Seperation of Church and State.

[ASCLEPUS]

The concept of seperation of church and state taken to its extremis would be a literal removal of the human element. Humanity must believe in something greater than itself. The government is not the foundation of American society. It never has been and never will be. I have seen it written here that it is an unfortunate bias of the Founding Fathers that the foundation of US Constitution is Christianity. This is not so. A pure governmental structure would contain neither ethics nor morality. A pure government would have no ethical base upon which to operate. What kind of societal structure would be implemented without any form of ethics, any respect for traditions or any goals higher than service to government? Such an abomination would be a living nightmare of absolute efficiency and enforced compliance. I referenced the Terminator movies in the above quote, but perhaps the more appropriate reference would have been to George Orwell's 1984. This is an example of pure governement in action and it is totalitarian. Big Brother is watching you.

 

It is the blending of Christian beliefs and values with the Republican model which has brought the freedoms and liberties so many exercise today. It may be called unfortunate, a mistake or an anchronism, but it is a far kinder and gentler system than most others around the world. In this nation we have the right to express our views, no matter how different they are from others. Yes, I believe strongly in tradition. Yes, I believe strongly in this nations heretige. These things helped make our nation great. I do not believe that someone has the right to dictate my beliefs to me, but isn't that what so many others do to Christians who stand up for their beliefs? The door must swing both ways. There must be, if neither respect nor agreement, at least an understanding that an individual has a right to believe as he or she will. And the government has no business being involved in any of it. Far too many times in this nation the courts have created tort laws to enforce the view of a very few upon the whole. I would cite examples, but there are far to many seen everyday in the paper.

 

At the moment, so long as all views are respected, there should be no need to change any part of our government. If so called religious fanatics offend you, then by all means do not listen. If so called liberals were to offend, do not listen. If any one offends by the exercise of their freedoms then do remember this: Everyone has a right to their own beliefs and the right to express them in a civilized manner. Even hate groups such as the KKK and the Black Panthers. Even you who utilize these forums. Always remember to respect those around you. Always remember where this nation came from, even if you do not agree with it. Others have the right to believe it is the best system in the world and that their Christian heritage helped make America great.

[ThetaOrionis01]

I do not agree that without religious ethics you remove the human element.

 

It is possible to have moral and ethical values which are not based upon any one religion.

[DM]

I agree with Theta. I am not religious, and if you dare to call me unethical on immoral, I dare to call you ignorant. :P

[ASCLEPUS]

I do not mean any offense here, but if you intend to call me ignorant without a proper rebuttal, then I do not believe that particular name will apply to me. DM, I did not call you unethical or immoral. I stated that the US government has its basis in religious ethics. I also stated that everyone had a right to there own opinion. It is a historical fact that all societies have had some basis in religion. Would you not agree, Theta, that your non-religious ethical code has at least some foundation in some religion somewhere? Even the very laws of much of Europe derive some of their basic tenants from Christianity. You cannot, nor should you, deny that the societal foundations of your respective countries have a solid link to religion. The societies you now live in are in part a product of your religious heretige. Whether you choose to deny it or not is your own business, but I would suggest that no one be (here goes that word again) ignorant of where there past lies. You can argue, you scream, you can rant and rave, but the facts cannot be disproven. Everyone and every society has a tie to a religion. And ethical codes are a direct product of religion.

 

I will go ahead and counter argue the point you are about to make. Of course you can make your own ethical code. What will you make it from. Well, are you going to show hospitality to strangers? Most of your religions cover that one. How about not stealing? Yes. Or you don't want to commit murder. That's covered in several religious works. Religions are a guide to normal behavior. Even if you make up your own code you'll stay within accepted societal bounds. Unless you do not want to function in society. Then you are labelled abnormal. And packed off somewhere by the police or guys in white jackets.

 

Now, as a little project, since some of you are eager to take shots at either my intelligence or my point without much in the way of proof or rebuttal, then give me an example of a working government with no ties to any religious structure that is not a totalitarian state. I cannot think of any, but perhaps someone else can.

 

Also, it is not my intention to be insulting here. If I have offended anyone I am sorry, however, this is a debate forum. Be prepared to argue (nicely) your points and to have said points shredded by others. I have no doubt that this post will be scrutinized and criticized before I can turn around twice. Such is a debater's life...

[ThetaOrionis01]

First of all - don't ever patronize me. :angry:

 

Even if that isn't your intention, be aware that communication is a two-way process and subject to interpretation.

 

 

 

Ethical and moral behaviour precedes religion - striving towards ethics and standards of behaviour is as old as society itself. I think you will find that even in oldest and most primitive human societies the killing of another member of the tribe was taboo. And that there were sanctions against those who broke these taboos. Setting standards of behaviour is part of human evolution.

 

Religions picked up on those existing moral codes, and adopted them as their own - then put their own spin on these morals, laced them with a few threats and spiced them with a pinch of intolerance.

 

I arrive at my moral and ethical standards not by going back to religious precepts - which IMO, during the course of history have allowed themselves to be abused and corrupted so that they are now completely meaningless - but by examining the way I interact with others, and want others to interact with me. By having read up on philosophy and history, and forming a critical judgement of the ideas and facts presented there.

 

I am looking at what is wrong with society - and find that religion frequently is at the root of it. Why? Because too many people still cling to outdated concepts which sadly still have far too much influence on governments worldwide.

[Albareth]

I'll copy a short reply to the "morality from religion" topic from the MWC which I wrote there.

 

"Religion and morals are symmetrically opposed, just like poetry and philosophy."  ~ Friedrich Von Schlegel

 

It's a three step way that seems fairly logical to me:

 

What theists following God's rules have is not morality, it's obedience.

 

Morality cannot thus come only from religion.

 

My morality comes not from atheism, my morality comes from my humanity.

 

Giving religion credit at all IMO is ridiculous. The reason religious people are often moral is due to that obedience.

 

Sure, a few people may be more moral due to religious codes, but on the general I think people who are unmoral by nature don't tend (note, tend... many of the worst crimes are commited BECAUSE of religion) to be very religous (which is not to say people aren't both unreligious and moral (I am)). The same way I think very religous people don't tend to be generally unmoral. It's an inverted view of the facts IMO to give religion credit for that, though it may seem logical at first. It's not:

a) You are religious and

B) hence you're moral...

it's:

a) You're moral and

B) hence you're more likely to become (or stay) religious.

 

Personally I think it's a prime example of the brainwashing of organized religion, you think you need their moral codes for a good moral life...

[Dr. Corbett]

OOoookayy...

 

Herm. That's a hard one...

 

You see, the origins of the amendment or whatever (I'm a Canadian -- we don't have that amendment!) were simply to avoid such things as the establishment of a church as the official state religion; having it officially run by the state, basically, much like the Anglican Church in England.

 

It was NOT designed to keep everything that remotely looked like it came from religion out of society if it has anything to do with the government. As the vast majority of US citizens are Christians -- indeed, it's the world #1 religion -- I feel that it would be quite undemocratic and contrary to the nature of that amendment to establish agnosticism as the state religion!

[Marxist ßastard]

#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.

[Dr. Corbett]

#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!

[FlyingFox]

I am looking at what is wrong with society - and find that religion frequently is at the root of it. Why? Because too many people still cling to outdated concepts which sadly still have far too much influence on governments worldwide.

 

Clinging to outdated concepts? please, elaborate.

 

Religion is still a major part of world society today, and though many people only pay "lip service" to their eligion, there are some of us who still hold religion close and wholly believe in it (including myself). That is not to say that I believe in everything the Bible teaches, but its main moral code and its messege of hope is quite important to me.

 

Separation of church and state? I would say nay, if we lived in a perfect world, but of course we do not, and thus there is discrepency in the matter; I cannot say either way. Religion and government can coexist in such a world as ours, but, what with the political correctness these days, no two cultures can live together, it seems. No one can see through another's eyes.

 

If there is an equal balance of religious morality and political forsight, both can exist together. Upset the balance, and it all come crumbling down. And thus, the former situation cannot exist. There is prejudice in our world, whether one chooses to believe so or not. Racial, religious, sexual orientation, gender and other prejudices will remain for a long time to come, if they ever go away.

 

Thus, an atheist may balk at a religious government, while a Christian may scream for the Church'spresence in school. Neither can exist happiliy in our society, and one may say it is a moot point. However, if one sees the commonality between religions (and even between religious and non-religious people), one can find that one can live happily without worrying about what religion "rules" one's country; you are your own person. Believe in what you believe, and do not care about what the government morally believes (within reason), for "in the end" only what you believe matters.

 

Should there be manditory religious teaching in public institutions? No. Can there be voluntary prayer in the classroom? Yes. I go to a private Catholic high school. Even though I am not Catholic myself, I still have learned a lot from my religion courses. If anything, these courses have helped me in my life (to be able to find my place with myself), not hindered it. I mean not to say everyone should do this, but this has been my experience. Try experincing religion or non-religion from someone else's point of view. One will see that believe is in the eye of the believer and one can "deal" with the government, regardless of its religious affiliation.