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

[Quiddity]

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?

There you go pointing fingers again.....
Can you take an argument on it's own merits without attaching it to a group? Or is this difficult for you?

Law isn't intended to have a compromise for all PureX. It would be nice if it did, but that's not what happens many times. What compromise have we made with murderers? Rapists? Thieves? Pedophiles? There is no compromise.

If you cant get passed the fact that a good secular grounded ideology can flow from a religous based system, then I can't see how I can have a fair discussion with you.

 

[PureX]

There you go pointing fingers again.....
Can you take an argument on it's own merits without attaching it to a group? Or is this difficult for you?

Well, the subject of this thread certainly involves theocrats. How can I respond to the thread without referring to theocrats? And why shouldn't I, anyway?

Law isn't intended to have a compromise for all PureX. It would be nice if it did, but that's not what happens many times. What compromise have we made with murderers? Rapists? Thieves? Pedophiles? There is no compromise.

The compromise is that I won't kill, rape or rob you if you won't kill, rape or rob me. Criminals are people who refuse to honor that agreement, and so must be removed from among us. But for those who do honor that agreement, they can then do pretty much as they please. And that, too, is part of the compromise.

If you cant get passed the fact that a good secular grounded ideology can flow from a religous based system, then I can't see how I can have a fair discussion with you.

But it's NOT based on a religious system. It's based on a simple, practical compromise. You respect my rights and freedom, and I'll respect yours. Religion has nothing to do with it.

 

[XAAX]

You've done plenty of guessing already, spare me please. Law inevitably has a moral component to it; there is no escaping it. So obviously there will be issues that we will not agree with. Really, we are no different in this aspect. You do not lose sleep over forcing pedophile laws or cannibalism and a myriad of other things, do you? Or is it just the religious aspect that bugs you?

Pedophiles hurt other individuals so they fall under Universal law versus religious morality. Cannibalism may not hurt anyone so I am not sure where it falls universally. In some cultures it is still considered normal. Personally I view it as a practice that is negative, so I would rule in favor of a law against it. The only thing that we have to remember in making laws. If it doesn't hurt anyone other than those willing (capable adults) to be hurt, it more than likely should not be illegal.

 

[Quiddity]

Well, the subject of this thread certainly involves theocrats. How can I respond to the thread without referring to theocrats? And why shouldn't I, anyway?

Because I'm not a theocrat... . And in the same way that any religious criticism is seen as secular fundamentalism, so to with those who have an opinion outside of certain standards are put in as theocrats.

The compromise is that I won't kill, rape or rob you if you won't kill, rape or rob me. Criminals are people who refuse to honor that agreement, and so must be removed from among us. But for those who do honor that agreement, they can then do pretty much as they please. And that, too, is part of the compromise.

That is after the fact. The laws have already been put in place. Not similar at all. My comparison is was that of an infant idea trying to pass.

But it's NOT based on a religious system. It's based on a simple, practical compromise. You respect my rights and freedom, and I'll respect yours. Religion has nothing to do with it.

No, it's not, but it's also not designed to completely block it from the dialogue arena either.

 

[XAAX]

I know this is hard for many religious people to understand the need for separation from religion. Lets say that 50 years from now this country has become a country not based on religion. It is an atheistic majority. The atheists decide that we will say a chant in schools starting as early as possible. It will say something like, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation that believes that there is no God...

This would be wrong. It would teach the children who are religious that this country believes there isn't a God. I think you can understand it in those terms, just fail when it isn't your rights being imposed upon. I have children and I agree completely that I don't want religious point of views taught in school...save that crap for Sunday school...

 

[Quiddity]

I know this is hard for many religious people to understand the need for separation from religion. Lets say that 50 years from now this country has become a country not based on religion. It is an atheistic majority. The atheists decide that we will say a chant in schools starting as early as possible. It will say something like, "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the united states of America, and to the republic, for which it stands, one nation that believes that there is no God...

This would be wrong. It would teach the children who are religious that this country believes there isn't a God. I think you can understand it in those terms, just fail when it isn't your rights being imposed upon. I have children and I agree completely that I don't want religious point of views taught in school...save that crap for Sunday school...

I want no such thing! My skin is wearing thin on this topic and if you wish to continue any discussion with me personally. Go back and read on this thread where my stance is on this. Your caricature of "religious" or whatever it is you have in your mind is being swung with a wide brush. It's getting kind of old.

 

[Doktormartini]

Yes basically for most of the reasons previously stated in this thread.

 

[PureX]

Because I'm not a theocrat... . And in the same way that any religious criticism is seen as secular fundamentalism, so to with those who have an opinion outside of certain standards are put in as theocrats.

I didn't think you were a theocrat. I don't think I implied that you are. If I did I'm sorry.

That is after the fact. The laws have already been put in place. Not similar at all. My comparison is was that of an infant idea trying to pass.

Many of our current laws are based on the idea of a mutual agreement not to do each other harm. That idea precedes the laws, and defines them. And it's not a religious idea. It's just practical common sense. I'll agree not to kill rape or rob you or yours, and you in turn agree not to kill rape or rob me or mine. That is the underlying idea beneath most of our civil laws in the United States. And I personally think we need to focus ourselves even moreso on this practical guidelines, and stop thinking about putting people in jail as "punishment" for "bad deeds", and instead use the jails as a place to put those we have to remove from among us because they won't honor the social and civil agreements.

No, it's not, but it's also not designed to completely block it from the dialogue arena either.

So far, I see no reason that religious ideas should have any bearing at all on these civil agreements that we make to preserve the peace and freedom amongg us. Can you tell me why they should?

 

[Quiddity]

I didn't think you were a theocrat. I don't think I implied that you are. If I did I'm sorry.

Water under the bridge.

Many of our current laws are based on the idea of a mutual agreement not to do each other harm. That idea precedes the laws, and defines them. And it's not a religious idea. It's just practical common sense. I'll agree not to kill rape or rob you or yours, and you in turn agree not to kill rape or rob me or mine. That is the underlying idea beneath most of our civil laws in the United States. And I personally think we need to focus ourselves even moreso on this practical guidelines, and stop thinking about putting people in jail as "punishment" for "bad deeds", and instead use the jails as a place to put those we have to remove from among us because they won't honor the social and civil agreements.

What if I don't want to agree? What if I want to kill? My point is that rights (right or wrong) precede mutual agreement.

So far, I see no reason that religious ideas should have any bearing at all on these civil agreements that we make to preserve the peace and freedom amongg us. Can you tell me why they should?

It already has had bearing on our judicial system. I'm sure you know our government system and ethics was built upon Christian principles. Some of the very laws we agree on are religious. They only became secular because they withstood the dialogue arena.

 

[Fluffy]

The one that can make the best argument.

Agreed. And the best arguments are, of course, based on evidence and thus are entirely secular regardless of whether the religious wish to advocate them.

Victor, you seem to be supporting a secular state where the religious still have a political voice. I have not personally encountered anybody who has not interpreted "seperation of church and state" in that exact way so I am unsure, unless I have misunderstood you, why you disagree with the idea.

 

[Scuba Pete]

From the First Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This should not be contrued to allow some to HARM religion by exclusion under the guise of "seperation". Rather, this is a promise to be NEUTRAL in regards to religion.

However, pendulums swing both ways. It is now swinging from giving religion preferential treatment to it's very exclusion. Both are BAD ideas. Religious orginizations should be afforded the very same opportunities and rights as any secular orginization. No more and no less.

 

[gnostic]

Separation of church and state: yes or no?

Definitely.

I have no problem if religious people want to follow their respective religious rules, but I don't like it when they tried to shove down everyone's else throats who are not religious or who don't belong to that religion.

And the religious shouldn't take precedence over state laws. Religious people should obeyed the state laws, regardless of what their scripture say. Say for example, a person committed adultery, then you can't simply stone the adulterer. In a modern Western society, the state law don't condone such practice in their country. Anyone who does the stoning should be held accountable for murder.

 

[Quiddity]

Agreed. And the best arguments are, of course, based on evidence and thus are entirely secular regardless of whether the religious wish to advocate them.

I agree except I don't believe secularist have a patent on evidence. So it's not entirely secular. Secular by default is a molding pot of different philosophies gone through the tests of time.

Victor, you seem to be supporting a secular state where the religious still have a political voice. I have not personally encountered anybody who has not interpreted "seperation of church and state" in that exact way so I am unsure, unless I have misunderstood you, why you disagree with the idea.

I disagree with the recent evolution of the word "seperate" in the phrase. The recent evolution intends to void out all religious input. That is not what was intended. I provided an article earlier in this thread that takes you through the history of this phrase in the US. I highly recommend you read it.

 

[PureX]

What if I don't want to agree? What if I want to kill? My point is that rights (right or wrong) precede mutual agreement.

You seem to be confusing rights with ability. We have the ability to ignore these mutual social/civil agreements. Whether or not we have the right to do so is determined by the agreements, themselves. We don't put criminals in jail because we have the "right" to do so, we put them in jail because we have the ability to do so, and we as a society choose to exercise that ability when people don't obey the laws that we as a collective society have agreed to obey.

This is why I think that the idea of "punishment" for criminal behavior is wrong-headed, and only exists because we don't seperate religion from civil discourse enough.

It already has had bearing on our judicial system. I'm sure you know our government system and ethics was built upon Christian principles. Some of the very laws we agree on are religious. They only became secular because they withstood the dialogue arena.

I have stated several times now that this is not true, and that I don't believe it's true. In the United States, our laws are based on practical necessity with the goal of equal freedom through equal limitation for all citizens as the guiding principal. This is NOT a religious idea, it never has been a religious idea, and in fact in societies where religions tend to hold sway, those people become less equal, less free, and their societies less stable.

 

[mostly harmless]

From the First Amendment: "Congress shall pass no law respecting an establishment of religion nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

This should not be contrued to allow some to HARM religion by exclusion under the guise of "seperation". Rather, this is a promise to be NEUTRAL in regards to religion.

It is now swinging from giving religion preferential treatment to it's very exclusion.

I think this 'swing' is because many people are tired of President Bush trying to force his brand of Christian morality on the rest of us. (for example- his beliefs about stem cell research, gay marraige, abortion, sex ed., ect)

 

[Scuba Pete]

I think this 'swing' is because many people are tired of President Bush trying to force his brand of Christian morality on the rest of us.

No doubt, and he is completely wrong in this on several counts.

But many would use "separation of church and state" as a battle cry to kick religion OUT of our society. Just because you don't LIKE something, doesn't give you carte blanche to abrogate their rights. Governments should be completely NEUTRAL when it comes to religion.

 

[mostly harmless]

No doubt, and he is completely wrong in this on several counts.

But many would use "separation of church and state" as a battle cry to kick religion OUT of our society. Just because you don't LIKE something, doesn't give you carte blanche to abrogate their rights. Governments should be completely NEUTRAL when it comes to religion.

When I think of separation of church and state, that is what I think. (that was worded really well I know) The government should be neutral when it comes to all religions, our elected officials should not be using their own brand of religious morality to create laws that will effect people who do not believe as they do in a certain matter. Take abortion for instance. There are those (like our President) who believe that abortion is wrong and an insult to God or whatever...Those people want a law that states that abortion is illegal because it is wrong. They have decided it is wrong because of their religious beliefs. People like me who are pro-choice, feel it is wrong for others to force their beliefs on us and also feel that if God has a problem with abortion it is most certainly a very private matter between God (of whatever 'flavor') and the woman. I don't believe that God would want another unwanted child brought into this world. Almost every living thing on this planet reproduces in some way. Humans are no different. Some people want to believe that a baby is a gift from God. Others believe something more like 'reproduction happens'...Should either side have the right to tell the other that they can not act according to their beliefs?
A fetus is a part of a womans body and if she wants to remove it she should have the right to make that choice over her own body. Anti-abortion people have the right to not to agree with her choice, after all it is a free country, but it is the womans choice and no one else's. And, frankly, no one else's business. Certainly not the governments. Same goes for gay marriage. Who cares who you love and want to marry. If it is a healthy, meaningful, respectful relationship; who has any right to say those to people can't get married if they want to? The government certainly has no right to say who you can and can't marry, so why is our President doing so? Because he considers himself a Christian Man of God and he believes homosexuality is wrong. But, that is his opinion. And, it's a free country, so he can have that opinion. But, he has no right to force the rest of this country to adhere to his beliefs.
We, the people, do not elect our government officials to tell us what they think is right and wrong. We, the people, also do not elect our government officials to preach their religions at us. Freedom of religion is not only the right to practice your own religion (or not) as you see fit. It is also a protection against one religious body forcing its 'dogma' on others. To say that I can't have an abortion or marry another woman because it goes against God in some way is a violation of MY freedom to practice MY religion how I see fit. I don't believe in such an intolerant, judgemental God.

Not trying to hi-jack the thread, so please do not start debating the abortion/gay marriage thing...I am just using examples.

Ok, I'm done rambling...I'm aware that I probably don't make much sense at the moment (not feeling well) but I am gonna post this anyway...someone will get me

 

[PureX]

No doubt, and he is completely wrong in this on several counts.

But many would use "separation of church and state" as a battle cry to kick religion OUT of our society. Just because you don't LIKE something, doesn't give you carte blanche to abrogate their rights. Governments should be completely NEUTRAL when it comes to religion.

It is not possible for government to remain neutral regarding religion when religionists want the government to reflect and even promote their ideology, and are actively working to make that happen.

Also, I don't believe that anyone is or has ever been trying to erase religion from our culture. I'm sure there are a few folks who woud like to see the end of all religion, but there is no active effort to make this happen, whatever.

 

[Quiddity]

You seem to be confusing rights with ability. We have the ability to ignore these mutual social/civil agreements. Whether or not we have the right to do so is determined by the agreements, themselves. We don't put criminals in jail because we have the "right" to do so, we put them in jail because we have the ability to do so, and we as a society choose to exercise that ability when people don't obey the laws that we as a collective society have agreed to obey.

That’s because rights by default have conditions attached to it. Rights by its very nature puts constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals. But this isn’t something that grows in trees or you can find under a rock; there is no such thing as natural rights. In its most basic sense, a right is something to which you have been entitled. Prior to that (which is what I’m talking about) it is an open forum of ideas, proposals, etc. So anytime you are trying to either give right or determine whether they already have that right, it’s either an open forum or it’s not. If it’s not an open forum (which is what I understand you saying) then it should specially be noted that only “X” is allowed. If it is an open forum, then even the tooth fairy can come before the Council and make her case. Think of the kids PureX!

This is why I think that the idea of "punishment" for criminal behavior is wrong-headed, and only exists because we don't seperate religion from civil discourse enough.

Whoa! Are you suggesting no punishment for criminal behavior?

I have stated several times now that this is not true, and that I don't believe it's true. In the United States, our laws are based on practical necessity with the goal of equal freedom through equal limitation for all citizens as the guiding principal. This is NOT a religious idea, it never has been a religious idea, and in fact in societies where religions tend to hold sway, those people become less equal, less free, and their societies less stable.

Then I can only say you have little knowledge if Christian Councils and how they unfolded. Not to mention that this country was founded by Christians. Read the article I provided, it crystal clear how the word “separate” was intended. The system itself came about from Christian developments and struggles. But even if I submit to your understanding its still not intended to block out all religious input. I hope that’s not what you are saying.

~Victor

 

[PureX]

That’s because rights by default have conditions attached to it. Rights by its very nature puts constraints and obligations upon the actions of individuals. But this isn’t something that grows in trees or you can find under a rock; there is no such thing as natural rights. In its most basic sense, a right is something to which you have been entitled. Prior to that (which is what I’m talking about) it is an open forum of ideas, proposals, etc. So anytime you are trying to either give right or determine whether they already have that right, it’s either an open forum or it’s not. If it’s not an open forum (which is what I understand you saying) then it should specially be noted that only “X” is allowed. If it is an open forum, then even the tooth fairy can come before the Council and make her case. Think of the kids PureX!

OK, I think I finally understand what you meant, but in the case of this particular nation, it's not an "open forum". This nation has already been established, based on practical necessity (and not on religious principals) with the goal of equal freedom through equal limitation for all citizens as the guiding principal. And as such, religion does little to inform or perfect this already established mission, that I can see. And in fact, I believe that religion tends to countermand this mission, which is why I believe there is a need for greater separation between religion and civic enterprise.

Whoa! Are you suggesting no punishment for criminal behavior?

Yes. "Punishment" is an idea based on moral concepts of "right and wrong", which are not part of our practical civil necessity for the rule of law. We agree not to murder, rape or rob each other not because we believe that doing so is "wrong", but because it's counter-productive to the peace and well-being of everyone in our society, and because we want everyone else to agree not to murder, rape or rob us in return. So when someone breaks this social agreement, we must remove them from among the rest of society for practical reasons (the safety and well being of society as a whole, as agreed upon by it's members), not for moral or religious reasons (like, it's "wrong"). It's only because of our religious ideologies that we make the mistake of thinking that social laws are intended to define and defend religious ideas of what's "right and wrong" that we keep making this mistaken assumption. And again, this is why I believe we need greater separation between religion and civic enterprise.

Then I can only say you have little knowledge if Christian Councils and how they unfolded. Not to mention that this country was founded by Christians. Read the article I provided, it crystal clear how the word “separate” was intended. The system itself came about from Christian developments and struggles. But even if I submit to your understanding its still not intended to block out all religious input. I hope that’s not what you are saying.

We have since the beginning had to struggle against our own religious prejudices, and the religious prejudices of the founders, and the founders themselves understood this. What religious moral ideology that does still exist in our laws exists there in spite of our efforts at getting rid of it. And hopefully one day soon we'll be willing to eliminate it all. It is quite clear from a reading of the founding documents that this nation was based on the ideal of the protection of individual rights and liberties through the equal protection and limitation of the nation's laws. And this is not and was not a religious concept. In fact, it is religion that most often threatens such individual rights and freedom, and it was to protect us from this constant threat that caused the founders to set things up as they did. To claim that the founders were setting up a religious nation, based on religious laws or principals is ludicrous, as it was exactly the oppression and abuse of religious institutions and of other past autocratic forms of rule that the founders hoped to secure us against.