The advantages/disadvantages of the separation of Church and State

[Ummagumma]

well as you all know i don't believe in it so i made this thread to discuss and debate about seperation of church and state since the prophet isn't here anymore. convince me that there's something good positive or progressive about it

discuss

Tolerance, understanding, compassion, freedom...
All things granted by a non-religious government. All things suppressed by state [enforced/sponsored] religion.

Split from this thread. Please try to keep some semblance of a serious debate, without degenerating into conspiracy nonsense.

~Scorch

Scorch - I didn't degenerate, I replied seriously. I was quite surprised to see I 'started' this thread though. Maybe atheistic tubthumping should be a new hobby.......

[Mansa musa]

seperation of church and state declares that the government doesn't have to rule in an ethical way. now i'm not talking about something as ominous as clerical fascism for the west but the west is so crazed and liberal that they're an inch away from beginning to have public stonings of people who say that they don't respect seperation of church and state at least to such an extreme extent in the west.

I don't see any successes of seperation of church and state. all it does is enables big elitist corporations and figureheads to make descisions to exploit or to bribe there way to the top and to make choices that gives the middle finger to ethics and takes the route of cruel and efficient. we've seen this all throughout history time and time again. stalin mao kissinger. use whatever and do whatever to get the job done.

[Ummagumma]

Stalin and Mao are bad examples - there was state-enforced 'anti-religion', rather than a true separation.
In heavily influenced countries, what do you get? Witchcraft accusations/trials, Bishops with more power than the elected representatives, mutilation for trivial crimes, hatred of 'non-conformists' and rigid application of supposed 'laws' that are so far detached from modern society it baffles me... I know which I'd prefer.

[green tea]

Yes it must be strange. In the western democracies, people decided not to be ruled by priests anymore. We had some bloody civil wars over religion (maybe something the islamic world will face right now), and in the end no one won. Is it really that important if someone believes in this or that religion? Not as long as people respect that it is okay if their neighbours believe in something different. You can have a peaceful society with many religions, as long as there is no group that does not accept the peace. Religion is something private. Nobody should tell you what you have to believe. But the other side of this deal (something some people still have to learn) is that you then also have to accept the private choices of your neighbours.

[Mansa musa]

that's not exactly what i'm talking about. i'm talking about some of the massive amounts of social problems wich are caused by deciding not to rule in an ethical way

[Ferrets54]

well as you all know i don't believe in it so i made this thread to discuss and debate about seperation of church and state since the prophet isn't here anymore. convince me that there's something good positive or progressive about it

discuss

Religion can be counter productive to all good things. Advancement, tolerance, peace. It is of the highest importance that the government, which can control people's lives, have nothing to do with religion.

[Heinz Guderian]

Religion can be counter productive to all good things. Advancement, tolerance, peace. It is of the highest importance that the government, which can control people's lives, have nothing to do with religion.

I see a problem with this. Who decides what is tolerable? 30 years ago, homosexuality was illegal in my country, but "norms" changed, so the law changed and now it is ok. What about paedophila? Its illegal, but as norms change (people now can openly make jokes about it in the mainstream, sympathetic movies featuring paedophiles, gradual reduction of age of consent, political parties have been set up to espouse paedophile rights (i can go on)), who is to say having sex with a 12 year old boy or girl will be illegal in 20 years time?

[Scorch]

Mansa, I don't want to have to tell you again to stop derailing threads through off-topic posts. The next one will be an infraction.

[Scar Face]

seperation of church and state declares that the government doesn't have to rule in an ethical way.

You are making the assumption that only religion and only followers of said religon are moral people, which is entirely false.

now i'm not talking about something as ominous as clerical fascism for the west but the west is so crazed and liberal that they're an inch away from beginning to have public stonings of people who say that they don't respect seperation of church and state at least to such an extreme extent in the west.

Thats because the West realized the inherent dangers if religion is not removed from Government.

I don't see any successes of seperation of church and state.

1) To declare one religion to be the religion of the state is, in effect, giving state sponsorship to discrimination. While this occurs even with the separation of Church and state, it at the very least lowers its chances.
2) It promotes Science and reality rather than Dogma.
3) It removes the Church from its position of political power, which it held to a great degree in the past. The Church having a large degree of influence is actually counter productive to Democracy and individual freedoms- by the simple fact that the power falls to an institution, rather than the views of the majority of people.

all it does is enables big elitist corporations and figureheads to make descisions to exploit or to bribe there way to the top and to make choices that gives the middle finger to ethics and takes the route of cruel and efficient.

Again you are making the assumption that religion is the giver of morality and ethics, while in reality it is society.

we've seen this all throughout history time and time again. stalin mao kissinger. use whatever and do whatever to get the job done.

Those are a handful of examples of extremists who took power, meanwhile there are thousands of examples of religious people doing the exact same thing throughout history.

[Mansa musa]

You are making the assumption that only religion and only followers of said religon are moral people, which is entirely false. Thats because the West realized the inherent dangers if religion is not removed from Government.

1) To declare one religion to be the religion of the state is, in effect, giving state sponsorship to discrimination. While this occurs even with the separation of Church and state, it at the very least lowers its chances.
2) It promotes Science and reality rather than Dogma.
3) It removes the Church from its position of political power, which it held to a great degree in the past. The Church having a large degree of influence is actually counter productive to Democracy and individual freedoms- by the simple fact that the power falls to an institution, rather than the views of the majority of people.
Again you are making the assumption that religion is the giver of morality and ethics, while in reality it is society.
Those are a handful of examples of extremists who took power, meanwhile there are thousands of examples of religious people doing the exact same thing throughout history.

there moral to there ideals of moral. vices such as gambling alchohol drugs prostitution and abortion don't really apply to what the irreligious consider immoral.

1)Totally false. it's the interpretion. it's dogmatic and highly religious to think that if church and state is blurred some discrimination would seep from every single pore of everything

2)Wich promotes happiness and depression. no sane person wants to live in a cold industrial world where science and "reality" has replaced religion

3) indivisual freedoms can sometimes go too far. what's next? freedom to kill? freedom to molest? freedom to rape? we already have freedom to adultery wich is something that even the romans at one point and time saw as a crime. People are idiots and sometimes if they decide what they want for themselves they screw up. The People wanted hitler. we gave them hitler. it's democracy they wanted it and they got it. People want abortions,gay marriage,lowering of the age of consent. hey they want it they can have it. Murderers think that jail is too harsh for murder. they want it so they can have it. i bet you if i had 5 children and i asked them if they wanted to eat candy all year round they'd say yes

[Ummagumma]

there moral to there ideals of moral. vices such as gambling alchohol drugs prostitution and abortion don't really apply to what the irreligious consider immoral.

Morality has always been subject to the society that perceives it. Most things in excess are bad, but what is wrong with a few things in moderation. You posted some supposed 'prophecy' yourself that some guys placed a bet on. Is that not gambling? Alcohol has been enjoyed by the vast majority of human civilisations throughout history. 'Drugs' is an ambiguous term. What is considered a bad 'drug' now was just something to do once upon a time. Prostitution is regarded as the oldest profession in the world.......

1)Totally false. it's the interpretion. it's dogmatic and highly religious to think that if church and state is blurred some discrimination would seep from every single pore of everything

Sorry, but that makes no sense. How can a lack of religion be dogmatic and highly religious?

2)Wich promotes happiness and depression. no sane person wants to live in a cold industrial world where science and "reality" has replaced religion

'Promotes happiness and depression'. Did you really type that?

I would rather live in a 'cold industrial world' than a cold, dark, oppressive world full of fear of treading outside of the ascribed path, full of public tortures, mutilations and deaths, full of closed minded insistence of an ill-conceived truth, full of the hatred, bigotry and fear that would, is, has been and always will be the result of a faith-led system.

3) indivisual freedoms can sometimes go too far. what's next? freedom to kill? freedom to molest? freedom to rape? we already have freedom to adultery wich is something that even the romans at one point and time saw as a crime. People are idiots and sometimes if they decide what they want for themselves they screw up. The People wanted hitler. we gave them hitler. it's democracy they wanted it and they got it. People want abortions,gay marriage,lowering of the age of consent. hey they want it they can have it. Murderers think that jail is too harsh for murder. they want it so they can have it. i bet you if i had 5 children and i asked them if they wanted to eat candy all year round they'd say yes

Part of democracy - the part most people have problems with (specifically in minority and/or fundamentalist groups) is that it is a consensus of opinion. It generally follows what most people want. Television is democracy in microcosm. I don't watch Eastenders or any soap operas, but as they get a large audience (and are therefore popular) they continue to be made and broadcast. My TV world would still be mainly Monty Python and what I consider to be 'good' films, and shows like Dr. Who and Big Brother would be nothing but an embarrassing memory. The main part is that it is led by what individuals want.
It is a consensus of opinion that decides what shows to produce. It is a consensus of opinion that decides what policies to make. Times change, as do the people. Dusty old tomes full of dogma do not - though this thread of yours highlights exactly how farcical 'reinterpretation' of outdated ideals can be.
Don't let anyone clip your wings. Fly free with your own thoughts, have your own dreams. Just because you don't think how someone tells you to think it does not make you a sociopath, you can still be a good guy.

[Mansa musa]

Morality has always been subject to the society that perceives it. Most things in excess are bad, but what is wrong with a few things in moderation. You posted some supposed 'prophecy' yourself that some guys placed a bet on. Is that not gambling? Alcohol has been enjoyed by the vast majority of human civilisations throughout history. 'Drugs' is an ambiguous term. What is considered a bad 'drug' now was just something to do once upon a time. Prostitution is regarded as the oldest profession in the world.......

you made my point. you can't even see the problems it causes in our society

Sorry, but that makes no sense. How can a lack of religion be dogmatic and highly religious?

(the plural is either dogmata or dogmas,) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Promotes happiness and depression'. Did you really type that?

I would rather live in a 'cold industrial world' than a cold, dark, oppressive world full of fear of treading outside of the ascribed path, full of public tortures, mutilations and deaths, full of closed minded insistence of an ill-conceived truth, full of the hatred, bigotry and fear that would, is, has been and always will be the result of a faith-led system.

islamic states have it's extremes but these are in no comparison to the extremes of secular society. wich i have pointed out with the world depopulation plans and hitler.

Part of democracy - the part most people have problems with (specifically in minority and/or fundamentalist groups) is that it is a consensus of opinion. It generally follows what most people want. Television is democracy in microcosm. I don't watch Eastenders or any soap operas, but as they get a large audience (and are therefore popular) they continue to be made and broadcast. My TV world would still be mainly Monty Python and what I consider to be 'good' films, and shows like Dr. Who and Big Brother would be nothing but an embarrassing memory. The main part is that it is led by what individuals want.
It is a consensus of opinion that decides what shows to produce. It is a consensus of opinion that decides what policies to make. Times change, as do the people. Dusty old tomes full of dogma do not - though this thread of yours highlights exactly how farcical 'reinterpretation' of outdated ideals can be.
Don't let anyone clip your wings. Fly free with your own thoughts, have your own dreams. Just because you don't think how someone tells you to think it does not make you a sociopath, you can still be a good guy.

Democracy is a MOB RULE. if you think about it it's not a stable system at all. a few tweaks here and there and it can be fascist. control what the people think and you can control what they want. like i said before time and time again free choice on any and everything can lead to bad things. Like with Germany. they freely choice hitler. PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS! you can't expect people to make the right decisions just because it's a open minded choice or decision. 1 million women decide to kill a baby in there stomach every year. bu t it's ok because they have a choice to. sometimes freedom of choice can go to far. especially if you sit by and watch society degenerate into the hellhole we have today

[Captain Blackadder]

Having the church have anything to do with government leads to ignorance and a lack of advancement for instance in many religious societies fantastic books are banned because the religious of the society deem them to be heretical or somehow unethical despite the fact that often they are missing the point. All of humanities great accomplishments have been made under secular governments. When the Arab world gave us many fantastic inventions and when they were the centre of learning in the world they were seculer since they allowed the fanatics to rule there has not been one single invention of note from the Muslim world.

So the equation is simple

Secular = Knowledge,inventions and greatness
Religious = Idiocy, superstitious and a lack of advancement.

[Mansa musa]

All of humanities great accomplishments have been made under secular governments. When the Arab world gave us many fantastic inventions and when they were the centre of learning in the world they were seculer since they allowed the fanatics to rule there has not been one single invention of note from the Muslim world.

So the equation is simple

Secular = Knowledge,inventions and greatness
Religious = Idiocy, superstitious and a lack of advancement.

one word came to my mind when i heard.dogma. The Arab world was the center of learning and knowledge BECAUSE of islam not inspite of it. the arabs in case you didn't notice wasn't secularist. Islam teaches to seek knowledge to strive to professionalism and to learn how things work. the declination of islamic science was due to the mongol invasion of baghdad and colonialization not so called fanatics taking over. the almohads who were fundementalists caused a greater age of learning when they took over al andulas. funny how you would attribute the decline of islamic science to quote "fanatics" taking over.

[Captain Blackadder]

Excuse me the major reason for the downfall of Islamic Science was the Ash'ari theologies whose idea was that man cannot create anything taking over from the Mu'tazili whose ideas were based on rational thinking. That is the major reason for the downfall the idiots taking over from the people who made sense.

[Mansa musa]

Excuse me the major reason for the downfall of Islamic Science was the Ash'ari theologies whose idea was that man cannot create anything taking over from the Mu'tazili whose ideas were based on rational thinking. That is the major reason for the downfall the idiots taking over from the people who made sense.

wich was largely attributed to the downfalls of Muslim spain and baghdad. but yeah i guess you're right about this one. they sort of remind me of the thread i posted about the fatwa against having sex completely naked.

btw. how come the Ash'aris are the religious nutjobs and the Mu'tazili's are the secularists?

"It is not surprising that opponents of the Mu'tazila often charge the Mu'tazila with the view that humanity does not need revelation, that everything can be known through reason, that there is a conflict between reason and revelation, that they cling to reason and put revelation aside, and even that the Mu'tazila do not believe in revelation. But is it true that the Mu'tazila are of the opinion that everything can be known through reason and therefore that revelation is unnecessary? The writings of the Mu`tazila give exactly the opposite portrait. In their opinion, human reason is not sufficiently powerful to know everything and for this reason humans need revelation in order to reach conclusions concerning what is good and what is bad for them."

so no they weren't secularists

[Ummagumma]

you made my point. you can't even see the problems it causes in our society

Are you at all implying that drug abuse, prostitution and gambling don't occur in non-secular societies? I hate to inform you, but people are still people. In secular societies they are more likely to get treatment and support rather than mutilation and imprisonment though.

(the plural is either dogmata or dogmas,) is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization, thought to be authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from.

Wikipedia is good. Just shows that dogmatic principles are just as ruthless and abhorrent as any other dictatorship, whether it be by a human or some fantasised deity.

islamic states have it's extremes but these are in no comparison to the extremes of secular society. wich i have pointed out with the world depopulation plans and hitler.

Hitler was hardly secular - he wanted to annihilate the Jews. 'World Depopulation Plans' are the fantasies of a twisted mind.

Democracy is a MOB RULE. if you think about it it's not a stable system at all. a few tweaks here and there and it can be fascist. control what the people think and you can control what they want. like i said before time and time again free choice on any and everything can lead to bad things. Like with Germany. they freely choice hitler. PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS! you can't expect people to make the right decisions just because it's a open minded choice or decision. 1 million women decide to kill a baby in there stomach every year. bu t it's ok because they have a choice to. sometimes freedom of choice can go to far. especially if you sit by and watch society degenerate into the hellhole we have today

Mob Rule, blah blah... If you do not like it, you have the freedom to move. Suck it up, sunshine. At least here you have the ability to critisise, rather than being deemed a heretic and god knows what happening to you for your deviant thoughts.
'People are idiots'. Speak for yourself....

'Degenerate Society' - that has the highest quality medicine, longest life expectancy, most leisure time, highest technological achievements, highest understanding of science, greatest lack of barbarism and most open and accountable justice system that humanity has ever witnessed.
Of course, If you would prefer to move to some other country where women are oppressed, mutilation and murder are state-sponsored public events and comment against the state will lead to your disappearance, you are more than welcome to go. I doubt you can get an internet connection there to tell us how great it is though.

[Captain Blackadder]

wich was largely attributed to the downfalls of Muslim spain and baghdad. but yeah i guess you're right about this one. they sort of remind me of the thread i posted about the fatwa against having sex completely naked.

btw. how come the Ash'aris are the religious nutjobs and the Mu'tazili's are the secularists?

"It is not surprising that opponents of the Mu'tazila often charge the Mu'tazila with the view that humanity does not need revelation, that everything can be known through reason, that there is a conflict between reason and revelation, that they cling to reason and put revelation aside, and even that the Mu'tazila do not believe in revelation. But is it true that the Mu'tazila are of the opinion that everything can be known through reason and therefore that revelation is unnecessary? The writings of the Mu`tazila give exactly the opposite portrait. In their opinion, human reason is not sufficiently powerful to know everything and for this reason humans need revelation in order to reach conclusions concerning what is good and what is bad for them."

so no they weren't secularists

Yes they were they believed that the first obligation on humans, specifically adults in full possession of their mental faculties, is to use their intellectual power to ascertain the existence of God. They were the closest thing to a secular society at the time they were a precursor to our modern trains of thought.

[Mansa musa]

Are you at all implying that drug abuse, prostitution and gambling don't occur in non-secular societies? I hate to inform you, but people are still people. In secular societies they are more likely to get treatment and support rather than mutilation and imprisonment though.

not on such a massive scale. mutilation for alchohol and drug abuse? not likely.

Wikipedia is good. Just shows that dogmatic principles are just as ruthless and abhorrent as any other dictatorship, whether it be by a human or some fantasised deity.

your beliefs are dogma too

Hitler was hardly secular - he wanted to annihilate the Jews. 'World Depopulation Plans' are the fantasies of a twisted mind.

well to be fair he was a pagan and not a secularist.

no there the fanatasies of the elite. top scientists cheering the speaches of Professor Pianka. Henry kissinger. The U.n. you name it there on board

Mob Rule, blah blah... If you do not like it, you have the freedom to move. Suck it up, sunshine. At least here you have the ability to critisise, rather than being deemed a heretic and god knows what happening to you for your deviant thoughts.
'People are idiots'. Speak for yourself....

'Degenerate Society' - that has the highest quality medicine, longest life expectancy, most leisure time, highest technological achievements, highest understanding of science, greatest lack of barbarism and most open and accountable justice system that humanity has ever witnessed.
Of course, If you would prefer to move to some other country where women are oppressed, mutilation and murder are state-sponsored public events and comment against the state will lead to your disappearance, you are more than welcome to go. I doubt you can get an internet connection there to tell us how great it is though

i wasn't talking about a fully religious government with state religion. of course that gets in the way of islam....but what i was trying to say is religious morality governing the actions of the government. there can't possibly anything wrong with that

this same society also has the highest rate of suicide highest rate of alchoholism. highest rate of depression. highest rate of drug addiction. objectifying of women. what justice system? it was legal to kill a black man only 35 years ago. and now someone eats 17 people and only receives a life sentence. what type of justice system is that? a man can have 50 mistresses but it's unlawful to have more than one wife?

Yes they were they believed that the first obligation on humans, specifically adults in full possession of their mental faculties, is to use their intellectual power to ascertain the existence of God. They were the closest thing to a secular society at the time they were a precursor to our modern trains of thought.

i think you missed this part The writings of the Mu`tazila give exactly the opposite portrait. In their opinion, human reason is not sufficiently powerful to know everything and for this reason humans need revelation in order to reach conclusions concerning what is good and what is bad for them."

[Scar Face]

there moral to there ideals of moral. vices such as gambling alchohol drugs prostitution and abortion don't really apply to what the irreligious consider immoral.

The problem with this statement is two fold: There are religious people who break their own morality, the morals set down by their Church, on a daily basis. Likewise, there are people who are not religious who do not have the vices listed above.

1)Totally false. it's the interpretion. it's dogmatic and highly religious to think that if church and state is blurred some discrimination would seep from every single pore of everything

A religion is a statement of truth, knowing God's will and how one should worship to him, and pay respect to him. Clearly there is going to be discrimination coming down from the State, as anyone who does not ascribe to the States Faith is erroneous and at that, heretical.

2)Wich promotes happiness and depression. no sane person wants to live in a cold industrial world where science and "reality" has replaced religion

I'm going to assume you meant to write "which does not promote happiness, but rather depression". Otherwise, the statement makes no sense. Again, there is a few problems with this statement. Science does not have to replace religion, but it, being proven and factual, always takes precedence over religious texts which are taken literally.

Democracy is a MOB RULE. if you think about it it's not a stable system at all. a few tweaks here and there and it can be fascist. control what the people think and you can control what they want.

1) Fascism is not exactly an easy ideology to define, it is usually defined as a centralized state under a Dictator, who suppresses political and idealogical freedoms through terror and violence. Sounds frighteningly similar to the Islamic theocracies of the middle east, no?
2) The text in bold. Again, it sounds frighteningly similar to Islamic theocracies- or any theocracy, actually.

like i said before time and time again free choice on any and everything can lead to bad things. Like with Germany. they freely choice hitler. PEOPLE ARE IDIOTS!

There have been a large variety of rulers just as ruthless and genocidal as Hitler in the past, the vast vast majority of them not elected democratically.

you can't expect people to make the right decisions just because it's a open minded choice or decision.

Of course not. But its a much better system than blindly putting the power into the hands of the Church or a single individual. There are checks and balances in a stable Democracy, the people have at least the theoretical ability to review their leader and make him accountable for his/her actions. Can that be said of the Government types you are proposing? No.

1 million women decide to kill a baby in there stomach every year. bu t it's ok because they have a choice to. sometimes freedom of choice can go to far.

Most abortions would be carried out if it was legal or not, though it is debatable if its morally the right thing to do. Regardless, there are just as many morally bankrupt deeds in Islamic theocracies as there are in any Western style Democracy, hell, there are vastly more in many cases.

especially if you sit by and watch society degenerate into the hellhole we have today

I'm afraid a claim of that magnitude will require some degree of evidence, and an actual argument.

well to be fair he was a pagan and not a secularist.

He was an Atheist...