The legendary thread of separation of church and state: yes or no? (and reasons)

[Quiddity]

Why should we deliberately subject ourselves to anything? We are already subject to countless natural limitations, and to the values and desires we create for ourselves. Why should any of us be subjected to the values and desires of a God, unnecessarily, or of other people's idea of God?

You're already subject to something right now. Your stuck on this not being your own ideas and submitting to it. Think bigger then that. We all have desires and needs, and you know that we can't all get what we want. So we formulate rules for society to follow. Where it comes from is irrelavent if it can make it's case on secular grounds.

 

[Quiddity]

Why does religion of any sort have to be part of the government? Is it possible for the government to remain purely objective? Who says that if the government stays secular, it means that everyone will have to live thier life based on humanist principles? Or is it just that people have a tendancy to label anything secular as "humanist"?

I guess I was right on post #30....eh? Enjoy your dialogue....

 

[MaddLlama]

Are you dialoguing with me? :areyoucra Or into a vortex? Or are you speaking of a caricature of religious right-wingers? Please, just talk to me as an individual without all the baggage. It makes dialogue alot friendlier and moves things along better.

It's difficult to not speak in general terms. Frankly, I don't know anything about you other than the fact that you are Catholic. And, I would guess that you know just as little about me.

 

[robtex]

The one that can make the best argument.

There is no best faith-based arguement. Laws bills and legislating is a complexed, intricate, contigent task that is predicated on consistant reasoning, social and economic contexts as well as . Our secular laws have taken decades to construct with the firmness and flexibility to produce a usable system. Why would anyone want to flippanly toss out thousands of hours of legal work, by legal professionals, politicans and society in large for a faith-based legal system. It would be a travesty of the legal system to discount the literally millions of hours by professionals who have studied years and sometimes decades in their professions in exchange for a book of mythology based on a culture and system long divorced from ours by both time and geographical location. Where you and others might say it is blasphamous to discount your holy books I say it is blasphamous to discount the secular legal system and its professionals in exchange for a faith based idea---irregardless of which faith it is.

and now a short skit:

And how would that work in a court.

defense lawyer: "Your honor, I believe by divine revelation that my client is innocent of the charges set before him."

Judge (interupting) "for the record can you please state your faith"

defense lawyer: "Allah is the one true God and Mohammad is his prophet".

Judge: " Wrong God we are a Christian nation. Your client is guilty as charged and for breaking the first command, "thou shall have no other gods before me" you are officially found guilty of contempt of court.

Judge to client: "I am offically, right after sentencing, referring you to the lawyer referall service to find a malpractice lawyer who can file against your lawyer for choosing the wrong God."

 

[Quiddity]

So a religious state would just force us to pretend we believe in it's God by making us "act as if", rather than making us actually believe it's God?

You are already acting on this right now (theft, murder, rape, etc.). It's only additions that you have a problem with.

 

[MaddLlama]

I guess I was right on post #30....eh? Enjoy your dialogue....

What would you like me to do? Go out and have a cup of coffee with you before I enter a debate you happen to be part of? The subject of the debate is a general one and not specifically "Victor's ideas on the subject". Why can I not speak in general terms?

 

[Quiddity]

There is no best faith-based arguement.

Go back and read my posts Rob, seriously. I already explained to Madd.

 

[Quiddity]

It's difficult to not speak in general terms. Frankly, I don't know anything about you other than the fact that you are Catholic. And, I would guess that you know just as little about me.

And this is relevant because?

 

[Quiddity]

What would you like me to do? Go out and have a cup of coffee with you before I enter a debate you happen to be part of? The subject of the debate is a general one and not specifically "Victor's ideas on the subject". Why can I not speak in general terms?

Because you are responding to me as if I was a right-wing fundie. And that taints your ability to have a fair discussion with me as an individual. Talk to me point by point. Is that too much to ask?

 

[robtex]

Go back and read my posts Rob, seriously. I already explained to Madd.

I did read your post. A faith based legal system is worthless irregardless of the faith presented.

 

[Quiddity]

I did read your post. A faith based legal system is worthless irregardless of the faith presented.

Then you must have missed this:
I am not arguing about things that are only in the confines of religious text. I don't want to force people to go to Church, be catholic, celebrate our holidays, and a myriad of other things. But I will fight for things I believe will have a negative impact on society. And yes, it's got some objectivity to it, but look what it get's reduced to? Your words: "is not as cut and dry as you make it out to be" The fact that you find it unclear or unimpressive is irrelavent to the core of what you said. There is secular arguments for what we believe. Whether you like them, find them impressive, or unclear is another story.

 

[PureX]

You're already subject to something right now. Your stuck on this not being your own ideas and submitting to it. Think bigger then that. We all have desires and needs, and you know that we can't all get what we want. So we formulate rules for society to follow. Where it comes from is irrelavent if it can make it's case on secular grounds.

Where these rules come from is certainly not irrelevant. If the rules come from the majority, that gets one result. If they come from the minority, that brings another result. If they are based on practical needs, that brings a different result, still. Where the rules come from matter because they dictate the result of living by them.

 

[PureX]

You are already acting on this right now (theft, murder, rape, etc.). It's only additions that you have a problem with.

Not so. My problem is with who's rules they are, where they come from, and what the result of having them will be.

 

[Quiddity]

Where these rules come from is certainly not irrelevant. If the rules come from the majority, that gets one result. If they come from the minority, that brings another result. If they are based on practical needs, that brings a different result, still. Where the rules come from matter because they dictate the result of living by them.

I would have thought you understood that attaching ideas to a group of people vs. attaching it to a specific philosophy, world view, ideology, etc. lies a significant difference. To each his own...

 

[Quiddity]

Not so. My problem is with who's rules they are, where they come from, and what the result of having them will be.

Then let the finger pointing begin! Enjoy.....

 

[Gentoo]

Do those that support a non-separated church and state also support America being formally declared a Christian nation?

 

[PureX]

Then let the finger pointing begin! Enjoy.....

I think you're missing my point.

When a person adopts a religious view of existence, including a set of values and morals and life goals, they are doing this for themselves, according to how they choose to look at their experience of reality and their own internal personality traits.

When this same man tries to impose his view of existence on others, it doesn't fit, much of the time, because other people have other experiences, other views of reality, and other value, morals and life goals as a result. So why should the make-up of the first man dictate the life of the second?

If, on the other hand, they get together and realize that they're two different people, with different experiences, and different views of reality and different values, morals and life goals as a result, then they could establish a system of rules that allow them each to BE DIFFERENT while not allowing those differences to harm each other. In effect, it's a compromise based on practical reality itself, rather than on any one man's vision of reality, or on what reality means.

 

[Quiddity]

Do those that support a non-separated church and state also support America being formally declared a Christian nation?

I support separation of church and state as it was originally intended. See post# 17.

 

[Quiddity]

I think you're missing my point.

When a person adopts a religious view of existence, including a set of values and morals and life goals, they are doing this for themselves, according to how they choose to look at their experience of reality and their own internal personality traits.

When this same man tries to impose his view of existence on others, it doesn't fit, much of the time, because other people have other experiences, other views of reality, and other value, morals and life goals as a result. So why should the make-up of the first man dictate the life of the second?

Unless we all plan to live in our own planets or allow anarchy, how in God's green earth do you plan to avoid this? Let me guess? Become more tolerant of rape? How about murder? We all draw the line somewhere PureX. And the reality is that drawing a line is indirectly forcing yourself on others.

If, on the other hand, they get together and realize that they're two different people, with different experiences, and different views of reality and different values, morals and life goals as a result, then they could establish a system of rules that allow them each to BE DIFFERENT while not allowing those differences to harm each other. In effect, it's a compromise based on practical reality itself, rather than on any one man's vision of reality, or on what reality means.

Much of what we believe is practical. It's already embedded into our judicial system. You just don't make a fuss out of those because you just happen to agree with us on it.

 

[PureX]

Much of what we believe is practical. It's already embedded into our judicial system. You just don't make a fuss out of those because you just happen to agree with us on it.

I don't make a fuss because the rules are based on mutual practicality. And this compromise allows us both to be different from each other, while protecting us from each other. We are constrained, but equally so, and for our mutual benefit.

So why change this for an inferior, religion-based system?