Is it a good idea to separate "church" from "state? Why or why not?

[Shadow Wolf]

I see. The reason I formatted the post the way I did was because you continued to repeat similar points without addressing it. If you felt from the beginning that the third point I was including was irrelevant, all you would have had to do was say so. It seemed that you weren't reading what I was posting, but just posting the same point over and over, as if I would finally submit to it if it were posted enough.

Thanks for the discussion.

I was explaining my post and how yours wasn't really related at the end with the equal protections part.

 

[joelr]

The explanation is that God sent different Messengers, Teachers or Prophets to different peoples at different periods of history to help them advance spiritually, socially and materially. They had specific Missions. Christ was mainly about the individual. Muhammad about Community and nation and Baha’u’llah regarding the establishment of world civilisation. So they are both progressive and complimentary. The only difference is with the social laws which were meant for each age. So things like the eating of pork before refrigeration was invented was forbidden due to desert climate and health issues later rescinded by Baha’u’llah.

The needs of each age and peoples are different so each Messenger reveals what is needed at the time. But They all taught the virtues, upright conduct and good behaviour. However, over a period of time, priests added superstitious rituals and dogmas not taught by the Prophets thus changing the original religion. That’s why God continues to send Prophets, Avatars, to renew religion from age to age. It is the religious leaders who have created the conflicts and divisions in religion and between religions as the Prophets all have taught love, unity and virtues but the followers have not always obeyed them. Had Christians obeyed Christ’s commandment to love one another there would only be one Christian religion not the thousands of conflicting sects and disunity which exists today. Same with the other religions.

Makes no sense. First the morals and ethics taught by each"prophet" are standard, same old wisdom and ethics of the time period. Never any new material, new facts about the universe, math science.

Then, Muhammad did not say humans only had to obey the commands and love one another. Islam says humans got it all woring, Christians are telling lies, "sons of a God" is a pagan myth (it actually is) and the writers of the NT were corrupted by Greek ideas.

Jesus doesn't just teach love, he teaches freedom of religion and non-belief in that religion as the ultimate sin. Worthy of no forgiveness and eternal torture.
If you have children and they lacked belief in you would you feel. torture was acceptable? How about eternal torture?

The "messenger" thing is the explanation of the Bahai religion which is prolific at writing but offers no demonstration that God is actually speaking to him. No religion does. They are all likely made up by people. Or is it a big coincidence that the wisdom is always whatever is currently trending at the time in that region?

 

[danieldemol]

Jesus doesn't just teach love, he teaches freedom of religion and non-belief in that religion as the ultimate sin. Worthy of no forgiveness and eternal torture.
If you have children and they lacked belief in you would you feel. torture was acceptable? How about eternal torture?

The "messenger" thing is the explanation of the Bahai religion which is prolific at writing but offers no demonstration that God is actually speaking to him. No religion does. They are all likely made up by people. Or is it a big coincidence that the wisdom is always whatever is currently trending at the time in that region?

This much of your post deserves a winner rating in my view.

 

[Muffled]

That does not matter. It is what the authors of that amendment said. That is how we know the original intent of the amendment. You may not realize this but very often when it comes to debating the amendments for court cases is "What as the authors original intent when it comes to this Amendment?"

In the case of the First Amendment we know. The "wall between church and state" was an invention of one of the authors. There does not appear to be any contemporary opposition to this purpose.

By the way, as a member of a rather small church you should be in favor of separation of church and state. If it did not exist the sect that you belong to could be very easily be made illegal. The wall of separation of church and state protects your religion. Otherwise it could be like in Russia where your particular sect is banned.

I believe the original intent was to keep government from making laws about religious observation. The church I attend is part of a very large denomination but I would not claim that size increases veracity or that it justifies our existence.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

I believe the original intent was to keep government from making laws about religious observation. The church I attend is part of a very large denomination but I would not claim that size increases veracity or that it justifies our existence.

Well there were two intents. The first one is that the government not making any law that impinges on religious expression. The second is that the government not making any law that shows preference for any particular religion (or non-religion).

 

[Subduction Zone]

I believe the original intent was to keep government from making laws about religious observation. The church I attend is part of a very large denomination but I would not claim that size increases veracity or that it justifies our existence.

The law prevented the government from picking a "right religion". With countless different denominations of Christianity alone most would think that the governments version was wrong, but they would have no choice when it came to churches.


You may not understand this but "Freedom of religion" has to also include "Freedom from religion".

 

[Tinkerpeach]

Is it a good idea to separate "church" from "state?

Why or why not?

I'm actually starting to come around to the idea that it was a bad idea because laws would have to be created by religious motives instead of non-religious motives.

Maybe it is a great idea.

What do you all think about this?

It’s up to the society that the people live under there is no right answer here.

Personally I believe they should be separated

 

[TLK Valentine]

Is it a good idea to separate "church" from "state?

Why or why not?

I'm actually starting to come around to the idea that it was a bad idea because laws would have to be created by religious motives instead of non-religious motives.

Maybe it is a great idea.

What do you all think about this?

Ignoring for a moment the obvious questions of "which church?", and "what happens to non-believers?"...

Abraham Lincoln once said: "The legitimate object of government is to do for the community of people whatever they need to have done, but can not do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate individual capacities."

Under what circumstances would a god, any god, qualify under that statement? I can't think of any.

So governments should provide for the people, not for any gods.

 

[Ebionite]

whatever they need to have done

Need disregards the rights of others. Lincoln's government is empire.

 

[ppp]

Need disregards the rights of others. Lincoln's government is empire.

That's it? No specifics? No logical thru line? Just vagaries?

 

[Ebionite]

That's it? No specifics? No logical thru line? Just vagaries?

Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise permitted, necessity allows, and necessity makes a privilege which supersedes the law. 10 Co. 61.

 

[ppp]

Illud quod alias licitum non est necessitas facit licitum, et necessitas inducit privilegium quod jure privatur. That which is not otherwise permitted, necessity allows, and necessity makes a privilege which supersedes the law. 10 Co. 61.

That's it? No specifics? No logical thru line? Just vagaries?

 

[TLK Valentine]

Need disregards the rights of others. Lincoln's government is empire.

It has the potential, but plenty of people need their rights protected from others.

 

[Ebionite]

It has the potential, but plenty of people need their rights protected from others.

If it's expressed in terms of need then it reduces to a contest of power.

 

[Ebionite]

That's it? No specifics? No logical thru line? Just vagaries?

I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

 

[ppp]

I'm not going to spoon feed it to you.

I am not going to make more effort to understand your position than you put into supporting it.

 

[TLK Valentine]

If it's expressed in terms of need then it reduces to a contest of power.

When has it ever been anything but a contest of power?

 

[Ebionite]

When has it ever been anything but a contest of power?

From the time of English common law. The dooms/judgments of King Alfred the Great began with a Saxon version of the ten commandments.

 

[crossfire]

Religion begins with the separation of the sacred from the profane. Religion deals with the sacred (something set aside,) whereas government deals with the profane (mundane.)

Religious sacred spaces often provided sanctuary for political refugees.

Joining the state with the church makes the church profane, rather than sacred. Joining the church with the state does not make the state sacred.

Either way, it's a bad deal for the church.

 

[FredVB]

Church should not ever be in position to have laws made for everyone. As it is, there are too many laws for us. Think not? Then name them all.