Seperation of Church and State

I think that it is hard to separate church and state. First of all if someone is a devout christian/buddist/jew/etc religion is part of his everyday routine, thus what he does is in part a reflection of the morals and ideals that that particular church has instilled on him. On the other hand, take a look at JFK's election. There was a big broo-ha-ha about the fact that he was a catholic and this could possibly interefere with his duties ??? what a bunch of BS.

I think that we need to see some after-school jew, muslim, orthodox, buddist, and in general what are considered the "side religions" in schools as clubs... I think that some people might not take well to the die to the fact that they are "minority" religions or so... I would like for this to be taken to court lol ... it would be interesting to see what happens.
 
RacerX - point taken. I do not know enough American history to back up such a statement (maybe we get too much of your T.V.?;) ) I beleive my point is still valid, but could have been made within my last paragraph.

Here, our main opposition party in government (sort of the equivalent to the democrats?) is a political party with a strictly Christian platform (by strictly I mean a Christian platform, not a braodly based religious platform). I feel that if such a party were to govern, many laws affecting our entire country would be influenced by the bible, whereas certain issues (i.e. abortion) should be dealt with the entire country in mind, not the religious majority.


Blah blah blah;)


Scott
 
It makes no difference how your own personal religious beliefs (or lack thereof) effect your behavior. But when you start state sanctioned religious activities - you run into a BIG problem in my book.

Another can of worms:
Who decides which religious activities or "clubs" get access to facilities - facilities I pay for by the way. Do we want thought police (any more than we already do)? Suppose Rastafarians (a valid religion) want their "club" to meet at the local high school after hours. Or, maybe even smoke a joint (a tenet to some if not all members) before class in much the same way school prayers were done in my catholic grade school? Yeah Yeah, pot's illegal but I'm taking the argument to the extreme to make a point. Anyway, even if they don't actually smoke the joint, it's a tenet of their faith and as such would be part of their discussions/teachings.

As I have stated before, I have more of a problem with prohibition and the 'war' on drugs than with their actual use in the privacy of one's own home with limited legalization (minimum age, permits maybe, public safety rules - don't want my pilot hopped on a speedball, taxes on the importation, yada yada). Hell use it in your own home without the legalization, just don't get caught and don't interfere with me.

So... the Rasta thing wouldn't bother me too much. BUT, it'd bother A LOT of others.

The Church of satan is a recognized religion. How about them?

I think or hope you see my point. I think the line above, "Just don't interfere with me," sums it up fairly well although the term 'interfere' could lead to debate. For example, is the cost of the 'war' on drugs fueled by those home users interfering with me in some way - taxes, allocation of resources, etc? Off topic. Sorry.
 
With all due respect to the atheist point of view, how do you conclude that Macs are the superior computing platform, and then conclude that there is no God. It seems that either way a similar thought and reasoning process must take place to come to a logical conclusion. I think it is appropriate, as has been suggested in previous posts, that we stick with the facts and the truth.

Fact: God lives.

Fact: God is good.

Fact: All truth is inspired of God.

Fact: Truth is truth whether stated in Scipture, the Constitution, or spoken by the mouth of Confusious, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, or some anyonomous person on the internet. If there are errors whether written or spoken, they are the errors of fallible human beings.

Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God. The very foundation of
the Constitution hangs on the truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.

Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind.

Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved.

Fact: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Even though the Founding Fathers may have viewed God differently, they all understood moral law and truth, and most acknowledged that the Constitution was in fact God inspired. Must everyone understand how Quartz works to be able to all agree that it provides a better graphical experience?

Myth: The reference to separation of church and state simply does not exist in the US Constitution. This continues to be repeated by the media and uninformed individuals. It distorts the true context of the first amendment.

The first amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the prohibiting the free exercise thereof that gets lost in every debate. Simply put, it means that each and every one of us sovereign individuals has the inalienable right to worship "God" as they see fit without restriction by government. The first part of that amendment prohibits the government from respecting any specific religion as state endorsed.

Prayer is not only a religious right it is a speech right as well. I keep hearing the word inflict used as pertaining to having to listen to someones prayer or religious point of view. Do you feel the same way about the doctrine of evolution? How about profanity? The only intolerance that I can see is the intolerance of religion and offending speech.

The satanic argument is not valid. One can argue that a person has the freedom to worship who they want but that does not legitimize it as a religion. Clearly, the Founding Fathers, common sense, and the spirit of truth dictate that the original intent of religious freedom pertained to the worship of God.

My 25 cents.
 
I still prefer the term "inflict" to "interfere". :)

PS
has anyone noticed how quite the rest of the site has been lately?:confused:
 
Ithink, again I am not trying to flame anyone but those are some very harsh "facts" you put out. Here is my rebutal.

Fact:God Lives
Click to expand...
????? How is that a fact? Just because you beleive does not make it a fact, as a child I beleived in Santa but he does not live.

Fact: God is Good
Click to expand...
???? How is that a fact seeing how good is a matter of perception?

Fact: All truth is inspired of God.
Click to expand...
I would love to hear your basis on that one, that isn't based on blind devotion, because we are talking of facts here.

I'll give you the fourth one, because whether there is a god, buddah or not, we are humans and have flaws and make honest mistakes (and sometimes decietful ones).

Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God.
Click to expand...
I strongly disagree with that one, the constitution gives equal rights to people not because of god but because the law of the land.

Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind.
Click to expand...
Uh Congress and the president can recind the constitution, it's called marshal law.

Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved.
Click to expand...
Again that is an opinion, in mine we didn't come from nothing we came from the big bang.

Fact: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Click to expand...
you are right on that one, but just because you believe doesn't mean it exists either.

The satanic argument is not valid. One can argue that a person has the freedom to worship who they want but that does not legitimize it as a religion. Clearly, the Founding Fathers, common sense, and the spirit of truth dictate that the original intent of religious freedom pertained to the worship of God.
Click to expand...
How can you be so brazen to say that, do you know what religion the founding fathers were? Neither do I, you cannot assume they were Christian, especially when a few were rumored to be Illuinati and Free Masons. Saying that satanism isn't a valid religion is like a stanist saying christianity isn't a valid religion, its a conflict of interest. All religions are cults, some just catch on and become accepted. When "Jesus" was arround, christianity was definitly a cult, they were persecuted because of it. Just because your religion is popular doesn't mean it is not a cult. You still have marriage "rituals", funeral "rituals", prayer "rituals"... sounds like a cult to me, but that is not a bad thing, its just not fit for my beliefs.

My point after all this is that your statements are based on facts, they are based on beliefs, and you know what your beliefs maybe right, but until proven they are not facts.

I also just wanted to say to everyone how great this is that we are sharing views on such a hot issue and everyone is being very cool about it.

Sorry for this being so long.
 
“Fact: God lives. “

There is no evidence that one or more deity exist. Further there is no evidence that any religious teaching speak for any possible deity/deities. Therefore, this statement can’t not be held as fact.

“Fact: God is good.”

The falsehood of this “Fact” follows directly from the error of the first. We have no reference that any possible deity works with or even cares about the human notion of “good” (or “evil” for that matter)

‘Fact: All truth is inspired of God.”

Truth is a human construct (as is the concept of “God”) and they are mutually exclusive.

“Fact: Truth is truth whether stated in Scipture, the Constitution, or spoken by the mouth of Confusious, Mark Twain, Albert Einstein, or some anyonomous person on the internet. If there are errors whether written or spoken, they are the errors of fallible human beings.”

True, the concept of true is an ideal which is never truly obtained. It is an aspiration we all strive for.

‘Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God. The very foundation of the Constitution hangs on the truth that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights.”

At the time of it’s writing the idea of atheism was as in vogue as Deism is today. their reference was the every one had some deity behind their beliefs (I can live with that over sight on there parts). When you take there belief in the creator being nature, you can remove the need for “god” as easily as Kant was able to in his writings of morals and ethics (funny how all of these was happening around the same period of time).

“Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind.

Left field, your argument is not following a logical process. Human rights are a human creation. They are based on reason and duty, self interest and empathy for others.


“Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved.”

Untrue, and damaging to the argument of a “highly intelligent Creator involved”. If the creator is as great as is being stated, why would the creator need to continuously be involved in the process. In a causal universe such as our, I would submit that the only proof of a creator is an event/effect without a cause. A study of nature shows only one region of space-time that that could possibly exist (the big bang), and even then there is not enough evidence to make a conclusion of “Fact”, hence the term “faith”.

“Fact: Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.”

Absolutely, but without direct evidence you can’t not make ANY conclusion. the study of nature is the study of the only possible connection with a possible creator. I submit to you that anyone who doesn’t not take the time to study our ONLY possible link to God, nature, is taking the easy way out, and not willing to invest in communing with the possible creator.

“...understood moral law and truth, and most acknowledged that the Constitution was in fact God inspired.”

Again your conclude is based on errors that you have made earlier, because the God of the Constitution is the creator of the natural world. That means that the writer were saying that moral law and truth are logical out comes of the study of nature. I still feel that Kant’s duty and reason is a more sound basis (but then again he was not only a Christian, he was also a mathematician).

“Myth: The reference to separation of church and state simply does not exist in the US Constitution. This continues to be repeated by the media and uninformed individuals. It distorts the true context of the first amendment.”

Here is a “Fact” for you, there is a very real understanding in the constitution that there share NOT be a state religion (helps to have a father who is a professor of Constitutional law).

“The first amendment to the Constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It is the prohibiting the free exercise thereof that gets lost in every debate. Simply put, it means that each and every one of us sovereign individuals has the inalienable right to worship "God" as they see fit without restriction by government. The first part of that amendment prohibits the government from respecting any specific religion as state endorsed.”

Beautiful! I could not have said that better myself.

“Prayer is not only a religious right it is a speech right as well. I keep hearing the word inflict used as pertaining to having to listen to someones prayer or religious point of view. Do you feel the same way about the doctrine of evolution? How about profanity? The only intolerance that I can see is the intolerance of religion and offending speech.”

the “doctrine of evolution” is the theory of evolution which is it self evolving as more inform is acquired. Infact, if there is a God, I would put it to you that speaking out against evolution is the same as saying that God was wrong in the process He took in bring us to this point. Why, that is Blaspheme!

My 50 cents
 
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
Click to expand...

Yes that is the letter of the law. We have a branch of government called the Judiciary that interprets the letter of the law.

They have held, for the most part, that "make no law respecting..." includes such things as giving even the appearance of supporting one religion or another - or all of them.

I happen to agree. Making a kid of religion X say a prayer from religion y (or making anyone say ANY prayer or perform ANY religious ritual) before school or a football game or whatever if sanctioned by the State (ie implemented by a principal in a public school or any local/state/national representative of the government) is de facto law.

Along the same lines, allowing the use of public property - school, city hall, whatever - is de facto law if sanctioned by the State as mentioned above. As the State controls those buildings (;) as trustees for We the People;) ) I see no way around the fact that it would in fact be "...mak[ing] a law respecting the establishment of a religion."

The other clause of the above qouted quote re: the prohibition of anyone's free exercise of their chosen religion is a non-issue. Who is stopping anyone from practicing their religion of choice. Public schools, city/school football teams, city hall, etc - pick your public location - aren't the only places to do your religious practices. I've seen churches. I was an altar boy for eight years. I've seen local prayer centers. What's wrong with those places. Or I assume you have a home or some private place in which to do whatever your religion dictates.

Adherents of Islam are one exception that just popped into my mind. They have to bow to Mecca at such and such a time. I've seen it on the sidewalk. This wouldn't bother me. They're not 'inflicting' (I like that better too) their practices on me. Now that is a free speech matter that iThink eluded to (the local constabulary might be a little jerky and call it a public nuisance or something, but I doubt it). You can walk down the street and say just about anything you want (within certain laws), including prayers. Go ahead. That's free speech. the government isn't sanctioning the nature of the speech, just the idea that you can do it. That's the difference, iThink.

Lastly, I too think it has been refreshing that things have been kept cool for the most part. In stating that, I wish to make it clear that although individuals were named and quoted in my post, I'm just disagreeing with your opinion and have nothing against you or anyone here. Hell, I don't know you. I am pretty thick skinned and feel heated debates are often the quickest route to the truth - so feel free to rip into me or my ideas as you see fit.
 
Wow, its strange how two completely different people can come up with such similar opinions. You don't have to answer this one racer, but are you a believer? Turnabout is fair play so, No I am an atheist, with a strong sense of "good".
 
I'm an atheist. When I was very young I started asking questions of myself like;

Question: "Do I actually believe in God?"

Answer: "No"

That lead me to questioning other things that I had up to that point taken for granted (that point being 9 years old) dealing with ethics and morals, the nature of time and space, life and death.

I am one of the only atheist I know, and contrary to the stereo type, I tend to be very happy-go-lucky, and enjoy knowing people who's faith is a special part of their lives. :)
 
I was actually hoping you were a devout presbeterian (?sp) or something.

Its very funny my wife is a strong catholic and she agrees with my views of seperation of church and state, it's always good in my eyes when two different points of view agree on the same conclusion. :)
 
After so long I have lost count of all teh christian sects.... this is so f*cked up ... It seems that people twist religion or "teachings" around to suit their needs. People no longer conform to the church, the church conforms to them :mad: ....

What is the point then ???

Oh well ... I live my life in the following motto

Carpe Diem!
 
????? How is that a fact? Just because you beleive does not make it a fact, as a child I beleived in Santa but he does not live.

(A) Unfortunately you assume that because you have no proof then I must have no proof. Unlike many who do profess a belief or faith that God lives, I have a witness from God himself and I can assure you that there is no greater proof. Your lack of knowledge does not change the truth. I reiterate the fact that God lives.

???? How is that a fact seeing how good is a matter of perception?

(A) Once one has had a witness of the existence of God, felt of His power and influence, and received light and knowledge it is easy to discern the facts from the fiction. I reiterate the fact that God is Good.

Fact: All truth is inspired of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I would love to hear your basis on that one, that isn't based on blind devotion, because we are talking of facts here.

(A) Once the Fact that God exists is established, and one obtains a witness of the truthfulness of His words, then one can establish that those words are the truth and therefore facts. I reiterate the fact that God is the author of all truth.

Fact: You cannot separate the Constituion from God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
I strongly disagree with that one, the constitution gives equal rights to people not because of god but because the law of the land.

(A) Once again I would say that once the aforementioned basic fundamental truths are established then it is not difficult to conclude that author of the Constitution (Jefferson) was correct when he stated the following; "The evidence of [the] natural right [of expatriation], like that of our right to life, liberty, the use of our faculties, the pursuit of happiness, is not left to the feeble and sophistical investigations of reason, but impressed on the sense of every man. We do not claim these under the charters of Kings and legislators, but under the King of Kings."

Fact: Those rights do not and cannot come from government, otherwise the King Georges of the world would decide what your rights are. Man cannot be the author of something he does not have the authority to grant or recind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Uh Congress and the president can recind the constitution, it's called marshal law.

(A) Only in the legal sense. In the ultimate sense each individual will decide whether to cooperate for the good of the Country, not the commander in chief. God or death is the only way to suspend ones inalienable rights.

Fact: Something cannot come from nothing. The precision of the world and the complexity of the human body testifies of a supreme creator. We no more came about by chance than OSX did. DNA is a complex blueprint of the human body which reason and logic denotes that there is a highly intelligent Creator involved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Again that is an opinion, in mine we didn't come from nothing we came from the big bang.

(A) You believe in the latest greatest scientific theory, however you did not address the overwhelming evidence that points to an intelligent design and plan. Even most reputable scientists today agree that the probability of this all happening by chance is so astronomical that it isn't considered possible.

The satanic argument is not valid. One can argue that a person has the freedom to worship who they want but that does not legitimize it as a religion. Clearly, the Founding Fathers, common sense, and the spirit of truth dictate that the original intent of religious freedom pertained to the worship of God.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can you be so brazen to say that, do you know what religion the founding fathers were? Neither do I, you cannot assume they were Christian, especially when a few were rumored to be Illuinati and Free Masons. Saying that satanism isn't a valid religion is like a stanist saying christianity isn't a valid religion, its a conflict of interest. All religions are cults, some just catch on and become accepted. When "Jesus" was arround, christianity was definitly a cult, they were persecuted because of it. Just because your religion is popular doesn't mean it is not a cult. You still have marriage "rituals", funeral "rituals", prayer "rituals"... sounds like a cult to me, but that is not a bad thing, its just not fit for my beliefs.

(A) Please quote one factual statement uttered by any Founding Father that ever alluded to the freedom of religion meaning anything other than the right to worship God as one sees fit. Please refer me to the quote that states that Satanism was considered. It is an insult to their work of good and defies reason and logic.


My point after all this is that your statements are based on facts, they are based on beliefs, and you know what your beliefs maybe right, but until proven they are not facts.

(A) On the contrary. I intentionally mentioned only the things I know to be factual according to my aforementioned statements of testimony. I stand by my original statements of facts.

I found it ironic that your response to the very things you referred to as my opinion, was presented as factual. In other words if one accuses another of being judgemental are they themselves not being judgemental?





 
The thing I find most interesting is that you failed to respond to any of the points I made.

Were they not worth the time or too true?:)
 
iThink,

I’ll try not to take the fact that you didn’t answer my post personally, and continue on with an examination you most entertaining post.


“(A) Unfortunately you assume that because you have no proof then I must have no proof. Unlike many who do profess a belief or faith that God lives, I have a witness from God himself and I can assure you that there is no greater proof. Your lack of knowledge does not change the truth. I reiterate the fact that God lives.”

Have you actually seen God? Please don’t take this the wrong way, but you just stated that you have a witness, which means you have NOT (I would assume) seen actual proof of a deity in any form. I would take it a step further and say that you are basing your “Facts” on your faith in others. There is nothing wrong with that, but it would strengthen your argument if you, your self, had witnessed God.


“(A) Once one has had a witness of the existence of God, felt of His power and influence, and received light and knowledge it is easy to discern the facts from the fiction. I reiterate the fact that God is Good.”

I have no doubt that you have felt some form of “power and influence”, but as to what is behind that, I’ll reserve judgment.


“(A) Once the Fact that God exists is established, and one obtains a witness of the truthfulness of His words, then one can establish that those words are the truth and therefore facts. I reiterate the fact that God is the author of all truth.”

Once again we are up against the lack of “Facts” which you have a mastery of in the argument. Your arguing from passion, and have offered no evidence to back up your point of view. You should be taking your argument from the point of view that we are not as privileged as you and you should be presenting your “facts” in the manner helps us to reach the same conclusions that you have. Your argument is more of an effort to dictate you beliefs rather than persuade us to see them for the (professed) truth that you say they are.


“A) Once again I would say that once the aforementioned basic fundamental truths are established then it is not difficult to conclude that author of the Constitution (Jefferson) was correct when he stated the following...”

Thomas Jefferson was a strong believer of Deism, and the the only true path to God was through an understanding of nature. Your argument would be stronger if you quoted someone like George Washington who’s belief in Deism was politically motivated, and was in his heart most likely a Christian. Also we are all wanting for you to establish any of the facts or truths in your earilier agruments.


“(A) You believe in the latest greatest scientific theory, however you did not address the overwhelming evidence that points to an intelligent design and plan. Even most reputable scientists today agree that the probability of this all happening by chance is so astronomical that it isn't considered possible.”

One of my last papers before beginning my current break from graduate school (for Mathematics) was on an alternate theory of the Big Bang Theory (current known as Inflation Cosmology) because aspects of the theory required changing of the definitions of singularities in space-time. I would be the first to point out that if I was a Physicist I would have a hard time getting such a paper published, but as a Mathematician it could be published as a mathematical curiosity. Even in Science you have the problems that come from social interactions, and it is hard to point out short coming of the current theory when so many have based their reputations on it. I would point out that most people who study the large scale structure of the universe and it’s origins are motivated by wanting to be the first to provide a direct link to the creator. Most are realistic about this and would be happy to provide a step on the path towards the final goal.


“(A) Please quote one factual statement uttered by any Founding Father that ever alluded to the freedom of religion meaning anything other than the right to worship God as one sees fit. Please refer me to the quote that states that Satanism was considered. It is an insult to their work of good and defies reason and logic.”

I think that we can pass on providing “facts” for someone who has a hard time with the definition of facts.


“(A) On the contrary. I intentionally mentioned only the things I know to be factual according to my aforementioned statements of testimony. I stand by my original statements of facts.”

“I found it ironic that your response to the very things you referred to as my opinion, was presented as factual. In other words if one accuses another of being judgemental are they themselves not being judgemental?”

The only judgment that is needed is that you dictate opinions as facts. Facts can be backed up with proof that both sides can agree on, and you have failed to provide those in either your initial or latest arguments. I look forward to your next post and hope that you will be more generous in providing actual support for your professed facts.
 
I was watching a grek TV channel last night, the news to be precise.
There was a story on there about a "miracle" a while back. The icon of one of the saints (Saint fanourios) seemes to have tears of blood on it and many people went over to bow to it and ask it for aid in their lives. Most people that do this sort of stuff and are eager to believe such things are the older generation.

Even though I am a Greek Orthodx I take all these with a grain of salt until proof exits. Well, last night the proof. It wasnt blood and most likely not a miracle. What where the stains? The did lab results on them (probably secretivelly) and they found that the red substance was dried up Visino juice (visino = a sweet cherry like fruit that is used to make juices, it also has a blood kinda color). So what happened? Your guess is as good as mine... a little kid in sunday mass ? an eager priest ? who knows. I just find it weird that people are so eager to believe this.

Also, last year greece was going to eliminate certain things from its IDs like religion, ethnicity, and a few others (Greek ID cards are HUGE). There were masses of people protesting because they were going to remove religion from it... the arguments you heard were "If they remove the religion I believe in from my ID I will be an atheist" ... MY GOD! It makes me want to bang my head up the wall! I have never had a greek ID given that I am not a greek citizen, I have always had an MA driver's license which serves as ID... Geez! And all this "fiasco" was initiated by the patriarch mr Christodoulos... what a jackass.


Sometimes it makes me wonder what else they want to put on their IDs ? A small biography ? sexual orientation ? Times of the day they prefer to have sex ? Number of kids they have ? What job they do ?? How much $$$ they make a year and how much they pay to the IRS ? this is stupid! :mad: Keep it short and simple


oh well enough ranting :p


Admiral
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top