If America went without religion...

[Guy Threepwood]

I noticed you cited laws from centuries ago that no longer stand today. And you're trying to say they are trying to do away with and oppress Christianity, but most European countries, including Sweden, have official state religions.

The Magna Carta dates to 1215, that's no longer English law, technically. but few would argue that it isn't reflected in today's law and culture in general

Many people fled religious oppression in the USSR, Asia and much of Europe at different times, and took much of the culture of faith with them, hence America still stands out today as the most free and most faithful- especially among 'developed' nations, this is hardly coincidence- it's a culmination of many centuries of history yes.

And like you say, state religions still apply today in many places, many in Britain today grew up being forced to study and worship state religion.- I believe this is still practiced in some state schools? -any wonder kids there are put off the whole idea?!

That's not freedom of religion. Nor is- the government running and taxing places of worship

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That's not freedom of religion. Nor is- the government running and taxing places of worship

I do agree with that. The government, in most cases, should butt out of the church, and the church needs to butt out of the state.

 

[Kirran]

The Magna Carta dates to 1215, that's no longer English law, technically. but few would argue that it isn't reflected in today's law and culture in general

Many people fled religious oppression in the USSR, Asia and much of Europe at different times, and took much of the culture of faith with them, hence America still stands out today as the most free and most faithful- especially among 'developed' nations, this is hardly coincidence- it's a culmination of many centuries of history yes.

And like you say, state religions still apply today in many places, many in Britain today grew up being forced to study and worship state religion.- I believe this is still practiced in some state schools? -any wonder kids there are put off the whole idea?!

That's not freedom of religion. Nor is- the government running and taxing places of worship

What is this thing so many Americans have of thinking their country is the most free? By what possible metric is this true? How are you freer than Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand?

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I do agree with that. The government, in most cases, should butt out of the church, and the church needs to butt out of the state.

for sure, that's where the problems always begin

 

[Guy Threepwood]

What is this thing so many Americans have of thinking their country is the most free? By what possible metric is this true? How are you freer than Denmark, Finland, the Netherlands, New Zealand?

Denmark, Finland still have state religion

Netherlands has a history of religious oppression and segregation well into the 20th century, I'd say New Zealand is fairly free also yes

 

[Kirran]

Denmark, Finland still have state religion

Netherlands has a history of religious oppression and segregation well into the 20th century, I'd say New Zealand is fairly free also yes

Those state religions are, I'll point out, unenforced. Even here in the UK the Church is at best vaguely visible in the background for some people. What we don't see is what is the norm in the USA, which is certain religious groups attempting to subvert the national legislature to enforce their own beliefs on the rest of the population. You don't wanna marry someone of the same gender, fine, don't - but don't use government to push that belief on everyone else. Same goes for abortion. This is not religious freedom and it's not separation of church and state.

There are many countries which have more religious freedom than the USA, and than European countries. The Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Gabon and Botswana all beat out any Western country (with the exception of the microstate of San Marino).

But if you wanna dredge stuff up - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Those state religions are, I'll point out, unenforced. Even here in the UK the Church is at best vaguely visible in the background for some people. What we don't see is what is the norm in the USA, which is certain religious groups attempting to subvert the national legislature to enforce their own beliefs on the rest of the population. You don't wanna marry someone of the same gender, fine, don't - but don't use government to push that belief on everyone else. Same goes for abortion. This is not religious freedom and it's not separation of church and state.

There are many countries which have more religious freedom than the USA, and than European countries. The Marshall Islands, Papua New Guinea, Gabon and Botswana all beat out any Western country (with the exception of the microstate of San Marino).

But if you wanna dredge stuff up - http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/

Religious education and Collective Worship are compulsory in many state schools in England and Wales by virtue of clauses 69 and 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

(wiki)

is this wrong?

 

[Kirran]

Religious education and Collective Worship are compulsory in many state schools in England and Wales by virtue of clauses 69 and 70 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

(wiki)

is this wrong?

Religious education for us covered Islam, Christianity and Judaism if I recall correctly, others also learnt about Buddhism and I think maybe Hinduism. As for collective worship, yeah, it is wrong.

To be honest, I'll happily make the disclaimer that overall, the UK doesn't have religious freedom better than that of the States. It may be less, even, although I am not sure of this given the strength of the evangelical lobby in the USA.

But there are countries that outstrip both. Quite a few of them.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Religious education for us covered Islam, Christianity and Judaism if I recall correctly, others also learnt about Buddhism and I think maybe Hinduism. As for collective worship, yeah, it is wrong.

No wonder the church is vaguely visible, having the government run it is always the best way to run it into the ground.

Separation of church and state, which does not exist in England, is as much about keeping government out of religion as the other way around.

Abortion and gay marriage, I'd say is more about freedom of speech. The church was a driving force in the republican party/ Lincoln seeking emancipation for blacks. So too it is a voice in saving the most innocent lives of all- it wasn't about imposing religion on blacks or babies, but using Christian values to help them- that's allowed under both freedoms

Gay marriage highlights a clear violation of church and state separation- whereby the government saw fit to award tax benefits/ punishments depending on whether or not you had undergone a religious ceremony...

obliging churches to then go against their own beliefs to correct this disparity... two wrongs don't make a right, fix the initial violation and quit taxing same sex/ co-habitating couples more- problem solved on both sides.

 

[McBell]

whereby the government saw fit to award tax benefits/ punishments depending on whether or not you had undergone a religious ceremony...

Except that marriage is a legal contract.
If you want to mix your religion into it tht is on you, not the government.

 

[Kirran]

No wonder the church is vaguely visible, having the government run it is always the best way to run it into the ground.

Separation of church and state, which does not exist in England, is as much about keeping government out of religion as the other way around.

Abortion and gay marriage, I'd say is more about freedom of speech. The church was a driving force in the republican party/ Lincoln seeking emancipation for blacks. So too it is a voice in saving the most innocent lives of all- it wasn't about imposing religion on blacks or babies, but using Christian values to help them- that's allowed under both freedoms

Gay marriage highlights a clear violation of church and state separation- whereby the government saw fit to award tax benefits/ punishments depending on whether or not you had undergone a religious ceremony...

obliging churches to then go against their own beliefs to correct this disparity... two wrongs don't make a right, fix the initial violation and quit taxing same sex/ co-habitating couples more- problem solved on both sides.

Oh the CoE seems to be doing well enough in my experience. It just doesn't intrude into public life more any other given religious group, such as Methodism, Baptism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism etc, which all have a presence in the UK. Separation of church and state is certainly not totally established in the UK, and I'd much rather it was, but in practice we have less Christian groups lobbying and impacting our laws than in the USA, where the Republican Party is dominated by conservative Christians.

How is banning abortion and same-sex marriage on account of the religious views of a subset of the population about freedom of anything? Certainly, I won't downplay the role of Christian faith in the civil rights movements, in abolitionism, etc.

Marriage, as recognised by the state, is a secular partnership which can be carried out at a registry office or by a licensed individual, who is often a religious representative but may not be. The fact they're carrying out a religious ceremony is optional and legally irrelevant. You can go along to the registry office.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Those state religions are, I'll point out, unenforced. Even here in the UK the Church is at best vaguely visible in the background for some people.

Your head of state is the head of a church. Your House of Lords has spaces set aside for representatives of the state religion. It gets significant revenue from endowments that were set up with government money and property.

 

[Kirran]

Your head of state is the head of a church. Your House of Lords has spaces set aside for representatives of the state religion. It gets significant revenue from endowments that were set up with government money and property.

Yeah!

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Oh the CoE seems to be doing well enough in my experience. It just doesn't intrude into public life more any other given religious group, such as Methodism, Baptism, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism etc, which all have a presence in the UK. Separation of church and state is certainly not totally established in the UK, and I'd much rather it was, but in practice we have less Christian groups lobbying and impacting our laws than in the USA, where the Republican Party is dominated by conservative Christians.

How is banning abortion and same-sex marriage on account of the religious views of a subset of the population about freedom of anything? Certainly, I won't downplay the role of Christian faith in the civil rights movements, in abolitionism, etc.

Marriage, as recognised by the state, is a secular partnership which can be carried out at a registry office or by a licensed individual, who is often a religious representative but may not be. The fact they're carrying out a religious ceremony is optional and legally irrelevant. You can go along to the registry office.

Christians are by far the majority in the US, so any remotely representative party or government (of the people by the people for the people) will & should reflect that, should it not?

On marriage that's sort of the point, marriage, the religious ceremony, is a union/ commitment between a man and a woman, witnessed by family, friends and God, and held to be personally sacred for this reason..

the government turned it into a legal status, a tax break, with other perks- which was the large part of the argument for same sex marriages, I think it would have been far better to call it a civil union, or just remove the penalties for being unmarried - but I'd agree it's not a huge deal, bigger things to worry about!

In general the conservative argument is more to allow states to apply their own laws, not the federal government, somewhere along the line 'these United States' was changed to 'the'.. and the big decisions all go to an unelected life time membership supreme court..

 

[Kirran]

Christians are by far the majority in the US, so any remotely representative party or government (of the people by the people for the people) will & should reflect that, should it not?

On marriage that's sort of the point, marriage, the religious ceremony, is a union/ commitment between a man and a woman, witnessed by family, friends and God, and held to be personally sacred for this reason..

the government turned it into a legal status, a tax break, with other perks- which was the large part of the argument for same sex marriages, I think it would have been far better to call it a civil union, or just remove the penalties for being unmarried - but I'd agree it's not a huge deal, bigger things to worry about!

In general the conservative argument is more to allow states to apply their own laws, not the federal government, somewhere along the line 'these United States' was changed to 'the'.. and the big decisions all go to an unelected life time membership supreme court..

Depends on to what degree there is a separation of C and S.

Marriage is a social construct found across the vast majority of cultures, it's not some Christian invention. So we need to legally make room for it and establish it. Whatever ceremony you prefer to go with it is fine, and whatever it personally means to you is fine (and whether you see the civil contract or the sacred union as more important) but from the perspective of a secular state...!

If you go that road, why not let each county decide? Is it OK if some state decides to abolish blacks' right to vote?

 

[michael soh]

I don't think any religion will continue to stand / exist if death is no more.

Death is introduce by Adam and Eve. There were no religion back then before sin was introduce. There were only a relationship between man and God. The relationship started to take a beating when they both hide behind the tree.

Jesus had to die at a tree (Gal 3:13) to rejoin back mankind to God. Imagine if we now hide behind a tree whenever we sin.............. look up. Jesus is smiling at you.

We have a relationship with Christ and not a religion.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Gay marriage highlights a clear violation of church and state separation- whereby the government saw fit to award tax benefits/ punishments depending on whether or not you had undergone a religious ceremony...

Your religion has no monopoly over the term or concept of marriage.

obliging churches to then go against their own beliefs to correct this disparity... two wrongs don't make a right, fix the initial violation and quit taxing same sex/ co-habitating couples more- problem solved on both sides.

Churches do not have to accept or perform same-sex marriages. They are private groups/organizations, and it is their right to do so.

Christians are by far the majority in the US, so any remotely representative party or government (of the people by the people for the people) will & should reflect that, should it not?

No. Religion and politics must be separate to best preserve everyone's freedom of/from religion.

the government turned it into a legal status, a tax break, with other perks- which was the large part of the argument for same sex marriages,

The government made it secular because our state is secular, and by making marriage secular, you are allowing more people to participate. Just imagine all those SOL Atheists, Hindus, Jews, and Muslims if we could only perform Christian marriage. Ergo, the state has its own formal and secular contract of marriage (which also helps ease issues such as interference and next-of-kin when the state has a contract to enforce), which also allows for those getting married to have a religious ceremony if they so choose.

In general the conservative argument is more to allow states to apply their own laws, not the federal government, somewhere along the line 'these United States' was changed to 'the'.. and the big decisions all go to an unelected life time membership supreme court..

They said the same thing with racial segregation. Obviously somethings should not be left to the state, and no one should be denied their rights.