Should Religion and State Be Separated?

Howso?

they are being bribed to say nothing at all.
If they do, they lose their status.

They can still support ballot measures and the like, though.

I didn't say that it was effective bribery

gnostic said:

The churches do interfere with government policies and social circumstances, such as forcing education to accept creationism and ID in science classrooms, the uses of condoms and contraceptives, abortions and homosexuality; and they have the tendency to encourage their followers to elect certain politicians.

Every damned American politician leaders who want to be elected as presidents, governors, senators, or mayors must put God in their speeches that you would think they are preachers instead of politicians, even if they are not religious. They need to grab as many "Christian" votes as possible. This is why I hate American political speeches. They are not more than damn hypocrites.

Click to expand...

Makes you miss our founding fathers, who weren't afraid to speak their mind about the dangers of religious fanatacism.

fanaticism is as fanaticism does

There is a common delusion in America that the separation of Church and State was mandated by the Constitution. What the First Amendment says is that Congress cannot establish a specific state religion, or prohibit people from practicing a religion. It does not prohibit politicians from being religious or entertaining religiously-related thoughts in debate. In other words, as other posters point out, the intention was meant for there to be an equal separation: the Church and the Government are autonomous units which operate independently of each other.

This being said, religion and state should not be separated. In a secular system, the quality of life may be higher, but people are fundamentally lacking in other aspects of life, because they only seek to gain worldly posessions. Religion is a means of obtaining consensus and order among people; peace, happiness and tolerance will never come about by giving in to any form of atheistic philosophy, including democracy or liberalism.

Hyperborean said:

There is a common delusion in America that the separation of Church and State was mandated by the Constitution. What the First Amendment says is that Congress cannot establish a specific state religion, or prohibit people from practicing a religion. It does not prohibit politicians from being religious or entertaining religiously-related thoughts in debate. In other words, as other posters point out, the intention was meant for there to be an equal separation: the Church and the Government are autonomous units which operate independently of each other.

This being said, religion and state should not be separated. In a secular system, the quality of life may be higher, but people are fundamentally lacking in other aspects of life, because they only seek to gain worldly posessions. Religion is a means of obtaining consensus and order among people; peace, happiness and tolerance will never come about by giving in to any form of atheistic philosophy, including democracy or liberalism.

Click to expand...

The First Amendment ALSO says that the state cannot promote one religion over another.
Therefore it will be next to impossible to join state and religion.

Which I suspect was the whole point of the First Amendment.

Mestemia said:

The First Amendment ALSO says that the state cannot promote one religion over another.
Therefore it will be next to impossible to join state and religion.

Which I suspect was the whole point of the First Amendment.

Click to expand...

It is reasonable for politicians to be reasonable. In this day and age, when hostility to religion seems to be the norm, the First Amendment seems to be 'good enough'.

My talk about religion being separated was not in reference to America. I believe that in general, religion and state are inseperable. The First Amendment is an imperfect document, created by man to serve the needs of a worldly government.

My Constitution, however, is none other than the Quran.

Hyperborean said:

It is reasonable for politicians to be reasonable. In this day and age, when hostility to religion seems to be the norm, the First Amendment seems to be 'good enough'.

My talk about religion being separated was not in reference to America. I believe that in general, religion and state are inseperable. The First Amendment is an imperfect document, created by man to serve the needs of a worldly government.

My Constitution, however, is none other than the Quran.

Click to expand...

So sorry.
i was completely unaware that you have a version of the Koran that is somehow broken up into Amendments.

Hyperborean said:

This being said, religion and state should not be separated. In a secular system, the quality of life may be higher, but people are fundamentally lacking in other aspects of life, because they only seek to gain worldly posessions. Religion is a means of obtaining consensus and order among people; peace, happiness and tolerance will never come about by giving in to any form of atheistic philosophy, including democracy or liberalism.

Click to expand...

This seems fundamentally flawed to me. What are your arguments to support this statement? Blanklet claims that "peace, happiness and tolerance will never come about by giving in to any form of atheistic philosophy" are not helpful additions to a debate.

Explain why you think this please.

Irenicas said:

This seems fundamentally flawed to me. What are your arguments to support this statement? Blanklet claims that "peace, happiness and tolerance will never come about by giving in to any form of atheistic philosophy" are not helpful additions to a debate.

Explain why you think this please.

Click to expand...

I reported the post. There are atheists as well as religionists here, and personally I feel that the statement is intentionally aimed at hurting the feelings and morale of atheists. I am an secular humanist/atheist and I consider myself to be a happy person contrary to the screed that Hyperborean just wrote. Also, it validates oppression and human rights abuses. Women, homosexuals, Jews, Baha'i's, atheists, and socialists are not "happy" under Iran's oppressive and hate-filled regime, for example.
The first amendment guarantees freedom of religion, and if the reactionary theocratic fascists find a disagreement with it, it would be best for them to leave this country. It is religion, in its reactionary, conservative forms which insists on weaseling its filthy hands into the hallowed foundation on which our democracy is built. Religionists want to depressurize the frail vessel of human hopes and are oppress people politically using the notion of G-d to do so, denying people human rights in the process; it would be better to ban all the reactionary ideas in Islam and Christianity, rather than to let them become an infection among the civilized world.

There is nothing inherently wrong with a theocracy...

Mister Emu said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with a theocracy...

Click to expand...

I most certainly disagree.
Especially since I do not subscribe to any of the most popular theologies.

i wonder, would you feel the same way if the theocracy you lived in was based upon Luciferism?

Obviously, I would find myself hardpressed to choose to live in luciferian theocracy. That does not however change my statement that there is nothing inherently wrong with theocratic government.

mister emu said:

Obviously, I would find myself hardpressed to choose to live in luciferian theocracy. That does not however change my statement that there is nothing inherently wrong with theocratic government.

Click to expand...

How about "Power corrupt all"?

If a religion wants to play with politics, then if they get burn playing it, then they are rightfully burned.

The Pope and Vatican played with politics for centuries and it corrupted them. In my book, they are still corrupted.

Mister Emu said:

There is nothing inherently wrong with a theocracy...

Click to expand...

This is no different than saying there's nothing inherently wrong with totalitarianism.

oldcajun said:

Separation of church and state is a great thing as long as it's equally separate. The church should not run the government and the government should not interfere in the activities or functions of the church. The IRS restricting freedom of speech in the church is a prime example of government interference.

Click to expand...

Sorry, it's just the opposite. If a "Church" wants to be political it has to pay taxes, that is all. Can't have it both ways.

Bennettresearch said:

Sorry, it's just the opposite. If a "Church" wants to be political it has to pay taxes, that is all. Can't have it both ways.

Click to expand...

Current law allows churches to pay taxes AND be political. It's only a certain form of politicking, specifically endorsing a candidate, that is not allowed. Issues are open. As they should be.

Hey everybody,

I don't want to pop anyone's bubble here, but we live in a Theocracy. The Church of Liberalism that wants to form an Orwellian nanny state and run every aspect of your life!!!!!!! Oh oh, I'm going to jail now for not being politically correct.

Craig