Seperation of Church and State.

[Albareth]

Not to mention that agnosticism isn't a religion, and it isn't being put as state religion, they'd simply be saying (like agnosticism does): I've no freaking idea any more than you what's right and what's not right, no one persons deduction is superior to anothers. Having one religion as state-religion simply because you "think" most people believe in it is extremely unfair IMO.

 

If 60% of the population someplace (hypothetical, stupid example I know but you should get the point... :P ) liked to wear black always, 20% white and the rest multi-colored, should black be listed as the state-clothing-color? Idiotic example I know but think about it a bit... you have political parties, with differing opinions, and they're voted into session each year to rule the nation, so no political party hold "tyrannical" power in the nation. You see the obvious neccissity for that but... you want to have one religion tied alone in with the goverment? Religion is just a choice, like the color of your clothes, about how to run your own life and what you thinks happen after it. It has no more right to affect the nations daily runnings than BCO (black clothes organization *cough* :D ) does. Ok, so, why? Because, and here's the core of it, There is no need for it! You need political parties to ascertain that no one goverment can get away with doing whatever it wants, if it "misbehaves" another one is just voted in its stead. We have no need of any religious institution with the State, we can decide and live by ourselves after our own standards. :)

[Albareth]

#1 religion, you say?

 

First, I am almost certain that it is not.  Also, the way that they collect religious data is not on a personal basis, nor is it any sort of proportional statistic.  They simply assign a religion to an entire area and then say that every person in that area is of said religion.

Absolutely not! They go by census data, at which point approximately 33% of people on Earth are Christian. Religion #2 is Islam. I think #3 is either Bhuddism or Hinduism. With the other as #4. The next (%6) is none, and then Judaism.

 

Actually, over 50% of Earth's citizens are believers in a religion that descended from Abraham.

 

And, if it's not #1, what is? Certainly not agnosticism!

Again, agnosticism is the act of not leaning towards any religion, accepting any may be right, not a religion itself. It's a "religious stance" if you will.

 

Thus putting agnosticism as "state-religion" isn't possible, and that wouldn't be "favoring" agnostics, it'd just be favoring NOBODY! :)

[ThetaOrionis01]

To elaborate on the outdated moral concepts, I'd like to mention a few which directly influence legislation.

 

 

1. The concept that life is god-given.

 

This concept, unfortunately, has serious implications in society, as it turns the right to life into an obligation to live at all costs. Take euthanasia as one example - we force people who want to die to suffer against their will. The only way terminally ill people can end their lives is by refusing to be fed - ie starving themselves to death. We put them through this cruelty because of this anachronistic religious hangover that suicide is a sin.

 

 

2. The attitudes towards homosexuality

 

While this is hopefully slowly changing same-sex relationships still do not receive equal status in law as marriages. And there is a huge amount of intolerance, based on outdated religious concepts - Leviticus, IIRC.

 

 

3. Attitude towards abortion

 

Again, IMO this is based on this concept that life is god-given. I do not want to go into the rights and wrongs of abortion here, but this ridiculous concept prevents people from looking at the issue calmly. Not to mention the complete hypocrisy of those fanatical anti-abortionists who scream that the unborn life must be protected and think it's ok to gun down staff at abortion clinics

 

 

4. Religious hatred and fundamentalism

 

I don't think I have to elaborate on that. You only need to check world news - conflicts the world over are based on religion. Religious groups use their influence on governments to oppress and discriminate against other religious groups.

 

 

Oh, and I came across this interesting article in the times yesterday:

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspaper/0,,...-797590,00.html

 

 

5. Keeping Sunday a special day....

 

Visit the Outer Hebrides, and see how this concepts is forced upon everyone. And in the rest of Scotland, this anachronism is reflected in licensing laws - you are not actually allowed to purchase alcohol on a Sunday before 12.30pm.

 

 

EDIT: Had to cut short this reply earlier....

 

 

6. State-run single-denominational schools

 

Schools should not offer an option to segregate pupils on the base of religion. IMO this does not help religious tolerance - see sectarianism in the west of Scotland. Now, if this segregration were on the basis of colour there would be a huge outcry - but religious segregation appears to be fine.

 

 

 

 

I do not have a problem with people following whatever religion they want - as long as they do not try to force their belief upon others. If politicians wish to pray before a parliamentary session commences that's up to them - but they should do so in their own time. If parents want their children to be brought up as followers of a particular religion they should arrange for religious education through their religious institution.

 

What I do not agree with at all is when religious concepts influence policies and government decision making. That IMO is wrong.

 

Regarding religious education in schools - I would not have a problem with that either if it was set against a cultural and historical background. You need to understand what drives people if you want to make sense of history, after all. But unfortunately, what I can see from the way my kids are being taught religion at school, this is not the case. The religious teaching is not put in context.

[Ethereal]

Hmmmm... I am coming to this discussion late, but I am new here and I hope you will excuse me for that.

 

I support the separation of church and state BECAUSE I am Christian. After all, Christ said: ""Give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and to God what is God's."

(Matthew 22:21)

 

Laws are enacted and enforced by the government, but these laws to endure must reflect the will of the people.l It is religion's role to shape the the moral consciousness of the people. It is government's role to reflect the will of the people.

 

God's Word transcends human understanding. Any person's or community's statement of God's Will is limited and imperfect. Any human that says they have a perfect understanding of God is on a very treacherous path towards idolatry.

 

Did anyone else see the news photos of people praying at the Ten Commandments sculpture before it was taken down? I did... and to me it looked like they were praying before a golden calf.

[idea assassin]

I have to agree with Ethereal on this one. I'm also a Christian, and I was against that monument from the time I heard about it. Jesus does tell us to obey the laws of our land, and seperation of church and state is one of them. I also have to say that the Founders intentions of the matter don't really matter anymore, because 1.) it's a different world today than it was 226 years ago, and 2.) they also set up the Supreme Court to be the ultimate interpretors of the Constitution, and 60+ years of judicial review have said that there must be a seperation of church and state.

 

This is not to say, however, that I want to see a seperation of Christian values and state. Regardless of what some extremists (abortion doctor killers, etc.) do, Christianity's main doctrines are tolerance, forgiveness, loving one another and the sanctity of life. As a Christian, I also have to remember a few other things Jesus said, such as 'Judge not, lest ye be judged,' 'Let him who is without sin cast the first stone,' and the Golden Rule 'Do unto others as you would have them do unto you.' It's not my job to force my religion or my views on anything on anybody. It's also not my job to judge others for what they do or believe. That's God's domain and His right. I know some of you don't believe in God, and that's fine. I wish it were otherwise, but you have to go as your hearts and minds dictate to you. But I believe (being repetitive here I guess) that God will judge us all for our actions, I can't judge anybody nor do I really want to.

 

So I guess what I'm saying is, seperation of church and state is an unfortunate necessity to avoid the abuses of power that always happen when imperfect humanity tries to assume they know what God wants. We always manage to muck it up one way or another.

 

And it really did bother me to see how people were acting about that stupid hunk of rock in Alabama.

[Kippls]

As long as there are tests in public schools childern are praying

[Eltiraaz]

Attitude towards abortion

 

This is a 'God' thing, but some people who aren't religious still think it's a horrible thing to kill an unborn baby. I've seen some pictures of aborted babies and its really quite nasty. You don't have to believe anything to agree with that. And if a non-religious state would jail people for murder, then why should they let people kill babies? A murder is a murder, just because you can't see the person your killing, it doesn't make it any less of a murder.

[Chaosblade02]

The way the law is put, it doesn't necessarily mean separation of church and state, it means the state being favorable and jumping on board with one religion. And just because a majority of people in the government might practice a particular religion, in no way does that mean they are demanding that you be a certain religion, nor does it mean they advocating that particular religion. Separation of Church and state is something made up by the the secular left. And is not an actual fact in law. So congress is well within its rights to say a prayer during session, and the US mint is well within its rights to put "In God we trust" on the dollar bill. And I think Bible or other religious studies within public schools is fine. You have the choice of not attending those classes if you don't want, just as much as you have a choice to sit during the pledge of allegiance.

 

Christianity is the most popular religion in the US, and they would be discriminating against Christianity, if they choose to try and promote another religion, even if it is for "diversity" purposes, discrimination vs the majority is still discrimination and bigotry. So telling Christians they cannot have studies in a school, while at the same time turning around and making facilities to accommodate Muslims just for diversity purposes, would be in violation of the Constitution.

 

And I am a non-believer myself, but I still agree that there is no such thing as separation of Church and State required by our constitution.

 

So my vote was against for other reasons.

[SilverDNA]

It goes back to Niccolò Machiavelli (on wiki) the founder of modern political philosophy. The church hated him for centuries because he mentioned openly in the art of war that a ruler had to separate religion form politics. The art of war had only one purpose for Niccolò Machiavelli, to get a job. Italy was torn apart at the time between other European countries at the time he wrote it.

[evilneko]

Just as a note for others.. this thread is seven years old (and may pre-date the ban on religious discussions. :blink:)

 

I think if this topic had been made today, it'd be quickly shutdown by the mods as "too likely to devolve into such a debate" or at least watched very closely. All I have to say on it is politics and religion don't mix. One of them is allowed here, but while this is a political issue, it's deeply entangled with the other.