• 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)

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
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.
I think it works better BECAUSE it's so mechanical, and therefor not subject to so much human bias. That's why I'd like to keep religion out of it, and in fact keep "morality" out of it, too. Instead, just focus on the purpose of civil law: the peace and security of the people through equal sacrifice and equal protection of individual rights.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
I think it works better BECAUSE it's so mechanical, and therefor not subject to so much human bias. That's why I'd like to keep religion out of it, and in fact keep "morality" out of it, too. Instead, just focus on the purpose of civil law: the peace and security of the people through equal sacrifice and equal protection of individual rights.
Good luck with that. The system can only truly be as mechanical as you imagine it, if you have no human involvement at all.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
Good luck with that. The system can only truly be as mechanical as you imagine it, if you have no human involvement at all.
Well, not being an absolutist, I wouldn't expect any system to work perfectly. But it seems to me that the more we keep human opinion out of the system, the better the system will work.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
Well, not being an absolutist, I wouldn't expect any system to work perfectly. But it seems to me that the more we keep human opinion out of the system, the better the system will work.
And you want to do this with a system that is fully dependant on humans? I honestly don't get this. I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but the way you are going about it is unreasonable, no offense.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
And you want to do this with a system that is fully dependant on humans? I honestly don't get this. I understand what you are trying to accomplish, but the way you are going about it is unreasonable, no offense.
We humans have invented and used all kinds of machines, successfully. It's no great feat to set up a system of civil laws that follow a set of specified guidelines designed to achieve a specific purpose.
 

Quiddity

UndertheInfluenceofGiants
PureX said:
We humans have invented and used all kinds of machines, successfully. It's no great feat to set up a system of civil laws that follow a set of specified guidelines designed to achieve a specific purpose.

I know, I design machines and tooling for a living. :)
But our civil system is of the most complex. It's even more complex then something known as a "closed system". The civil system is fully dependant upon human involvement to interpret it and enforce it. There really is no getting around that.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
Victor said:
I know, I design machines and tooling for a living. :)
But our civil system is of the most complex. It's even more complex then something known as a "closed system". The civil system is fully dependant upon human involvement to interpret it and enforce it. There really is no getting around that.
That's true, and exactly why we need a system that minimizes bias and opinion as much as possible, by sticking to the fundamental "equasion" of equal sacrifice in return for equal protection and freedom for all.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
PureX said:
Some of it should be illegal,
Not until you change the constitution making religion "illegal". Until such a sad day, our government can not discriminate based on religion!

As a father, I am EXTREMELY glad that my kids were exposed to the various philosophies during their high school years. They learned to adapt and to think critically. This is America: the melting pot, not the protected pot.
 

PureX

Veteran Member
NetDoc said:
Not until you change the constitution making religion "illegal". Until such a sad day, our government can not discriminate based on religion!

As a father, I am EXTREMELY glad that my kids were exposed to the various philosophies during their high school years. They learned to adapt and to think critically. This is America: the melting pot, not the protected pot.
Kids being exposed to "various philosophies" is just fine with me. It's how they get exposed to them, and by whom that concerns me. I was referring to religious zealots deliberately proselytizing other people's children, in an effort to capture their minds and hearts against their parent's wishes.

I was referring to multi-million dollar corporate coercive ad campaigns aimed at children to get them to buy products that are even bad for their health, and in some cases are even addictive, just for the sake of money.

I was referring to teachers and principals and coaches who think it's their right and duty to push their own religious ideals onto the children they are responsible for teaching, without anyone's oversight, or consent.

And to a lesser degree I was referring to you, too, who puts on a real nice 'dog-n-pony show' for other people's children at school so as to make them go home and pester their parents to join the scouts, rather than your going directly to the parents, where you're bound to be asked some more difficult and inquiring questions. I don't really have anything against the scouts, or you, but I do believe that you should be presenting your organization to both the parents and the kids. I think it's a bit underhanded and somewhat coercive to play to the kids at school, get the kids all into it (which is easy for an adult to do) and then force their parents to have to tell them no if they happen not to agree with the Boy Scout's policies.

It's easy to manipulate children. That's exactly why religious zealots and other groups with such coercive agendas go after children, rather than going to their parents. They know if they go to the parents, they'll be taken to task for what they're really up to. And it's for this reason that I want these groups kept away from the schools. Hiding behind freedom of speech doesn't cut it, because we're talking about kids, here, and not adults. Adults can handle the responsibility that comes with free speech, because they're experienced enough to recognize the lies and double-talk and coercion that people with negative agendas have to employ to make themselves appear other than what they really are. But children don't have that experience, yet, and just as we'd protect them from the manipulation of adult pedophiles, and their lies and deceits and tricks, we need to protect them from unscrupulous ideological predators, too, who are so bent to spreading their ideologies or making money that they'll stop at nothing, including coercing and manipulating and brain-washing children, their own as well as yours and mine.
 

Scuba Pete

Le plongeur avec attitude...
PureX said:
rather than your going directly to the parents,
We actually have a school night where the parents come to enroll their kids. We don't let them join without parental consent. However, the toughest questions have always been asked by the kids. You do them a disservice.

PureX said:
It's easy to manipulate children. That's exactly why religious zealots and other groups with such coercive agendas
You mean atheists? They have the same rights as the theists. Do you know my son's science teacher has a fish with feet in her classroom? Wow... that is SO anti religion. I politely pointed out to her that this had as much right in her classroom as a cross. Her reply was that all "anti-religious" expression is allowed. You remind me of her.

But still, with all of your bluster, what you are suggesting is that we eliminate the First Amendment. I find that completely scary.
 
Top