• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
You scare me PureX. Your views are so totalitarian so anti-thought and you want to isolate our students from participating in rational thought from an early age. You might want to move to China where they practice your style of separating church and state. Hey, the kids wear uniforms there too!

PureX said:
Not to me either. Which is why we wouldn't allow anyone to be promoting sexual activity or participation among children. But that isn't the threat at the current time.
Listen... whatever you are smoking: I want some! You seem to have access to one of the best hallucinagetics that I have ever heard of. Research teen pregnancy and diseases. It's epidemic.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
Not at all. Civil law has a moral component to it, does it not?
No, it doesn't. It's based on function, not on morality.
Victor said:
Right and wrong do have a “work or doesn’t work” component to it as well.
Not really. You're just choosing to look at it that way. But there isn't really any logical connection. Some societies function well, some don't. The fact that some function well doesn't necessarily make them morally right, nor morally wrong. They just happen to function. The Nazis had a highly functional system of government, one of the most precision-oriented societies in history, but that didn't make them morally right, nor morally wrong. It just made them hard to defeat.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
NetDoc said:
You scare me PureX. Your views are so totalitarian so anti-thought and you want to isolate our students from participating in rational thought from and early age. You might want to move to China where they practice your style of separating church and state. Hey, the kids wear uniforms there too!
You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about kids, not adults. You also keep ignoring the fact that I am not proposing that we deny them access to religious information, the only access I want denied is the access of religious (or of any other kind of) proselytizers to our children. It's not that I don't want them to know that the Boy Scouts exist, and that they could join, I just don't want you presenting the information to them unless their parents are with them. Because as an adult, you know how to coerce and manipulate children, and as children, they won't realize that you're doing it. And the same goes for proponents of religion.
NetDoc said:
Listen... whatever you are smoking: I want some! You seem to have access to one of the best hallucinagetics that I have ever heard of. Research teen pregnancy and diseases. It's epidemic.
This has nothing, really, to do with the discussion. No one has gone into the schools promoting the idea that young girls should get pregnant, or that young kids should have sex. That's all going on outside of the schools. That's all going on in the TV commercials they're watching 5 hours a day at home. That's happening because their parents aren't protecting them from the onslaught of corporate advertising that we're all being burried under, and from the hedonistic message of "consume, consume, consume, consume, ..." that those ads are constantly spewing.

It has nothing to do with schools, at the moment, except perhaps with the argument regarding teaching kids how not to have sex, and how not to get pregnant if they do have sex, in public school.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
No, it doesn't. It's based on function, not on morality.
This is where we part. If you can't see that morality is part of our system then there isn't much else I can say.
PureX said:
Not really. You're just choosing to look at it that way. But there isn't really any logical connection. Some societies function well, some don't. The fact that some function well doesn't necessarily make them morally right, nor morally wrong. They just happen to function. The Nazis had a highly functional system of government, one of the most precision-oriented societies in history, but that didn't make them morally right, nor morally wrong. It just made them hard to defeat.
The fact that you don't call it what it is, does give me the chills. The mere fact that the system includes humans as part of the equation makes a strong connection with morality. It's more then a mechanical function, it's a relationship as I said.

Thanks for the chat but I'm afraid the system you are promoting won't mesh with real people in a real world. It's bound to collapse because we all innately attach meaning and make it part of our society.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
PureX said:
You keep ignoring the fact that we're talking about kids, not adults.
Not true.

PureX said:
You also keep ignoring the fact that I am not proposing that we deny them access to religious information,
That's the scary part: YOU ARE, and you don't even realise it.

PureX said:
This has nothing, really, to do with the discussion. No one has gone into the schools promoting the idea that young girls should get pregnant, or that young kids should have sex.
It's the kids of the hedonists who are proselytizing the rest. :D Consider this: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/11/05/AR2005110501414_pf.html
and then this: http://www.aauw.org/research/voices.cfm

You are exercising some "Ostrich Mentality" if you feel that guys and girls aren't talking about and engaging in sex at school. Once you feel you have that whirling dervish back in the box, then you might try your hand at other forms of thought control, aka stopping kids from talking about those things you don't want them to discuss.

I guess I give kids far more credit than you. They need to start deciding what they do or don't believe in without holding mommy's hand. It wasn't all that long ago when we treated 13 year olds as ADULTS. In fact, we still call them "young adults", let's treat them as such!
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
This is where we part. If you can't see that morality is part of our system then there isn't much else I can say.
So, if I don't see it your way, you have nothing further to say? Doesn't that indicate that your view is a bit ... functionally limited?
Victor said:
The fact that you don't call it what it is, does give me the chills. The mere fact that the system includes humans as part of the equation makes a strong connection with morality. It's more then a mechanical function, it's a relationship as I said.
Adding the word "relationship" doesn't change anything. A society of people is just a bunch of different people, who mostly don't even know each other, joining together under a set of mutually agreed upon laws. The purpose and function of those laws is to govern how the people will treat each other, and in our case, the goal of governing how we treat each other is to maximize safety and freedom for everyone, by applying the laws equally. We each give up a little freedom to ensure the freedom of everyone else. It's an equal sacrifice, and mutually agreed upon.

You can call this a "morally right" idea if you want to, but it's not based on morality, it's based on functionality. You can also call it a morally wrong idea if you want to, but it's still not based on morality, it's based on functionality. It gives everyone the most amount of freedom and security for the least amount of sacrifice because it spreads the sacrifice out equally. It's that simple. It's not a moral concept and it poses no moral dilemma that needs moral input to resolve.
Victor said:
Thanks for the chat but I'm afraid the system you are promoting won't mesh with real people in a real world. It's bound to collapse because we all innately attach meaning and make it part of our society.
It does require the sacrifice of some selfishness. Yes. We don't get to do anything we want to other people. But in return, they don't get to do anything they want to us. This seems to work pretty well, as long as people can let go of being totally selfish, and respect the balance of rights that we all agreed to.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
NetDoc said:
That's the scary part: YOU ARE, and you don't even realize it.
Oh, baloney! There are churches all over the place that both the kids and their parents can go to at any time. There are bibles in the libraries the kids can go to at any time. No one is being denied access to religion.
NetDoc said:
I guess I give kids far more credit than you. They need to start deciding what they do or don't believe in without holding mommy's hand. It wasn't all that long ago when we treated 13 year olds as ADULTS. In fact, we still call them "young adults", let's treat them as such!
Kids are not adults. You want to pretend they're adults so you can have access to them without having to go through their parents. And you want to do this because you know that some of their parents aren't going to approve of what you're trying to teach them.

Who do you think you're kidding?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
So, if I don't see it your way, you have nothing further to say? Doesn't that indicate that your view is a bit ... functionally limited?
That was rather creative of you to twist it this way. The fact that the system has a moral component to it has nothing to do with "my view". Nice try though.
PureX said:
Adding the word "relationship" doesn't change anything. A society of people is just a bunch of different people, who mostly don't even know each other, joining together under a set of mutually agreed upon laws. The purpose and function of those laws is to govern how the people will treat each other, and in our case, the goal of governing how we treat each other is to maximize safety and freedom for everyone, by applying the laws equally. We each give up a little freedom to ensure the freedom of everyone else. It's an equal sacrifice, and mutually agreed upon.
Yup...:yes: , It's relationships all right. You seriously can't see this? How about if I put in red letters? :D
PureX said:
It does require the sacrifice of some selfishness. Yes. We don't get to do anything we want to other people. But in return, they don't get to do anything they want to us. This seems to work pretty well, as long as people can let go of being totally selfish, and respect the balance of rights that we all agreed to.
Once again, thanks for the chat. We may disagree, but we heard each other out in a civil manner. :)
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
That was rather creative of you to twist it this way. The fact that the system has a moral component to it has nothing to do with "my view". Nice try though.
So what is it's "moral component", then, and how is it intrinsic to a system based on a simple mutual agreement to respect each other's rights and freedoms?
Victor said:
Yup...:yes: , It's relationships all right. You seriously can't see this? How about if I put in red letters? :D
Dude, everything in the universe is "related" to everything else. So what? How does this make the relationships between these things a "moral issue"? The sun and the Earth have a "relationship". How does the automatically become a moral idea to you?

I have a "relationship" with the guy down the street, even though I don't know him in that I have agreed not to do whatever I like to him, and I trust that he will honor the same agreement with me. So what? How does this become a moral issue? It's just a simple agreement.

The brake pedal in my car is related to the break shoes in such a way that each time I depress the pedal, the shoes close on the wheels and stop them from turning. Is this a moral relationship simply because it's a relationship? Is there some moral dilemma involved that would require the input of religion to resolve?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
So what is it's "moral component", then, and how is it intrinsic to a system based on a simple mutual agreement to respect each other's rights and freedoms?
Dude, everything in the universe is "related" to everything else. So what? How does this make the relationships between these things a "moral issue"? The sun and the Earth have a "relationship". How does the automatically become a moral idea to you?

I have a "relationship" with the guy down the street, even though I don't know him in that I have agreed not to do whatever I like to him, and I trust that he will honor the same agreement with me. So what? How does this become a moral issue? It's just a simple agreement.

The brake pedal in my car is related to the break shoes in such a way that each time I depress the pedal, the shoes close on the wheels and stop them from turning. Is this a moral relationship simply because it's a relationship? Is there some moral dilemma involved that would require the input of religion to resolve?

But only human relationships demand something. It's that simple.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
But only human relationships demand something. It's that simple.
What do human relationships demand? I don't demand things from anyone that I am aware of.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
What do human relationships demand? I don't demand things from anyone that I am aware of.

You demand we all not:
1. Hit you in the face.
2. Eat your hamburger.
3. Cut you off in traffic.
4. Not kill you.
5. Steal your collection of chocolate covered frogs.

and on and on.........I will respect all that, but can I try one of your chocolate covered frogs? :drool:
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
In summation...

I have shown via the 1sr and 14th Ammendments that the government is NOT ALLOWED to exclude access to government property based on any religion preference.

I have shown document after document of the government implementing this neutral stance even in school.

No one has produced any documentation that counters this contention. In fact, much of what some think is "illegal" is indeed a common practice in today's schools.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
You demand we all not:
1. Hit you in the face.
2. Eat your hamburger.
3. Cut you off in traffic.
4. Not kill you.
5. Steal your collection of chocolate covered frogs.

and on and on.........I will respect all that, but can I try one of your chocolate covered frogs? :drool:
I'm not demanding any of those things. They are just part of an implicit agreement that we have all been taught that we have all made with each other. The demand comes from society as a whole. It will be our society as a whole that will make the "demand" that we follow the agreed upon rules and enforce it. I mean, we aren't demanding these things even as much as the sun "demands" that the Earth remain in it's gravitational pull, are we? So how does any of this become a morality issue?
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
I'm not demanding any of those things. They are just part of an implicit agreement that we have all been taught that we have all made with each other. The demand comes from society as a whole. It will be our society as a whole that will make the "demand" that we follow the agreed upon rules and enforce it. I mean, we aren't demanding these things even as much as the sun "demands" that the Earth remain in it's gravitational pull, are we? So how does any of this become a morality issue?

Because our demands on an individual and group level come from our philosophical and moral leanings. :)
 

PureX

Veteran Member
NetDoc said:
In summation...

I have shown via the 1sr and 14th Ammendments that the government is NOT ALLOWED to exclude access to government property based on any religion preference.

I have shown document after document of the government implementing this neutral stance even in school.

No one has produced any documentation that counters this contention. In fact, much of what some think is "illegal" is indeed a common practice in today's schools.
Some of it should be illegal, and likely will become illegal as the idealogical zealots insist on abusing our right to freedom of speech to proselytize to children. The sad truth is that we're going to have to begin teaching our kids how to deal with religious zealots and other idealogical fanatics the same way we have to teach them how to deal with pedophiles. It's sad that this is what it's come to.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
Because our demands on an individual and group level come from our philosophical and moral leanings. :)
But they don't. They come from a simple desire to be both free and secure.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
But they don't. They come from a simple desire to be both free and secure.
You see? We both want the same thing. Your leanings tell you how you can accomplish that, and mine do the same. So we are back to square one. How one fulfills their desires is dictated by their world view.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
You see? We both want the same thing. Your leanings tell you how you can accomplish that, and mine do the same. So we are back to square one. How one fulfills their desires is dictated by their world view.
Sure. That I agree with. The thing is, some world views are more reality based than others. Some are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. And some are more functional than others. I guess the reason that we debate is to try and get a glimpse of the world through the mind's eye of someone else, so we can better perfect our own view. Or perhaps theirs, or perhaps both.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
Sure. That I agree with. The thing is, some world views are more reality based than others.
Isn't that what I said? :D
Post#124
the system you are promoting won't mesh with real people in a real world. It's bound to collapse because we all innately attach meaning and make it part of our society.
PureX said:
Some are more effective than others. Some are more "moral" than others. And some are more functional than others. I guess the reason that we debate is to try and get a glimpse of the world through the mind's eye of someone else, so we can better perfect our own view. Or perhaps theirs, or perhaps both.
Or that what you currently hold is in fact faulty. But I realize this rarely happens.

Always a pleasure PureX. :)
 
Top