| 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 |
Jeremy
J's Guy
Joined: 03 Oct 2002
Posts: 7823
Location: Aberdeen, Scotland
|
 Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:52 am |
|
Well, if they say they are but don't accept the beliefs then... 
|
|
|
Puck
The Texan
Joined: 05 Jan 2004
Posts: 5596
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 2:08 pm |
|
If someone insists that they are something, no matter how much it appears they are/are not, there is obviously some kind of base for the claim. That is all I am saying. Obviously if someone continually denies a claim saying they are not Catholic, then there is still something that is holding them to their faith.
|
|
|
IntrepidIsMe
Pimp Handed
Joined: 14 Jun 2002
Posts: 13057
Location: New York
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:30 pm |
|
Whoosh, I agree with Kevin,  And we aren't talking a "little money". Think along the lines of hundreds.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
LightningBoy
Commodore
Joined: 09 Mar 2003
Posts: 1446
Location: Minnesota, U.S.A.
|
| Sun Aug 15, 2004 11:45 pm |
|
Interesting thing: Nowhere in the costitution does it say the words "Separation of Church and State". In fact that exact phrase came from a Bulchevick law that STALLIN wrote.
It's a communist ideal to separate the state from all religion. The U.S. constitution guarantees the lack of a state sponsored religion, which only means that they cannot rule through any single church, and force citizens to attend one or the other.
|
|
|
Angeldust
The Mob Queen
Joined: 28 Jul 2004
Posts: 6498
Location: In your most wonderful, screwed up dreams. :P
|
| Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:47 am |
|
| Quote: | | Interesting thing: Nowhere in the costitution does it say the words "Separation of Church and State". |
Not using that exact terminology, no. The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...
Makes it pretty clear that is the idea, however. But if that is too flimsy an argument for you:
The Constitution: The argument for the separation of church and state begins, not with the text of the First Amendment, but with the nature of the Constitution to which those amendments are attached. The Constitution, even in the absence of the First Amendment, grants no ability to the federal government to aid religion.
-------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
|
| Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:08 pm |
|
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | Catholics don't beleive you can "buy" your salvation. That is just silly.
This is the basics of what you have to beleive in order to be Catholic, along with the eucharist:
We believe in one God,
the Father, the Almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all that is, seen and unseen.
We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ,
the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father,
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made,
of one Being with the Father.
Through him all things were made.
For us and for our salvation
he came down from heaven:
by the power of the Holy Spirit
he was born of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate;
he suffered, died, and was buried.
On the third day he rose again
in fulfillment of the Scriptures;
he ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead,
and his kingdom will have no end.
We believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son.
With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified.
He has spoken through the Prophets.
We believe in one holy catholic and apostolic Church.
We acknowledge one baptism for the forgiveness of sins.
We look for the resurrection of the dead,
and the life of the world to come. Amen. |
Thank you, and agreed.
Praise be to the Lord Jesus Christ, btw.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | I don't see why religious people would want to stop a person from claiming to have a religion. If they claim to be Catholic, then there has to be some foundation, no matter how unstable or messy, that the claim is based on. Seems kind of presumptious to tell a person they are not a certain religion if they claim to be so. |
How can you not see it? If you don't believe it, like Intrepid, then you cannot BE of it. If I said that I was a Democrat and was a Republican but gave money to Democratic groups, and I a Democrat? Okay, so thats a HORRIBLE analogy, but if someone doesn't believe it then they are not a member of it.
| JanewayIsHott wrote: | | If someone insists that they are something, no matter how much it appears they are/are not, there is obviously some kind of base for the claim. That is all I am saying. Obviously if someone continually denies a claim saying they are not Catholic, then there is still something that is holding them to their faith. |
I disagree. Intrepid says that she is Catholic but is an Athiest. You can't be both.
| LightningBoy wrote: | Interesting thing: Nowhere in the costitution does it say the words "Separation of Church and State". In fact that exact phrase came from a Bulchevick law that STALLIN wrote.
It's a communist ideal to separate the state from all religion. The U.S. constitution guarantees the lack of a state sponsored religion, which only means that they cannot rule through any single church, and force citizens to attend one or the other. |
1st off, in the First Amendment it discusses the Establishment Clause (those words are not there, but it discusses it) which is basically what the debate of Separation of Church and State is over. It does not say the words, but it discusses it.
Otherwise, I agree with you and am happy that you made that post.
| Angeldust wrote: | | Quote: | | Interesting thing: Nowhere in the costitution does it say the words "Separation of Church and State". |
Not using that exact terminology, no. The first amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof...
Makes it pretty clear that is the idea, however. But if that is too flimsy an argument for you:
The Constitution: The argument for the separation of church and state begins, not with the text of the First Amendment, but with the nature of the Constitution to which those amendments are attached. The Constitution, even in the absence of the First Amendment, grants no ability to the federal government to aid religion. |
There are three different views of the Establishment Clause:
Broad Interpretation: Accepts religion in the government as long as it's not forced upon all.
Moderate Interpretation: Somewhat balanced (I forget more specifics for this)
Narrow Interpretation: The Government can have little to no interaction with religion.
My interpretation is the broad interpretation, and that interpretation believes that
| Quote: | | Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercise thereof... |
means that the government can not promote one religion over any others.
-------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
|
| Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:39 pm |
|
| Republican_Man wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | I don't see why religious people would want to stop a person from claiming to have a religion. If they claim to be Catholic, then there has to be some foundation, no matter how unstable or messy, that the claim is based on. Seems kind of presumptious to tell a person they are not a certain religion if they claim to be so. |
How can you not see it? If you don't believe it, like Intrepid, then you cannot BE of it. If I said that I was a Democrat and was a Republican but gave money to Democratic groups, and I a Democrat? Okay, so thats a HORRIBLE analogy, but if someone doesn't believe it then they are not a member of it. |
Listen, that's the religion I'd be, I go to a catholic school, donate money, take RE, that's my religion, the one I'd be, and how about we stop discussing me,  I know I'm perfect and all, but let's move on.
| Republican_Man wrote: | | JanewayIsHott wrote: | | If someone insists that they are something, no matter how much it appears they are/are not, there is obviously some kind of base for the claim. That is all I am saying. Obviously if someone continually denies a claim saying they are not Catholic, then there is still something that is holding them to their faith. |
I disagree. Intrepid says that she is Catholic but is an Athiest. You can't be both. |
First off, I'm a guy (that av throws people, I know). And I'm "of" the Catholic Religion, I was born into it, and still respect it. But as I said before, let's move on.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
Republican_Man
STV's Premier Conservative
Joined: 26 Mar 2004
Posts: 14823
Location: Classified
|
| Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:33 pm |
|
Okay, 'll move on, but...
| Quote: | | First off, I'm a guy (that av throws people, I know). And I'm "of" the Catholic Religion, I was born into it, and still respect it. But as I said before, let's move on. |
Generally, being born into a family of a religion and giving money and respecting it does not mean that one is that religion, but if religious that person was, that religion that person WOULD be of.
-------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
|
| Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:40 pm |
|
I already am, now move on.
-------signature-------
"Nelly, I am Heathcliff! He's always, always in my mind: not as a pleasure, any more than I am always a pleasure to myself, but as my own being."
-Wuthering Heights
|
|
|
|
|
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
