| Do you think that the State and the Church should be separated (traditionalist? |
| Of course not; just religion can't be forced on others (traditionalist) |
|
23% |
[ 6 ] |
| No (moderately traditionalist) |
|
7% |
[ 2 ] |
| Somewhat |
|
26% |
[ 7 ] |
| Yes (moderately secularist) |
|
42% |
[ 11 ] |
|
| Total Votes : 26 |
|
| Author |
Message |
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
 Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:35 am Separation of Church and State |
|
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | Is it just me or does this issue seem to be mainly about the seperation of church and state. I thought that when this country was founded they said that church and state would always remain seperate. So by including the bible and other religious views on this issue goes against everything that this country was founded upon. Church and state should never be mixed. |
I disagree. The government has their right to believe in religion, act upon religion, etc, just relgion, especially one kind of religion can't be force on all the people (Establishment clause).
Now, let us all debate this here.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:39 am |
|
I voted for the complete opposite of what I was intending to,  Accidentally went for "Of course not", but meant "Yes".
You don't need a religious influence in the government, seems rather sad that anybody would assume that it's best for millions of people that religion be a constant influence on their lives.
|
|
|
gilbert3729
Commander
Joined: 01 Aug 2004
Posts: 390
Location: New England, USA
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:40 am |
|
Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them.
-------signature-------
Soylent Green is people!!!
John Kerry...
Bringing complete sentences back to the White House.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:42 am |
|
Here we go.
The innate problem with church and state separation is that if you incorporate the church and state into one being, you are essentially forcing people to comply with a single religion. You cannot have a state which claims to build laws which reflect all religions, because all religions are different, and in reality the state will build laws upon one religion. It may, at times, utilize a different religion, but never two religions for the same law.
There are various types of people unfortunate enough to be bound by intangible concepts known as 'laws' which force them to acknowledge that they are a part of an entity known as a nation. Some people belong to one religion, perhaps a very small religion. If the government of their nation begins promoting another religion, they can do almost nothing about this because they are a minority.
Then there are atheists, who also don't like it when the church gets involved with the state. This is fine too.
Religion has a place obviously. All government officials, all politicians who participate in a religion will make their decisions, propose their bills, and live their life being influenced by this religion. But that's where it should stop. You shouldn't do something that forces others to live by your religion.
Frank Herbert, in his saga of Dune books, showed that the only way to make church and state work together as a single entity would be to ensure that everyone worshipped one religion. In this case, it was the fanatical religion of Paul "Muad'Dib" Atreides as a messiah to lead them in a Jihad.
My point is that by combining church and state, you are forcing particular views over another, whether you like it or not. Even good intentions will be corrupted by the inevitable entropy such a system faces.
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:49 am |
|
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right...
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:52 am |
|
quote="Jeff Miller"] | Republican_Man wrote: | | I would still be opposed to it. And secularists want religion out of public life and are anti-relgion, although I may have been exagerating because I was so mad at you. |
Ooh so thats what it meant. I'm ok with it if your mad at me I don't expect people not to be mad at me and your right I do want it out of public life. But I have a good reason why it's because from the time I was in the cradle to the time I was about 12 I was force fed religon and I litterly got sick of it. I was ok with the whole concept but it got to the point that I was forced to pray and so forth it really got annoying. I just got fed up with it I don't hate people who have a religon I never wanted to generate that image its just well I'm hard to understand unless you spend obscene amounts of time talking to me than you could really start to understand my mentality. [/quote]
Oh come on! NO religion in public life AT ALL! That's crazy! And without religon there would be no morals!
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | I voted for the complete opposite of what I was intending to, Accidentally went for "Of course not", but meant "Yes".
You don't need a religious influence in the government, seems rather sad that anybody would assume that it's best for millions of people that religion be a constant influence on their lives. |
I'm surprised!
And the answer, "Of course (Secularsit)" was supposed to be there too.
| gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
Guess what: You guys seem to not understand that concept:
Church and State does NOT mean just Christianity. The Establishment Clause of the US Constitution says that the government CANNOT FORCE one kind of religion on the people, and that is NOT what we want. We just want the government to be able to act on relgion, etc, but they can NOT force a relgion ON the people. Church and state not being separated does NOT mean that the government would have one religon.
| Hitchhiker wrote: | Here we go.
The innate problem with church and state separation is that if you incorporate the church and state into one being, you are essentially forcing people to comply with a single religion. You cannot have a state which claims to build laws which reflect all religions, because all religions are different, and in reality the state will build laws upon one religion. It may, at times, utilize a different religion, but never two religions for the same law.
You don't understand the concept. Church and state being together does NOT make the church and the state on, and it is NOT forcing people to be a single relgion (unless it is ALL based on one relgion, like in Saudi Arabia, for instance) And you CAN have a state that cites all religions on certain beliefs, however, the government should not force religion on all people.
There are various types of people unfortunate enough to be bound by intangible concepts known as 'laws' which force them to acknowledge that they are a part of an entity known as a nation. Some people belong to one religion, perhaps a very small religion. If the government of their nation begins promoting another religion, they can do almost nothing about this because they are a minority.
The government would not--should not--support one relgion, but that does NOT mean the government should not support religion and practice it, etc.
Then there are atheists, who also don't like it when the church gets involved with the state. This is fine too.
No, they are SECULARIST. MANY athiests don't have a problem with the government practicing relgion.
Religion has a place obviously. All government officials, all politicians who participate in a religion will make their decisions, propose their bills, and live their life being influenced by this religion. But that's where it should stop. You shouldn't do something that forces others to live by your religion.
Agreed for the most part.
Frank Herbert, in his saga of Dune books, showed that the only way to make church and state work together as a single entity would be to ensure that everyone worshipped one religion. In this case, it was the fanatical religion of Paul "Muad'Dib" Atreides as a messiah to lead them in a Jihad.
No, that is NOT true! It does NOT mean that they will force one religion upon the people!
My point is that by combining church and state, you are forcing particular views over another, whether you like it or not. Even good intentions will be corrupted by the inevitable entropy such a system faces. |
No you are NOT!!
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:53 am |
|
| B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
I don't think that it's all athiests, but more the secularists. But agreed.
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
Agreed.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:55 am |
|
| B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
But saying you don't believe in anything, and therefore it can't be forced on anybody isn't offensive, 
However saying that a select group of people's views should be present always other's live's IS offensive.
Who you vote for and why I don't see as an issue, it doesn't have to be public to be a reason. You could not like Kerry's teeth and therefore not vote for him, but that isn't a valid reason in public (just an example). I may have interpreted what you meant wrong, sorry if I did.
Last edited by IntrepidIsMe on Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:59 am; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:59 am |
|
Let's examine for the moment the meaning of the word "church". You seem to use the word "church" interchangeably with the concept of religion, when they are wildly different.
A church is an institution which embodies a certain religion. It is not the religion itself. Many religions have different organizations of churches which practice that religion in a different light.
Religion is the actual faith being practiced. A person can worship a religion and never once subscribe to an institution that provides support for that religion.
Combining "church" with state would basically be combining institutions more with the government. All institutions are corrupt, look at the number of scandals involving priests lately. I'm not saying that all priests are corrupt, but all religious organizations (not the religions themselves mind you) are corrupt because they were created and are run by human beings.
It is fine to combine religion with state. Religion itself is innately harmless, and only harmful when you allow it to take precedence over common sense.
Allowing church to combine with state is different from religion. A church will sometimes do things wholly unrelated to religion.
|
|
|
Theresa
Lux Mihi Deus
Joined: 17 Jun 2001
Posts: 27256
Location: United States of America
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:59 am |
|
You can never totally seperate the two. My religion/beleifs, are part of who I am. They influence my decisions, etc... Pushing something on someone, no, but being who you are, not having to hide your religion, or "leave it at home", that's not fair.
-------signature-------
Some of us fall by the wayside
And some of us soar to the stars
And some of us sail through our troubles
And some have to live with our scars
|
|
|
Arellia
The Quiet One
Joined: 23 Jan 2003
Posts: 4425
Location: Dallas, TX
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:00 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
But saying you don't believe in anything, and therefore it can't be forced on anybody isn't offensive,
However saying that a select group of people's views should be present always other's live's IS offensive.
Who you vote for and why I don't see as an issue, it doesn't have to be public to be a reason. You could not like Kerry's teeth and therefore not vote for him, but that isn't a valid reason it public (just an example). I may have interpreted what you meant wrong, sorry if I did. |
I meant as far as voting between church and state, and how seperated it is. Speaking out/voting according to my faith...that comes with it. Yet this bothers atheists, because I react on that, and they say faith should have no influence over the government. Plain fact: It does.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:02 am |
|
I see, I don't think it should really matter what reason you vote for a person, as long as it isn't something shallow (ie. looks, way you speak, etc. )
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:05 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | I see, I don't think it should really matter what reason you vote for a person, as long as it isn't something shallow (ie. looks, way you speak, etc. ) |
In the immortal words of Loud Howard:
"I always vote for the tall guy. The tall ones are better!" 
Yeah, okay, so that is completely false and shallow. First, because I'm too young to vote. Second, because I vote for those who will actually represent me. Third, because I'm Canadian--okay, you're right, the third point doesn't matter.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:07 am |
|
If you're tall, you could use the excuse that he represents you, as he's tall. But that would just be silly.
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:13 am |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
But saying you don't believe in anything, and therefore it can't be forced on anybody isn't offensive,
However saying that a select group of people's views should be present always other's live's IS offensive.
Who you vote for and why I don't see as an issue, it doesn't have to be public to be a reason. You could not like Kerry's teeth and therefore not vote for him, but that isn't a valid reason in public (just an example). I may have interpreted what you meant wrong, sorry if I did. |
Well that is DIFFERENT. That is NOT a good analogy.
| Hitchhiker wrote: | Let's examine for the moment the meaning of the word "church". You seem to use the word "church" interchangeably with the concept of religion, when they are wildly different.
But in the case of the United States, "Separation of Church and State" means separation of Religion from government.
A church is an institution which embodies a certain religion. It is not the religion itself. Many religions have different organizations of churches which practice that religion in a different light.
But this is DIFFERENT. "Church" is a general statement.
Religion is the actual faith being practiced. A person can worship a religion and never once subscribe to an institution that provides support for that religion.
Religion is not just the faith of being practiced, however.
Combining "church" with state would basically be combining institutions more with the government. All institutions are corrupt, look at the number of scandals involving priests lately. I'm not saying that all priests are corrupt, but all religious organizations (not the religions themselves mind you) are corrupt because they were created and are run by human beings.
It is NOT integrating ONE institution with the government!
It is fine to combine religion with state. Religion itself is innately harmless, and only harmful when you allow it to take precedence over common sense.
Allowing church to combine with state is different from religion. A church will sometimes do things wholly unrelated to religion. |
You're contradicting yourself.
| Theresa wrote: | | You can never totally seperate the two. My religion/beleifs, are part of who I am. They influence my decisions, etc... Pushing something on someone, no, but being who you are, not having to hide your religion, or "leave it at home", that's not fair. |
Same here.
| B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | I meant as far as voting between church and state, and how seperated it is. Speaking out/voting according to my faith...that comes with it. Yet this bothers atheists, because I react on that, and they say faith should have no influence over the government. Plain fact: It does. |
Agreed. Good points.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | I see, I don't think it should really matter what reason you vote for a person, as long as it isn't something shallow (ie. looks, way you speak, etc. ) |
Agreed.
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | I see, I don't think it should really matter what reason you vote for a person, as long as it isn't something shallow (ie. looks, way you speak, etc. ) |
In the immortal words of Loud Howard:
"I always vote for the tall guy. The tall ones are better!"
Yeah, okay, so that is completely false and shallow. First, because I'm too young to vote. Second, because I vote for those who will actually represent me. Third, because I'm Canadian--okay, you're right, the third point doesn't matter. |
Alright.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | If you're tall, you could use the excuse that he represents you, as he's tall. But that would just be silly. |
Agreed, but let's get back on topic.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:19 am |
|
One last post before I turn in for the night . . . erm . . . morning. Just because I'm an idiot.
I'm not contradicting myself. I said all instutitions. Even if you incorporated every religious organization into the government, then you would still just be utilizing the organization itself.
Well, if you mean separation of religion and state, then why don't you say so? That way people won't get confused. Because it is clear the a church is a place, although it is admittedly dependent upon religion.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:23 am |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
But saying you don't believe in anything, and therefore it can't be forced on anybody isn't offensive,
However saying that a select group of people's views should be present always other's live's IS offensive.
Who you vote for and why I don't see as an issue, it doesn't have to be public to be a reason. You could not like Kerry's teeth and therefore not vote for him, but that isn't a valid reason in public (just an example). I may have interpreted what you meant wrong, sorry if I did. |
Well that is DIFFERENT. That is NOT a good analogy. |
Well, I corrected the latter half of that post in my next post, althought I'm not sure to which part you're referring to.
BTW, I decided that I DID vote for the right thing, I don't care if a person wears a cross, or makes the sign of the cross in public, just as long as religion doesn't have any influence on things such as Gay Rights, Abortion, etc. I was confused,
|
|
|
Galadriel
Captain
Joined: 08 Sep 2001
Posts: 729
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 11:46 am |
|
The United States of America was founded on the basis of Biblical principles. Our Founding Fathers were Christians who had faith in God, and put that faith into their government.
Just as an odd statement, the words "separation of church and state" don't actually appear in the Constitution.
According to the Constitution, the government cannot force one religion on the people it governs. Religion (or lack thereof) will always be a part of how a government is run. Always. Your beliefs influence who you are and how you act.
So religion and government cannot be separated any more than religion can be separated from an individual.
|
|
|
Starbuck
faster...
Joined: 19 Feb 2003
Posts: 8715
Location: between chaos and melody
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:07 pm |
|
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
But saying you don't believe in anything, and therefore it can't be forced on anybody isn't offensive,
However saying that a select group of people's views should be present always other's live's IS offensive.
Who you vote for and why I don't see as an issue, it doesn't have to be public to be a reason. You could not like Kerry's teeth and therefore not vote for him, but that isn't a valid reason in public (just an example). I may have interpreted what you meant wrong, sorry if I did. |
Well that is DIFFERENT. That is NOT a good analogy. |
Well, I corrected the latter half of that post in my next post, althought I'm not sure to which part you're referring to.
BTW, I decided that I DID vote for the right thing, I don't care if a person wears a cross, or makes the sign of the cross in public, just as long as religion doesn't have any influence on things such as Gay Rights, Abortion, etc. I was confused, |
But it is having somewhat of an influence. "One nation, under God." And according to the Catholic Chatichism, for Gay people to be together is okay, and for people to be Gay is okay, but when Gay people want to be married, thats not okay. Now look at the Country, its okay for Gay people to be together, its okay for people to be Gay, but its not okay for Gay peope to get married. Furthur more, for it to be illegal for Gay couples to wed is unconstitutional. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Think about it.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 12:55 pm |
|
Yes, it does have an influence, I never said that it didn't. I meant that it shouldn't have an influence as far as how the government makes it's decision's at all.
|
|
|
Hitchhiker
Rear Admiral
Joined: 11 Aug 2004
Posts: 3514
Location: Ontario, Canada
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 1:42 pm |
|
It seems we have come in a circle.
Religion and state cannot be separated, obviously, because religion is a very personal matter which you cannot just 'leave at the door'. I'm fine if an MP votes for a bill because of a religious choice.
But church is different. Church is an organization that wants people to follow the religion in their way, rather than in the people's way. Everyone perceives their religion differently. I'm not saying that churches are bad things, but you cannot give them too much power any more than you can give environmentalists too much power. Everything must be balanced in order to work out. Religion and secularism.
So let's forget about integration and separation, but seek a balance perhaps. Religion at a personal, individual level may influence national choices. But religion at an instutitional level should not influence personal choices of everyone in the nation. It's fine if you choose to do something because the church you belong to has told you what to do. But that same church should not be allowed to affect the lives of those who don't choose to subscribe to it.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:26 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | | So let's forget about integration and separation, but seek a balance perhaps. Religion at a personal, individual level may influence national choices. But religion at an instutitional level should not influence personal choices of everyone in the nation. It's fine if you choose to do something because the church you belong to has told you what to do. But that same church should not be allowed to affect the lives of those who don't choose to subscribe to it. |
Exactly, personal level I don't mind, as it isn't being forced. But when laws are made because of what the bible says, well, that's just silly. Like I said before, if we do that, why not just use Valley of the Dolls? 
|
|
|
Seven of Nine
Sammie's Mammy
Joined: 16 Jun 2001
Posts: 7871
Location: North East England
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 2:33 pm |
|
I voted for somewhat. You can't seperate them completely, but you shouldn't let it influence too much. Am I making any sense, or is this as confusing as it seems to me?
|
|
|
Angeldust
The Mob Queen
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 6498
Location: In your most wonderful, screwed up dreams. :P
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 3:10 pm |
|
Religion, no matter which one we are speaking of, should not dictate or have any influence over the policies and legislation of our government.
-------signature-------
"You want to dance with the angels? Then embroider me with gold; and I will fly with the angels...and you can dance with me."
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Thu Aug 12, 2004 5:06 pm |
|
| Hitchhiker wrote: | One last post before I turn in for the night . . . erm . . . morning. Just because I'm an idiot.
I'm not contradicting myself. I said all instutitions. Even if you incorporated every religious organization into the government, then you would still just be utilizing the organization itself.
Well, if you mean separation of religion and state, then why don't you say so? That way people won't get confused. Because it is clear the a church is a place, although it is admittedly dependent upon religion. |
I didn't say so because the term used here in the US is separation of CHURCH and state--that's the proper term. And I don't mean the religious organizations should be incorporated, however, more than prayers in the Senate, etc.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
But saying you don't believe in anything, and therefore it can't be forced on anybody isn't offensive,
However saying that a select group of people's views should be present always other's live's IS offensive.
Who you vote for and why I don't see as an issue, it doesn't have to be public to be a reason. You could not like Kerry's teeth and therefore not vote for him, but that isn't a valid reason in public (just an example). I may have interpreted what you meant wrong, sorry if I did. |
Well that is DIFFERENT. That is NOT a good analogy. |
Well, I corrected the latter half of that post in my next post, althought I'm not sure to which part you're referring to.
BTW, I decided that I DID vote for the right thing, I don't care if a person wears a cross, or makes the sign of the cross in public, just as long as religion doesn't have any influence on things such as Gay Rights, Abortion, etc. I was confused, |
Agreed. And okay.
| Galadriel wrote: | The United States of America was founded on the basis of Biblical principles. Our Founding Fathers were Christians who had faith in God, and put that faith into their government.
Yes, it was founded upon Judeo-Christain beliefs.
Just as an odd statement, the words "separation of church and state" don't actually appear in the Constitution.
I know, but that's the debated concept.
According to the Constitution, the government cannot force one religion on the people it governs. Religion (or lack thereof) will always be a part of how a government is run. Always. Your beliefs influence who you are and how you act.
Exactly, but religion should be allowed in public life. Otherwise, agreed.
So religion and government cannot be separated any more than religion can be separated from an individual. |
Agreed.
| 4evajaneway wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Republican_Man wrote: | | IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | B'Ellanna_Torrez wrote: | | gilbert3729 wrote: | | Church and state can not mix. Everyone does not have the same beliefs so why should everyone be governed by them. |
This is a circular argument.
I think that atheists just may not get that we ((Christians)) should be selective in our beliefs, because...oh, have you ever considered we might believe in God as firmly, or more, as you believe in nothingness? (I'm generalizing, don't hurt me, just correct me)
Force religion, no. But...there's a point where what I believe will influence what I vote for. Because it's a part of me, and it is the truth. (Yeah, yeah, I said it's truth, but why should I beat around the bush? It is.) ...this is a tricky subject, 'cause everyone thinks they're right... |
But saying you don't believe in anything, and therefore it can't be forced on anybody isn't offensive,
However saying that a select group of people's views should be present always other's live's IS offensive.
Who you vote for and why I don't see as an issue, it doesn't have to be public to be a reason. You could not like Kerry's teeth and therefore not vote for him, but that isn't a valid reason in public (just an example). I may have interpreted what you meant wrong, sorry if I did. |
Well that is DIFFERENT. That is NOT a good analogy. |
Well, I corrected the latter half of that post in my next post, althought I'm not sure to which part you're referring to.
BTW, I decided that I DID vote for the right thing, I don't care if a person wears a cross, or makes the sign of the cross in public, just as long as religion doesn't have any influence on things such as Gay Rights, Abortion, etc. I was confused, |
But it is having somewhat of an influence. "One nation, under God."
And that's good and should STAY there.
And according to the Catholic Chatichism, for Gay people to be together is okay, and for people to be Gay is okay, but when Gay people want to be married, thats not okay.
No, that is NOT true. It goes AGAINST Catholic beliefs to even BE gay--I know, I'm a catholic.
Now look at the Country, its okay for Gay people to be together, its okay for people to be Gay, but its not okay for Gay peope to get married. Furthur more, for it to be illegal for Gay couples to wed is unconstitutional. We have the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Think about it. |
No it's NOT okay for Gay people to be together, but that's based on mostly religious views, but others as well. They shouldn't get married and it's not unconstitutional.
| IntrepidIsMe wrote: | | Yes, it does have an influence, I never said that it didn't. I meant that it shouldn't have an influence as far as how the government makes it's decision's at all. |
Agreed, and neither did I say that.
| Hitchhiker wrote: | It seems we have come in a circle.
Religion and state cannot be separated, obviously, because religion is a very personal matter which you cannot just 'leave at the door'. I'm fine if an MP votes for a bill because of a religious choice.
Alright, agreed, I guess.
But church is different. Church is an organization that wants people to follow the religion in their way, rather than in the people's way. Everyone perceives their religion differently. I'm not saying that churches are bad things, but you cannot give them too much power any more than you can give environmentalists too much power. Everything must be balanced in order to work out. Religion and secularism.
What? No, secularism is WRONG and should not be around, just the government shouldn't force religion onto the people. (Establishment Clause, 1st Amendment)
So let's forget about integration and separation, but seek a balance perhaps. Religion at a personal, individual level may influence national choices. But religion at an instutitional level should not influence personal choices of everyone in the nation. It's fine if you choose to do something because the church you belong to has told you what to do. But that same church should not be allowed to affect the lives of those who don't choose to subscribe to it. |
No, I don't see how balance is good in this sense. All I see is that the government shouldn't force religion upon another. However, the "Separation of Church and State" is the proper term for this separation.
| Angeldust wrote: | | Religion, no matter which one we are speaking of, should not dictate or have any influence over the policies and legislation of our government. |
It DOES have an impact and SHOULD and CAN be used in some cases. Religion plays a big part in people's beliefs--that's my primary reason for not approving of Gay actions, but not my Marriage beliefs, however.
-------signature-------
"Rights are only as good as the willingness of some to exercise responsibility for those rights- Fmr. Colorado Senate Pres. John Andrews
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group
Star Trek �, in all its various forms, are trademarks & copyrights of Paramount Pictures
This site has no official connection with Star Trek or Paramount Pictures
Site content/Site design elements owned by Morphy and is meant to only be an archive/Tribute to STV.com
|
Search
FAQ
Log in
