:

Christians have every right to attack perverted and amoral activities such as prostitution and pornography that cause morale decay in society. They are also within their rights to protect their Christian traditions such as "Christmas".
Click to expand...

Irish it's not prostitution and pornography that their attacking though, even then the Christians should not try to force their beliefs about prostitution and pornography upon the other citizen's of the country that do not share their beliefs.

What this statement is focused on is that I've seen Christians holding picket lines in front of movie theaters, I've seen them calling forth and burning piles of Harry Potter material because it "contained witchcraft". Or driving book stores out of business just because they had the nerve to have some Wiccan books on the shelves.

Why if they are so sure of their religion that they feel the need to subjugate members of other religions, or even those with no religion. This has happened many times before in History, take a look at how the Catholic church treated the Christian cult and other religions at the time of it's rise to power.

History repeats itself, right now it's the Christians that believe they know what is best for everyone in the world, but who are they to tell us how to live our lives especially if they actively try to suppress knowledge of different lifestyles?

On another note, Germany has legalized and government run brothels, and their crime rate is alot lower that that of the united states.
 
No one has ever said that ALL Christians are sane! There are some factions of so-called "Christians" that I certainly would not want to be associated with. I don't believe that Harry Potter books should be burned nor do I feel that Wiccan should be stomped out. There are radical people in all groups that tend to take things too far.

As for separation of church and state, anyone with a solid religious background can not just put that aside and pretend that it doesn't exist. We are all influenced in our daily lives by our religious upbringing. It is a part of us that isn't about to vanish just because a non believer feels threatened.
 
SISTER_KATE said:
As for separation of church and state, anyone with a solid religious background can not just put that aside and pretend that it doesn't exist. We are all influenced in our daily lives by our religious upbringing. It is a part of us that isn't about to vanish just because a non believer feels threatened.
Click to expand...
We shouldn't expect people to ignore their religious values, and in practice we certainly don't. When it comes to lawmaking, it is impossible to divorce one's values from one's religious beliefs. Luckily, though, the standard isn't that strict. I think the test provided by the Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman is a good one. For a law to be constitutional, it must meet three conditions:
1) It must have a valid secular purpose. That is, the reason for which it is being proposed is not primarily religious.
2) It must neither advance nor inhibit any particular religious group, or religion in general.
3) It must avoid excessive government entanglement with religious institutions.

I may thus vote for a law that I believe righteous in the eyes of God without violating the separation of church and state so long as the law itself meets the above conditions.
 
I didn't even know the church gets involved in the state anymore. I heard recently a coach was praying with the players for the game. The school found out got him in trouble and he got angry with them and quit. I think they should of been able to pray and the players that didn't want to get involved should of had the choice to not be included.
 
It's difficult to respond to such vague, anecdotal arguments. If I had more specifics about how the prayer was conducted, who was involved, who complained, when and where the prayer took place, and in what capacity the coach was acting during the prayer, I could render a judgment as to whether I believed the coach's actions to be protected by the constitution or prohibited by it.
 
They scream on top of mountains saying don't mix state with church but for some odd reason the ones that speak about it are the ones doing it. Ironic aint it?
 
I for one think that a particular church, ie religion or belief, should be separated from state. I however think that someone within government having beliefs in a particular rligion & not being ashamed of it (ie, GW) should not be a bad thing SO LONG as said person does not try to slide tenets of said belief into government bills, etc (ie, GW again I think in some cases, personal opinion).

I think the In God We Trust type of things & the pledge of Allegiance should be allowed to stay, as they are glimpses into the past of those who made them. Many, such as the Pilgrims, who initially began populating what would become the USA were devout believers of particular religions, most believing in some form of Christian sect (I'm phrasing it this way considering natives were largely pushed aside as it was being formed). So for our particular nation as it was formed those words do reflect by & large the belief of the majority at the time it was initiated. It is now tradition of sorts & should be viewed as such moreso than some sortt of religious oppression of other beliefs in the here & now. But that's just my half cent.

As soon as any particular religion gets enough of a foothold in the workings of a government it begins to bias said government against those of other religions, be it it subtly or overtly.
 
Chrisl0 said:
I didn't even know the church gets involved in the state anymore. I heard recently a coach was praying with the players for the game. The school found out got him in trouble and he got angry with them and quit. I think they should of been able to pray and the players that didn't want to get involved should of had the choice to not be included.
Click to expand...

Agreed. If you don't want to participate in something don't. Now if the coach had forced someone to participate who didn't want to it'd be a different story.
 
Black Mage said:
Should there be separation of Church and State?
Click to expand...
Most certainly. Wherever there is power there is corruption and if the higher ups are also powerful religious leaders then this will unavoidably lead to further corruption of both the church and the state. We may even have the government telling us what to believe or how to worship. Which, in and of itself, is in violation of some of the more basic principles of christianity.
Black Mage said:
How related should the two be?
Click to expand...

Its OK for a political leader to be a believer and to say so. To force a political leader to not believe in a religion, or to hide it, is in and of itself a violation of the principles of church and state.
Black Mage said:
Is Christianity really under attack?
Click to expand...

It has been since its beginning. That wont change im afraid. Mostly because the loudest of "christians" are often the most corrupt. Because of this christianity is met with an equally loud voice of opposition.


 
No christianity is not under attack, it's on the receiving end of a retaliation directed at those members of the relegion or that claim to be of the relegion that have directed attacks against groups currently directing the counter attack against the christian coliation.


Wow...sounds all military like and such...
 
The people that are against those members make it sound like its a crusade against the whole church and its members. So I am fairly convinced that they are against anyone related with the church.
 
Brainfreeze said:
No christianity is not under attack, it's on the receiving end of a retaliation directed at those members of the relegion or that claim to be of the relegion that have directed attacks against groups currently directing the counter attack against the christian coliation.


Wow...sounds all military like and such...
Click to expand...

So, two wrongs do make a right then?

Having children sing "We wish you a swinging Holiday" as opposed to "We Wish you a Merry Christmas" fixes everything? Sorry Brainfreeze, I have to disagree with you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top