Seperation of Church and State

[Checkmite]

Is it good or bad? Why, or why not?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Is it good or bad? Why, or why not?
Essential to a free democratic society. Why the Founders came here.
Without it we are like the Arab fundamentalist countries we say are the enemy.

[Fade]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Is it good or bad? Why, or why not?

Good.

Reason?

I can't think of a single successful theocracy that has ever existed.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Fade


Good.

Reason?

I can't think of a single successful theocracy that has ever existed.

I can't think of a successful atheist political system that has ever existed.

JK

[athon]

The Roman Catholic church is an example of a theocracy that has been extremely successful. And before anybody says it wasn't a state, look to the various monarchies during the middle ages. Frederick Barbarossa was reknown for lamenting the position of the papacy, and the fact that to rule in Christendom, you had to be blessed and annointed by the pope, hence were essentially subsvervient to him. The rules and laws extending through the Holy Roman Empire are perfect examples of a theocracy that did well.

Anyway, I digress.

I think it is wrong to have hypocracy such as that which exists in many western nations which claims to possess 'freedom of religion', and yet continues to have single-denominational public holidays, festivals, prayer sessions in governments, public statements containing religous messages, etc. In other words, countries which are fundamental and theocratical are better, in my view, simply for the fact that there is no effort made to hide the fact that their rules, laws and, more importantly, social direction, are based on issues of faith.

Athon

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi
Is it good or bad? Why, or why not?

The term "separation of church and state" is a communist-inspired term first seen in the USSR's written constitution.

Communist-American organizations like the ACLU use the term to advance communist anti-religion agendas in the United States, drawing remarkable support from duped Americans (useful idiots).

BTW, there is a good book you may want to check out. It is called "Useful Idiots" and it is #3 or 4 on the NYT bestseller list right now.

JK

[Fade]

The Roman Catholic church is an example of a theocracy that has been extremely successful. And before anybody says it wasn't a state, look to the various monarchies during the middle ages. Frederick Barbarossa was reknown for lamenting the position of the papacy, and the fact that to rule in Christendom, you had to be blessed and annointed by the pope, hence were essentially subsvervient to him. The rules and laws extending through the Holy Roman Empire are perfect examples of a theocracy that did well.

If you consider what amounts to forcing the majority of the population into slavery, as well as limiting just about every civil right, and keeping everyone stupid for the sake of maintaining power.. then sure.. the Holy Roman Empire was a resounding success!

[athon]

Originally posted by Fade


If you consider what amounts to forcing the majority of the population into slavery, as well as limiting just about every civil right, and keeping everyone stupid for the sake of maintaining power.. then sure.. the Holy Roman Empire was a resounding success!

Nobody mentioned that the population had to be content for an empire to be successful. They just had to work.

Athon

[Fade]

Originally posted by athon


Nobody mentioned that the population had to be content for an empire to be successful. They just had to work.

Athon

I suppose it was my fault for not making it more clear.

In the future I won't assume that a happy population is necessarily part of a successful culture.

Edit-

Forgot to address this

Religion is, at the moment, indelibly linked with the entirety of Western culture. It was harboured within it, and is responsible for large portions of it. It is not hypocritical of a society which claims to have a seperate church and state to celebrate religious holidays publicly. A government, or more to the point, a nation is nothing more or less than the people it is made from.

If the majority of the people wish to celebrate a certain holiday, then so be it, as long as their uniquely religious ideals don't have any sort of direct effect on policy. However much some refuse to concede that a religious person can be a fair and unbiased politician, it is possible, and in fact is happens all the time. I don't expect, or even particularly want people to give up their religious notions. It's not my place to say whether they ought to hold them or not. Religious holidays are a display of culture, rather than belief. And if it's a day off with pay.. then I am all for it.

Edit again-

I also find think that you are making the fallacy of bifurcation. You assume that a government is either religious but hiding it, or religious and not hiding it. As much as many people want to believe, the US does not have a religious government. There are some who wish to play lip service to whatever denomination, but this is politically motivated.

I also can't remember the last time atheism was an issue concerning a job, a loan, a home, a car, a school, or anything for that matter.

It's also patently silly, nigh on willfully ignorant, to believe that a wholly and openly religious government is a good thing in any sense. Unless of course you like living in abject poverty, with your freedoms being stamped out with righteous zeal while your women are subjugated and treated as nothing more then livestock.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The term "separation of church and state" is a communist-inspired term first seen in the USSR's written constitution.

JK

Liar.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819). "

Seems to me that 1819 predates the Soviet Union by about a 100 yeas.

You must have learned that from Bill O'Reilley or something... Usefull Idiots indeed. :rolleyes:

[DrBenway]

How about separation of religion and aerospace engineering? Is that a good thing?

[corplinx]

In america, we have this thing called the first amendment of our constitution. It guarantees that the government cannot force you to adopt religion. Most people agree with that.

[Checkmite]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The term "separation of church and state" is a communist-inspired term, yadda yadda yadda...


Jedi, I'm not talking about the term or phrase as it appears/doesn't appear in the Constitution. I'm asking about the concept that the government must not be allowed to tell you that you have to follow X religion. Do you agree with it, or not?

[Shane Costello]

What about those successful democracies in Europe with official state religions?

[UnrepentantSinner]

HAPPY OFFICIAL DAY OF PRAYER EVERYONE!!!

And don't forget which deity Gee Dubyah is referring to when he talks about prayer...

It ain't Allah or Ganesha.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I can't think of a successful atheist political system that has ever existed.

:rolleyes:

Why is it that only intellectual cowards seem to support religion in government? Is there anyone out there who thinks government should be anything other than neutral toward religion, and who has the confidence in their position to defend it, without dodging the questions that are presented? If so, this has the potential to be a fun thread. If not, it's a waste of time.


The term "separation of church and state" is a communist-inspired term first seen in the USSR's written constitution.

Wow. Even they managed to get something right. :eek:

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Fade
It is not hypocritical of a society which claims to have a seperate church and state to celebrate religious holidays publicly.

It's not hypocritical as long as government is not involved, and individuals decide for themselves whether to celebrate, and things like days off are entirely up to business owners.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by UnrepentantSinner


Liar.

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819). "

Seems to me that 1819 predates the Soviet Union by about a 100 yeas.

You must have learned that from Bill O'Reilley or something... Usefull Idiots indeed. :rolleyes:

What does that have to do with sovereign written constitutions? I could think that the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to carry automatic weapons and rocket launchers and write a "letter" about it, but that doesn't mean I could be right.

I am talking about written constitutions, not personal letters that have no weight whatsoever in reality. Letters are unimportant. The only thing that matters in constitutional law is what is inside the sovereign document. When a commie nation-state like Russia uses "separation of church and state" to advance communism, it is clear that it is a problem. For the communist ACLU in America to use it in our country makes the problem a tenfold problem.

It is pretty funny you would use a "letter" to try and justify action against a sovereign constitution. But that is terminal leftism--where "letters" become "nation-guiding enlightenment". I can see hoards of leftists rummaging through garbage cans reading crack-head letters looking for enlightenment, or justification for their commie causes lol.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by corplinx
In america, we have this thing called the first amendment of our constitution. It guarantees that the government cannot force you to adopt religion. Most people agree with that.

But the God-killers at the ACLU want to kill that freedom. They want to kill thought about any omnipotent being. That is commie terror.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Joshua Korosi


Jedi, I'm not talking about the term or phrase as it appears/doesn't appear in the Constitution. I'm asking about the concept that the government must not be allowed to tell you that you have to follow X religion. Do you agree with it, or not?

I agree with what is written in the US Constitution. The first Amendment is quite clear. It states that government will make no law respecting the prohibition or creation of a religion. Government must leave that to "the people" without interference.

Nowhere in the US Constitution does it say: "Freedom from religion", it merely says government will not get involved in religion or restrict religion.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Schools, for example, are not "government" institutions. Religion should be freely exercized there at will by "the people".

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by WMT1


:rolleyes:

Why is it that only intellectual cowards seem to support religion in government? Is there anyone out there who thinks government should be anything other than neutral toward religion, and who has the confidence in their position to defend it, without dodging the questions that are presented? If so, this has the potential to be a fun thread. If not, it's a waste of time.




Wow. Even they managed to get something right. :eek:

Religion should be freely exercized by the individual in schools. Government should not get involved because they are supposed to be neutral...

Oh wait, you mean freedom from religion lol. Jesus, that is what you want. Sorry but that is not America.

JK

[LCBOY]

Originally posted by corplinx
In america, we have this thing called the first amendment of our constitution. It guarantees that the government cannot force you to adopt religion. Most people agree with that.

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances

This means that CONGRESS cannot setup an offical "church" like the Church of England. I agree that there should not be an offical church. I don't understand how we went to not having an offical church to not being able to pray at school, or work, or at high school football games?

[voidx]

Not one to quibble over details :D but:

Here's the first quote:

The term "separation of church and state" is a communist-inspired term first seen in the USSR's written constitution.

And then the following:

I am talking about written constitutions, not personal letters

All you had to do was admit that you should have reprhased your comment to mean it was the blah blah blah term first used in a written constitution by the USSR. If that's even the case, that's for someone smarter than me to answer :D.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
Religion should be freely exercized by the individual in schools. Government should not get involved because they are supposed to be neutral...

Oh wait, you mean freedom from religion lol. Jesus, that is what you want. Sorry but that is not America.

:rolleyes:

Okay, just so I know not to waste my time with JK, there's nobody around here who takes him seriously, right?

[WMT1]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I don't understand how we went to not having an offical church to not being able to pray at school, or work, or at high school football games?

:confused: Who says you can't?

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by LCBOY
I don't understand how we went to not having an offical church to not being able to pray at school, or work, or at high school football games?

It is because Americans are whiny weaklings that let the communists bully them and steal their freedom.

JK

[Tmy]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


Religion should be freely exercized by the individual in schools. Government should not get involved because they are supposed to be neutral...

Oh wait, you mean freedom from religion lol. Jesus, that is what you want. Sorry but that is not America.

JK

Teh fact is that there are a number of religions that dont jive wh each other. These religious nuts are quick to scream about prayer in school so lang as its THEIR religion. I doubt they would like a Satanist club on school grounds.

Why turn thes schools into the religion show. It about education, not showing off your religious beliefs. What exactly do you want, Jr. smoking peyote during gym class because its his unbridged right to religious freedom?

[subgenius]

Originally posted by WMT1


:rolleyes:

Okay, just so I know not to waste my time with JK, there's nobody around here who takes him seriously, right?
None. Its all just patriarchal fascism.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Tmy


Teh fact is that there are a number of religions that dont jive wh each other. These religious nuts are quick to scream about prayer in school so lang as its THEIR religion. I doubt they would like a Satanist club on school grounds.

Why turn thes schools into the religion show. It about education, not showing off your religious beliefs. What exactly do you want, Jr. smoking peyote during gym class because its his unbridged right to religious freedom?

I don't care what God people worship. It isn't any of my business. I also don't care what people say publicly in the process of worshipping, praying or whatever to their God. They can do that because it is a 1st Amendment protected right to do so. They can do it whenever they want, as they see fit, and it would be anti-American for me to interfere.

In America, there is no such thing as "freedom from religion". It is choice, but you can't infringe on another person's choice.

JK

[Supercharts]

Originally posted by WMT1


:rolleyes:

Okay, just so I know not to waste my time with JK, there's nobody around here who takes him seriously, right?

I agree with some of what he says - especially the 1st. Amendment. I also agree with J.S. Mill. It may be his passion for real liberty that turns some people off. I'd rather have J.K. represent me than Barny Franks.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


It is because Americans are whiny weaklings that let the communists bully them and steal their freedom.

JK
Speak for yourself.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by Supercharts


I agree with some of what he says - especially the 1st. Amendment. I also agree with J.S. Mill. It may be his passion for real liberty that turns some people off. I'd rather have J.K. represent me than Barny Franks.

I would make an outstanding defense attorney. But then again, I wouldn't be viewed as a genius anymore if I became one.

JK

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I agree with some of what he says - especially the 1st Admendment.

Well, yeah, just about anyone who talks long enough is probably going to get something right. But my question was about taking him seriously. In any case, to make it more specific, you'll let me know if he raises any point in response to any of my posts that you think calls for some kind of response, right?


It may be his passion for real liberty that turns some people off. I'd rather have J.K. represent me than Barny Franks.

http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de/happy/roflmao.gif

Damn. For a minute there I almost thought you were serious!

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


I would make an outstanding defense attorney. But then again, I wouldn't be viewed as a genius anymore if I became one.

JK
Millions of anonymous admirers.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius

Millions of anonymous admirers.

True, true.

JK

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Supercharts
I agree with some of what he says - especially the 1st Admendment.

On second thought, I've just reviewed some of what he said about the 1st Amendment, and I might want to reconsider my initial response. Which of his statements about it are you specifically agreeing with?

[DrBenway]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
I can't think of a successful atheist political system that has ever existed.
Secularism is not the same thing as atheism. Many secularists are deeply religious. They simply realize that other citizens have opposing beliefs, and so they do not insist that everyone's tax dollars be used to promote their particular religious beliefs.

[subgenius]

People came to this country to escape religious persecution by their government.
They had the inspired idea that any lack of seperation of church and state would inevitably lead to discrimination.
Why is that simple idea so hard to grasp?
What makes the Arab fundamentalist countries dangerous to their own people and others? Institutionalizing religion.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by DrBenway

Secularism is not the same thing as atheism. Many secularists are deeply religious. They simply realize that other citizens have opposing beliefs, and so they do not insist that everyone's tax dollars be used to promote their particular religious beliefs.

Moot point. To not believe in an external omnipotent being (atheism) is still a religious position and an advocation of religion. All that religion is, is a system of worship. It doesn't have to require an omnipotent non-human deity.

But "real" religious advocation only occurs when Christians mention "the Christ", according to leftists like the ACLU.

The anti-religion movement in the United States is an anti-Christ movment. It isn't anti-Islam, etc. To be anti-Islam is not to respect "diversity" and "multiculturalism", the ultimate sins as defined by the commie American left.

JK

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
People came to this country to escape religious persecution by their government.
They had the inspired idea that any lack of seperation of church and state would inevitably lead to discrimination.
Why is that simple idea so hard to grasp?
What makes the Arab fundamentalist countries dangerous to their own people and others? Institutionalizing religion.

There has never been institutionalized religion in the United States. The US Constitution allows for all religions to be worshipped freely and free of government interference.

Shouldn't you know that? :eek:

JK

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


There has never been institutionalized religion in the United States. The US Constitution allows for all religions to be worshipped freely and free of government interference.

Shouldn't you know that? :eek:



JK

Give me your address, I'll send you a quarter so you can buy a clue as to what this issue is about.
People who want seperation of church and state want all religion out of the government, Islam included.
You should know that.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius


Give me your address, I'll send you a quarter so you can buy a clue as to what this issue is about.
People who want seperation of church and state want all religion out of the government, Islam included.
You should know that.

There was never religion in government. That is what you need to understand. Study the US Constitution a bit more, sub-man.

JK

[subgenius]

There's none in the Constitution and I'm glad we agree that the government should follow the Constitution.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
There's none in the Constitution and I'm glad we agree that the government should follow the Constitution.

Absolutely. Government has no business in the religious business and can't dictate how, when, where or why people express their religious beliefs.

JK

[subgenius]

Other than of course keeping it out of the government.

[Jedi Knight]

Originally posted by subgenius
Other than of course keeping it out of the government.

If you had a clue about the constitution, you would already know that religion was already out of government from day one.

JK

[Tmy]

Whenever prayer in school and religion/government issues coem up it always seems to be driven by Christian efforts. Are other religions really into this. You dont hear much about Jewish, Islam, Buddist, leaders pushing for prayer in school.

[subgenius]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


If you had a clue about the constitution, you would already know that religion was already out of government from day one.

JK
You must be right because you're smarter than everyone else here. And the most modest and humble. No self-esteem issues for the benighted one.

[WMT1]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight
If you had a clue about the constitution, you would already know that religion was already out of government from day one.

:rolleyes:

If you had a clue about formulating logical arguments, you would know that it does not necessarily follow from the fact that something is in the Constitution that it is being adhered to.

[subgenius]

"If you had a clue ..."
Geez, I even offerred to buy him one. But he doesn't need one. He's right because he's smarter than you.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


What does that have to do with sovereign written constitutions? I could think that the 2nd Amendment allows citizens to carry automatic weapons and rocket launchers and write a "letter" about it, but that doesn't mean I could be right.

I am talking about written constitutions, not personal letters that have no weight whatsoever in reality. Letters are unimportant. The only thing that matters in constitutional law is what is inside the sovereign document. When a commie nation-state like Russia uses "separation of church and state" to advance communism, it is clear that it is a problem. For the communist ACLU in America to use it in our country makes the problem a tenfold problem.

It is pretty funny you would use a "letter" to try and justify action against a sovereign constitution. But that is terminal leftism--where "letters" become "nation-guiding enlightenment". I can see hoards of leftists rummaging through garbage cans reading crack-head letters looking for enlightenment, or justification for their commie causes lol.

JK

Nice twist, do you tango as well?

For one thing you didn't write the Constitution. Madison however did. I think the guy who was instrumental in the production of our Constitution would have more insight into the meaning of concepts contained within that you would.

Secondly, you stated that "the term" was "first seen" in the Soviet Constitution.

The term "separation of church and state" is a communist-inspired term first seen in the USSR's written constitution.

Since it's contained, verbatim, in a letter by James Madison a hundred years earlier, you're making a false assertion that it was "first seen" in the Soviet Constitution.

[ceo_esq]

Originally posted by Tmy
Whenever prayer in school and religion/government issues coem up it always seems to be driven by Christian efforts. Are other religions really into this. You dont hear much about Jewish, Islam, Buddist, leaders pushing for prayer in school.
I've seen some publicized efforts by Muslims, usually relating to school accommodations for customary daily prayer (especially during Ramadan). Of course, there are far fewer Muslim students than Christian students in the United States, so it's not surprising that Christian-supported initiatives are brought to our attention more often.

[Tony]

Originally posted by DrBenway

and so they do not insist that everyone's tax dollars be used to promote their particular religious beliefs.

I assume you are talking about Bush's faith-based initiative. It would interest you to know that Bush is not proposing this to promote his religious beliefs. Before running for the presidency, Bush was inspired by Karl Rove to readThe Tragedy of American Compassion (http://www.olasky.com/Archives/toac.html), which makes the argument that religious institutions would be better at dispensing welfare than the state.

[Agammamon]

Originally posted by Jedi Knight


The term "separation of church and state" is a communist-inspired term first seen in the USSR's written constitution.

Communist-American organizations like the ACLU use the term to advance communist anti-religion agendas in the United States, drawing remarkable support from duped Americans (useful idiots).

BTW, there is a good book you may want to check out. It is called "Useful Idiots" and it is #3 or 4 on the NYT bestseller list right now.

JK

How about
"It is true, of course, that the phrase "separation of church and state" does not appear in the Constitution. But it was inevitable that some convienient term should come into existence to verbalize a principle so clearly and widely held by the American people . . . [T]he right to a "fair trial" is not found in the Constitution. To bring the point even closer to home, who would deny that "religious liberty" is a constitutional principle? Yet that phrase too is not in the Constitution. The universal acceptance which all these terms, including "separation of church and state", have received in America would seem to confirm rather than disparage their reality as basic American democratic principles."

Leo Pfeffer
Church, State, and Freedom

"Separation of church and state is not an American principle but is found in Article 53 of the constitution of the Soviet Union.

. . . Even a brief review of the facts proves that the statement is nonsense. The modern Soviet state came into being after the Russian Revolution of 1917. The Soviet constitution was rewritten several times, and more recent versions included American-style guarantees of freedom of speech, press, religion, and assembly. These provisions, of course, were never obeyed by the Soviet government.
Article 124 of the country's 1947 constitution has been translated by some scholars to read, "In order to ensure the citizens freedom of conscience, the church in the USSR is separated from the state, and the school from the church. Freedom of religious worship and freedom of anti-religious propaganda is recognized for all citizens".
Since Jefferson coined the phrase "wall of separation between church and state" in 1802 {emphasis mine}, a full 145 years before the Soviet provision was written, it is obviously incorrect to suggest that the Soviets pioneered the separation principle. If anything, the Soviets stole the concept from the United Stated. In any case, what the Soviet constitution said about religious freedom has no bearing on U.S. constitutional provisions {emphasis mine}. The Soviet document also guaranteed free speech (at least on paper), but no one has labeled freedom of expression a Communist idea."

Robert Boston
Why The Religious Right Is Wrong About The Separation of Church and State

Is there a bloody fething spellchecker integrated into these forums?