Separation of Church/State

Should there be one?

  • There should not be one

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • There should but we can leave the God stuff as it is

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • There should be one. No endorsment of any kind

    Votes: 9 90.0%
  • Endorse all religions not just one

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Endorse if asked(donate money to religious organisations)

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Other(please explain)

    Votes: 1 10.0%

  • Total voters
    10
I try, honestly, but it is so f*cking all-pervasive.... :mad:
You don't have to tell me, I live in the Bie-bull Belt. Hardly a week goes by that someone doesn't invite me to join them at church on Sunday. I'm usually polite the first couple of times, but when some of them find out you're an atheist, you become their mission in life. I can usually make them leave me alone though. ;) I've been doing this for a long time so I have a whole raft of "pat" answers. The smart ones understand that I'm not interested and leave me alone about it. Those are friends. The really smart ones understand and aren't afraid to discuss it. As long as it's a discussion and not defending my beliefs, I'm happy to do the same. It's apalling how little many christians (and jews, I don't know many muslims) know about their own faith.
 
Gato_Solo said:
That's not what it says, and any thoughts about it saying that at all were put there by you...not the government.



How is saying God is bullshit endorsing atheism? I'll argue it this way...

You don't believe in the existence of God, but you go out of your way saying that others who do believe in God are stupid. There's a difference between believing in something and being insulting. Remember. Insults only work if there is some kind of belief. ;)








it would be by saying it is the only truth. it is an atheistic thought. and whats all this about insults now? how is that relevant?
 
freako104 said:
what do you mean by a proposal? It is not about solving the problem so much as it is asking what it is? what is your take on it.


So on & on we go, talking just to hear ourselves talk, yet the query remains much too open & undefined.

Someting like 90% of humans believe, to some extent, in a higher power. That leaves approximately 10% to be offended or to feel left out. Since not all of that 10% has those feelings of inadequecy in the face of overwhelming odds, could it not be argued that the few that are repulsed by the majority opinion are over-reacting? Are they this sickened by, say, the Shriners? How about Stanford graduates? There must be tens of thousands of groups in which they are not part. Where does the line get drawn?

Since the term Seperation of Church & State does not & never has appeared in our Constitution & there is nothing in the supreme law of the land that expressly forbids government intermingling with religion, in general or specifically, what is the harm?

To clarify matters, this is the law, edited to only include those things which are precisely included in this discussion.

Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ...

It looks to me like the founders only wished the United States to abstain from creating a state religion (Church of England) and from disallowing the constituents to practice freely their chosen belief. Using writings from that era (the Federalist Papers) we could see that the debate was quite lively. It also ended up being first & foremost of all rights granted.

So, in seperating church & state, wasn't it done by James Madison? Afterall,
The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government.
Source

How about not allowing school prayer?
Is proselytizing alright?
What about In God We Trust on our government buildings or our monetary notes.
Are tax dollars to be used in financing private religious educations? How about when the law allows "school choice"? Does choice apply when it's pro-religion as when it's pro-death?
Is our Commander in Chief to omit the word God from public speeches?
How about Senators or Congress? Should they also stop the opening prayer?

At what point does sepeating church & state violate the first amendment?
 
That silly constitution doesn't preclude us from helping single mothers or financing sex education either. So why do you 'overreact' to those things, Gonz?
 
it doesnt violate it but myself and a few others think it is implied. that is why I said what I did. You are right and I have agreed the words arent there in black and white. Now I agree they did not want a State Religion no matter what that religion is. As far as the 10 commandments thing I am glad it is out but again I have my say which would be all or none. no exclusions. but Id prefer no showing in public places.
 
Squiggy said:
That silly constitution doesn't preclude us from helping single mothers or financing sex education either. So why do you 'overreact' to those things, Gonz?


Please point out where it says to finance those things. That job is up to the states, not the feds.
 
assuming or interperting. As I said it is implied to me. and others as well. they only say no State religion. that is crystal clear. but that is why I said it is implied. they cannot sponser one.




as for your other statement about finacing the schools isnt there a federal standard? I thought some federal funding went to schools? But it is not said in there about finacning as far as I know. I do not know all the federal laws regarding finaces
 
I offer you this link to the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States & the Bill of Rights & this link to the Federalist Papers & invite you to read them. I've yet to see that implication & I'm looking very hard for the part that says we're supposed to avoid religion like the plague. I can't find it.
 
It bothers me when government tries to pass laws based on religious beliefs or gives preferential treatment to religious organizations.

Why do people insist on making issues more complicated than they are.
School prayer? If it's a government run school, you cannot have time set aside for prayer, you cannot have staff leading prayers (on school time). If a child chooses to pray in his free time, that's his or her business, as long as they aren't disrupting children that don't wish to participate. It's not hard to figure out, but self-righteous jackasses on both sides of the argument have to get their two cents in.

Gonz, clearly our founding fathers intended for religion to be an individual choice. I personally avoid religion like the plague, but I don't think anyone else has to. My only problem arises when the government uses a clearly religious argument to set policy. This is tantamount to having a state religion, and that is clearly unconstitutional. Couching it in rhetoric and political spin does not change the fact.
 
as for your other statement about finacing the schools isnt there a federal standard? I thought some federal funding went to schools?

Not under the Constitution. With the ill-conceived Dept of Education, probably.
 
It's Erics thread so I'm not sure. I'd say yes, due to the specific question.
 
Leslie said:
coming in here way late...is this only about the States?



It does not have to be. Canadians and Brits and others can say. It is general tho I did kind of make it for Americans I will not say no to others. All have a say love
 
Gonz said:
I offer you this link to the Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States & the Bill of Rights & this link to the Federalist Papers & invite you to read them. I've yet to see that implication & I'm looking very hard for the part that says we're supposed to avoid religion like the plague. I can't find it.


who said anything about avoiding it? I just dont see why the govt endorses it. there is a difference. Personally as I said I dont want it in public places simply because again it is cramming itself down my throat. I also see religion as a problem. it caused wars in the past and even now.
 
freako104 said:
who said anything about avoiding it? I just dont see why the govt endorses it. there is a difference. Personally as I said I dont want it in public places simply because again it is cramming itself down my throat. I also see religion as a problem. it caused wars in the past and even now.

Sure it's caused wars, it's ripped families apart, it's alienated people from their countrymen, it's done alot of bad things. It's also given people a purpose for living, comfort in knowing that this is not all that there is. It's also given us a standard on how to treat each other, in 10 basic lessons.

Do I think the Govt should endorse any particular religon? No. I am personally offended that Mr. Bush has the audicity to use religon the way he does, but then again, I'm not that surprised either. As far as the prayer in schools, Chic spelled that out the best, it can be there, it just can't be led by the staff, nor disrupt the other students that don't want to participate.

In God we Trust? What, would you rather have it say in Bush we Trust? ;) Just kidding there, but really, what else is there to trust, even with my agnostic feelings, I'd rather it say that than have it say In the Feds we trust. I suppose the most honest wording would be In Gold we Trust.


^If any of that don't make sense, sorry, I was a little tired and felt like rambling a bit.
 
PuterTutor said:
It's also given us a standard on how to treat each other, in 10 basic lessons.

Hmph. I much prefer the predecessor. :grumpy:

Of the several law codes surviving from the ancient Middle East, the most famous after the Hebrew Torah is the Code of Hammurabi, sixth king of the Amorite Dynasty of Old Babylon. It is best known from a beautifully engraved diorite stela now in the Louvre Museum which also depicts the king receiving the law from Shamash, the god of justice. This copy was made long after Hammurabi's time, and it is clear that his was a long-lasting contribution to Mesopotamian civil ization. It encodes many laws which had probably evolved over a long period of time, but is interesting to the general reader because of what it tells us about the attitudes and daily lives of the ancient Babylonians. In the following selection, most of the long prologue praising Hammurabi's power and wisdom is omitted.



What do these laws tell us about attitudes toward slavery? What indication is there that some Babylonian women engaged in business? Clearly men had more rights than women in this society; but what laws can you identify that seem aimed at protecting certain rights of women? Which laws deviate from the egalitarian standard of "an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth?" What qualities does this text say a ruler should have to enable him to write new laws?

. . . Anu and Bel called by name me, Hammurabi, the exalted prince, who feared God, to bring about the rule of righteousness in the land, to destroy the wicked and the evil-doers; so that the strong should not harm the weak; so that I should rule over the black-headed people like Shamash, and enlighten the land, to further the well-being of mankind. . . .



15: If any one take a male or female slave of the court, or a male or female slave of a freed man, outside the city gates [to escape], he shall be put to death.

16: If any one receive into his house a runaway male or female slave of the court, or of a freedman, and does not bring it out at the public proclamation of the [police], the master of the house shall be put to death.

53: If any one be too lazy to keep his dam in proper condition, and does not so keep it; if then the dam break and all the fields be flooded, then shall he in whose dam the break occurred be sold for money, and the money shall replace the [grain] which he has caused to be ruined.

54: If he be not able to replace the [grain], then he and his possessions shall be divided among the farmers whose corn he has flooded.

108: If a [woman wine-seller] does not accept [grain] according to gross weight in payment of drink, but takes money, and the price of the drink is less than that of the corn, she shall be convicted and thrown into the water. (1)

109: If conspirators meet in the house of a [woman wine-seller], and these conspirators are not captured and delivered to the court, the [wine-seller] shall be put to death.

110: If a "sister of a god"[nun] open a tavern, or enter a tavern to drink, then shall this woman be burned to death.

129: If a man's wife be surprised [having intercourse] with another man, both shall be tied and thrown into the water, but the husband may pardon his wife and the king his slaves.

130: If a man violate the wife (betrothed or child-wife) of another man, who has never known a man, and still lives in her father's house, and sleep with her and be surprised [caught], this man shall be put to death, but the wife is blameless.

131: If a man bring a charge against [his] wife, but she is not surprised with another man, she must take an oath and then may return to her house.

132: If the "finger is pointed" at a man's wife about another man, but she is not caught sleeping with the other man, she shall jump into the river for [the sake of her] husband. (2)

138: If a man wishes to separate from his wife who has borne him no children, he shall give her the amount of her purchase money and the dowry which she brought from her father's house, and let her go.

141: If a man's wife, who lives in his house, wishes to leave it, plunges into debt [to go into business], tries to ruin her house, neglects her husband, and is judicially convicted: if her husband offer her release, she may go on her way, and he gives her nothing as a gift of release. If her husband does not wish to release her, and if he take another wife, she shall remain as servant in her husband's house.

142: If a woman quarrel with her husband, and say: "You are not congenial to me," the reasons for her prejudice must be presented. If she is guiltless, and there is no fault on her part, but he leaves and neglects her, then no guilt attaches to this woman, she shall take her dowry and go back to her father's house. (3)

143: If she is not innocent, but leaves her husband, and ruins her house, neglecting her husband, this woman shall be cast into the water.

195: If a son strike his father, his hands shall be [cut] off. (4)

196: If a [noble-]man put out the eye of another [noble-]man, his eye shall be put out. (5)

197: If he break another [noble-]man's bone, his bone shall be broken.

198: If he put out the eye of a [commoner], or break the bone of a [commoner], he shall pay one [silver] mina.

199: If he put out the eye of a man's slave, or break the bone of a man's slave, he shall pay one-half of its value.

200: If a man knock out the teeth of his equal, his teeth shall be knocked out.

201: If he knock out the teeth of a [commoner], he shall pay one-third of a [silver] mina.



In future time, through all coming generations, let the king, who may be in the land, observe the words of righteousness which I have written on my monument; let him not alter the law of the land which I have given, the edicts which I have enacted; my monument let him not mar. If such a ruler have wisdom, and be able to keep his land in order, he shall observe the words which I have written in this inscription; the rule, statute, and law of the land which I have given; the decisions which I have made will this inscription show him; let him rule his subjects accordingly, speak justice to them, give right decisions, root out the miscreants and criminals from this land, and grant prosperity to his subjects.

Hammurabi, the king of righteousness, on whom Shamash has conferred right (or law) am I. My words are well considered; my deeds are not equaled; to bring low those that were high; to humble the proud, to expel insolence.
http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~wldciv/world_civ_reader/world_civ_reader_1/hammurabi.html
 
It's also given people a purpose for living, comfort in knowing that this is not all that there is. It's also given us a standard on how to treat each other, in 10 basic lessons.
...that everyone has basically ignored from the time they were invented. Sorry, but I think that there isn't much in this world less relevant than the ten commandments.
 
chcr said:
...that everyone has basically ignored from the time they were invented. Sorry, but I think that there isn't much in this world less relevant than the ten commandments.

Only most have been ignored. A few were basic precepts that are used in one method or another by all religions and GVT laws.

Thou shalt not kill - Thou shalt not steal & - Thou shalt not commit adultery

Those are still fairly well followed.

The 'respect your mother and father' one tends to go out the window fairly early
The 'Sabbath Day' rule went out the window a LONG time ago...money speaks louder than God, it seems.

BTW...found a great site on the 10-Commandments as seen by different religions. here
 
The 'respect your mother and father' one tends to go out the window fairly early

Really? Most families, reluctantly in many cases, actively participate in caring for their elderly parents. Whether it's in the home or in a home, somebody has to pay. There are buttloads of cases (how many are a buttoad anyway) where this isn't the case but they are greatly overshadowed by loving, or at least greedy, families.
 
Back
Top