|
Post by Admin on Oct 10, 2006 17:54:51 GMT -5
Should the Ten Commandments or the Five Pillars be the law of the land, or should there be a separation of church and state? Should religion have any influence over the leaders of a country at all? What do you think?
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Oct 10, 2006 22:27:46 GMT -5
Moral codes derived from religion are the basis of the Western Civilization. So, it's hard to isolate the religious factors that shape the opinion of any particular individual in government.
However, the state should not be a theocracy based on a strict interpretation of religious ideals. The primary reason for this is that there are many religions with slightly different stances on various issues, and it would be unfair for all citizens to be forced to follow the religion of the ruler. America was, after all, founded on the idea that a person should be free to pursue whatever religious beliefs they chose.
One can imagine the awkwardness of a hypothetical situation in which a believer in transubstantiation is prosecuted for 'advocating cannibalism,' or something similarly ridiculous, under laws made by a ruler adhering to a consubstantiation-leaning religion.
That said, the government should not be permitted to interfere in religious matters except where necessary to protect citizens (such as death cults, suicide cults, child-abuse cults, etc.) or where laws are being broken (such as churches being used for tax shelters for criminals or fundraisers for terrorist organizations such as the IRA or Hamas) or where a congregation is being mislead by a con artist with a criminal record posing as a religious leader.
|
|
|
Post by thefirstenemy on Oct 31, 2006 23:52:03 GMT -5
Separation of church and state all the way. You don't need the ten commandments to remind you to be ethical, do you? Foley wasn't a pedophile because the ten-commandments weren't prominently displayed. I don't care if political leaders are religious or not, all I care about is that they take an objective view to law making.
For example, gay marriage. It's being banned because most people(Christians) think it's a sin. That shouldn't matter. I think they need to realize it's a personal right, not a sin when two people of the same sex want to get married or not.
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Nov 1, 2006 21:16:22 GMT -5
Just a quick point (since my three page rant was inadvertantly deleted by me): marriage (in general, but inclusive of homosexual marriage) is not even a federal issue. So it makes no difference, at least as it pertains to that issue, whether or not a country's leader is influenced by religion in that matter.
Religion is a facet of culture; culture is a part of a person's identity. Should a public figure isolate everything they believe in and hold to be important when in the public sphere? Would that be desireable? Is that even possible?
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Nov 1, 2006 21:20:02 GMT -5
For example, gay marriage. It's being banned because most people (Christians) think it's a sin. That shouldn't matter. I think they need to realize it's a personal right, not a sin when two people of the same sex want to get married or not. You're leaving out the fundamental Muslims and extreme Jews, and then those who just think that gay marraige is "weird" Religion is a facet of culture; culture is a part of a person's identity. Should a public figure isolate everything they believe in and hold to be important when in the public sphere? Would that be desireable? Is that even possible? But we live in a world that is rapidly replacing religion with science (except for, of course, the middle east, parts of Asia, and the majority of Africa). Therefore, religion should not have anything to do with the actions of a country or it's leader. Especially in a multicultural society such as the USA, where it can be viewed as favoratism to one religion over the other(s).
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Nov 1, 2006 21:21:50 GMT -5
I've got a lot to say on the subject; maybe if I ever get it all written down without deleting it accidentally I will post it in a thread on gay marriage.
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Nov 13, 2006 9:18:41 GMT -5
A flaw in your statement josh, you say that the country was based on the idea of believing what you want to believe, but was it more than that? Was it the pre-christian church trying to get free of the anglican's lack of spirit? Now of course we wont allow cannibalism, but wqe are starting to allow gay marraige. Is it true political correctness? or a race to control the country?
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Nov 13, 2006 12:21:34 GMT -5
Gay marriage is not a religious issue; if it were, all that would be necessary for gay activists to do would be to found a gay church (although several existing denominations would serve the purpose equally well) and then conduct gay wedding ceremonies. Actually, gay wedding ceremonies take place all over the country. The religious aspect of homosexual union is not what's at issue; it's the fact that the governments of most states in the USA refuse to acknowledge ceremonial expressions of homosexual relationship beyond civil unions. SO it's entirely political and bit cultural ("race to control the country" is a good way to describe it).
As to my statement, religious freedom was the common principle for most early American colonists. Lack of spirit on behalf of the Anglicans? Henry VIII (founder of Anglicanism) had more wives and mistresses than JFK, Bill Clinton, and John Kerry combined. I don't know if that can be described accurately as "lack of spirit."
Religious freedom at the time of the nation's founding meant freedom to observe Lent or not, freedom to tithe the Church or church of one's own choosing, freedom to wear cool hats and ride in buggies or not, freedom to prefer consubstantiation over transubstantiation (or vice versa), freedom to attend religious ceremonies where Latin was or was not the only language spoken, freedom to believe and practice religion without fear of persecution by the government (back then, Scientology hadn't yet become popular or else I'm sure this concept would have been restricted with "rationally" added as a qualifier for the free practice of religion), and freedom to coexist with practitioners of other churches, among other things.
Besides, a person is more than welcome to be a member of a religion that believes cannibalism is a form of sacred ceremony. A person is simply not permitted to act on that belief by killing and/ or eating a human being...I imagine they could just substitute a goat or something and their equivalent to a deity or higher power would never know the difference.
|
|
|
Post by ixthusdan on Mar 24, 2007 12:23:59 GMT -5
The separation of church and state is not in the US Constitution. What is there is that the US Government cannot require its citizens to practice any one specific religion. The elimination of faith from the government is a result of the cultural context in modernism (there are no absolutes) and later Post-modernism (absolutes only occur in cultural context). Hence, the "separation of church and state" is not a foundational concept to liberty.
The writers of the Constitution had no Post-modern concept of people living in compartments; people will act in their lives according to their beliefs, whether they are Christian, Atheist, Muslim, or Animist. We can rationally separate out areas of interest, as subjects for discussion for example, but people are unified in their lives. The question of "should there be a separation of church and state" is misinformed. The real question should be "can there be a separation of church and state in the Post-modern sense?"
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 24, 2007 16:38:18 GMT -5
Moral codes derived from religion are the basis of the Western Civilization. So, it's hard to isolate the religious factors that shape the opinion of any particular individual in government. However, the state should not be a theocracy based on a strict interpretation of religious ideals. The primary reason for this is that there are many religions with slightly different stances on various issues, and it would be unfair for all citizens to be forced to follow the religion of the ruler. America was, after all, founded on the idea that a person should be free to pursue whatever religious beliefs they chose. One can imagine the awkwardness of a hypothetical situation in which a believer in transubstantiation is prosecuted for 'advocating cannibalism,' or something similarly ridiculous, under laws made by a ruler adhering to a consubstantiation-leaning religion. That said, the government should not be permitted to interfere in religious matters except where necessary to protect citizens (such as death cults, suicide cults, child-abuse cults, etc.) or where laws are being broken (such as churches being used for tax shelters for criminals or fundraisers for terrorist organizations such as the IRA or Hamas) or where a congregation is being mislead by a con artist with a criminal record posing as a religious leader. I'm actually going to go ahead and agree with this post. For religious people, their religion will always play a significant part in the definition of their moral code, and I think its simply an inevitable point. Any person in the government will do their best to support the creation of laws that follow their moral values, because it is what they believe is right. I do think the government should not endorse or deny religion. Statements such as "this is a Christian nation" should be regarded as wrong, but I don't think you should tell someone they can't argue for something based on their religion and its effect on their beliefs. Take the example of homosexual marriage. A lot of people claim that this issue suffers from a lack of seperation of church and state, and I agree. The term marriage is a misnomer. The idea of marriage liscences is a bad one. Legally, these contracts should have a different name, but still serve the same purpose, to make it clear that the government is not trying to control marriages inside the churches. Passing a law that allows gay marriage should not force churches to recognize them, or perform them, but simply allow the same benefits involved on a legal level. Homosexuals won't stop having sex, living together, and existing if they can't get "married", the only difference is that they won't be able to sign some papers, get some tax breaks, and make some important decisions if one of them is in a coma, and thats not what the anti gay marriage people are trying to prevent. The issue of teaching evolution versus intelligent design is another area that doesn't involve church and state. I'm not against kids praying in school, they should have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want there. What does seperation of Church and State mean? It means those schools can't tell the students to pray. It means you can't force people to be good Christians based on the what being a good Christian is. It means that people should be legally allowed to sin as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other people. It means you can't force people to pledge allegiance to a nation under God, thereby pledging allegiance to God. It does not mean we should criticize people for basing their vote on their belief of what is right that just happens to be defined by their religion. Concerning the cult thing, I'm becoming particularly worried about Scientology. They aren't a religion, they're a cult with massive financial power that bully people into silence by thrusting them into bankruptcy.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 24, 2007 16:58:58 GMT -5
I'm actually going to go ahead and agree with this post. For religious people, their religion will always play a significant part in the definition of their moral code, and I think its simply an inevitable point. Any person in the government will do their best to support the creation of laws that follow their moral values, because it is what they believe is right. I do think the government should not endore or deny religion. Statements such as "this is a Christian nation" should be regarded as wrong, but I don't think you should tell someone they can't argue for something based on their religion and its effect on their beliefs. Take the example of homosexual marriage. A lot of people claim that this issue suffers from a lack of seperation of church and state, and I agree. The term marriage is a misnomer. The idea of marriage liscences is a bad one. Legally, these contracts should have a different name, but still serve the same purpose, to make it clear that the government is not trying to control marriages inside the churches. Passing a law that allows gay marriage should not force churches to recognize them, or perform them, but simply allow the same benefits involved on a legal level. Homosexuals won't stop having sex, living together, and existing if they can't get "married", the only difference is that they won't be able to sign some papers, get some tax breaks, and make some important decisions if one of them is in a coma, and thats not what the anti gay marriage people are trying to prevent. The issue of teaching evolution versus intelligent design is another area that doesn't involve church and state. I'm not against kids praying in school, they should have the freedom to practice whatever religion they want there. What does seperation of Church and State mean? It means those schools can't tell the students to pray. It means you can't force people to be good Christians based on the what being a good Christian is. It means that people should be legally allowed to sin as long as it does not interfere with the rights of other people. It means you can't force people to pledge allegiance to a nation under God, thereby pledging allegiance to God. It does not mean we should criticize people for basing their vote on their belief of what is right that just happens to be defined by their religion. I agree completely
|
|
|
Post by voltage on Mar 27, 2007 17:26:40 GMT -5
Has anyone realized that the Constitution does not recognize the so called separation of Church and State?
All of the bunk is based off this clause:
So what does that have to do with the Ten Commandments in a courtroom? What does that have to do with kids praying in school? What does that have to do with the pledge of allegiance? What does that have to do with whats on our money?
You haven't been forced to worship anyone Paragon, and yet you wish Congress to remove Christianity! Now who is attacking personal liberty? You say that the best course of action would be neutrality. The problem with that logic is the country wasn't based off of neutrality, so bringing to neutrality would insult whatever was in place. Our pledge, our money, all acknowledge the recognition of God. Taking that out wouldn't be a neutral action, and would make you the controller who makes everyone submit to your authority. Thats not liberty to me. Liberty is believing whatever you want, and if the money says otherwise so what! You still have liberty, but your motivation to make the government free of all religion, even free from the recognition of God, tells me that you want the government to be as Atheist as yourself.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Mar 27, 2007 18:05:28 GMT -5
The government should take part in no religion at all, whether Congress, the Courts, or the Presidency. It shouldn't be biased in any direction, even atheism. In fact, religion and atheism should have no place in government at all. If anything, the government should be agnostic, not specifically believing in a god, but not denying that there might also be one. All people should have the freedom to worship whoever or whatever they want. But it doesn't make sense to me that we recognize the christian god on the money and in the pledge and but allow any religion. If we recognize any religion at all, then I propose we do what bbq has stated in another thread:
"In: God(s); ThereisnogodbutAllah (andMuhammedishisProphet); the Great Spirit; Mother Nature; Zeus/Jupiter and the Olympians; Otis and Thor; Shiva; the Buddha; Quetzcoatl; satan; the Noninterfering Creator; Father Sky; the Great Tortoise; the Ancestors; or None of the Above, We Trust
...or the shortened version: In God(s) We May/May Not Trust."
Otherwise, no recognition of any religion in anything government related.
|
|
|
Post by Paragon on Mar 27, 2007 19:36:43 GMT -5
Every time the word God or something of the like is used in anything created by the government, it has made a "law respecting the establishment of religion".
|
|
|
Post by bbqsandwich on Mar 28, 2007 0:17:56 GMT -5
The government should take part in no religion at all, whether Congress, the Courts, or the Presidency. It shouldn't be biased in any direction, even atheism. In fact, religion and atheism should have no place in government at all. If anything, the government should be agnostic, not specifically believing in a god, but not denying that there might also be one. All people should have the freedom to worship whoever or whatever they want. But it doesn't make sense to me that we recognize the christian god on the money and in the pledge and but allow any religion. If we recognize any religion at all, then I propose we do what bbq has stated in another thread: "In: God(s); ThereisnogodbutAllah (andMuhammedishisProphet); the Great Spirit; Mother Nature; Zeus/Jupiter and the Olympians; Otis and Thor; Shiva; the Buddha; Quetzcoatl; satan; the Noninterfering Creator; Father Sky; the Great Tortoise; the Ancestors; or None of the Above, We Trust ...or the shortened version: In God(s) We May/May Not Trust." Otherwise, no recognition of any religion in anything government related. That was highly satirical on my behalf. I apologize if I was too subtle. The explicit denial of God by a government is in and of itself a religious statement. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has in the past ruled that Atheism is itself a religion. Whether or not this is rationally and completely true, it is plain that Atheism is a belief system which pertains to religion. Why should the minority opinion (denial of God's existence) take precedence over the majority opinion? Sounds like to me just another "he said vs she said." Every time the word God or something of the like is used in anything created by the government, it has made a "law respecting the establishment of religion". This statement would seem to imply that you feel no one should be permitted to mention the word "God" in any public space. That restriction would constitute a severe infringement on the 1st Amendment. Additionally, your statement here makes no attempt to explain the logic behind the argument. You can't simply say that "using the word 'God' = establishing a religion" without backing up that position with evidence, logic, or something -- at this point, even green jell-o would be better support than what you've got there.
|
|