The advantages/disadvantages of the separation of Church and State

[Mansa musa]

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.

well i already knew that christians don't take things very seriously

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.

oh you mean like the caliphate of cordoba?

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.

what about "reason" taking over religion?

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.

Sounds like the taliban to me. not any "islamic theocracies".

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.

Wasn't Saddam elected also?

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 theoretically 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.

you don't know what government type i'm proposing

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.

really? describe the large and wide list of morally bankrupt deeds in "islamic theocracies" you keep talking about. hanging of rape victims and gays only happen every full moon. try again

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

wow. i can't believe you don't realize how messed up this society is

[Scar Face]

well i already knew that christians don't take things very seriously

This goes for all religons.

oh you mean like the caliphate of cordoba?

Exceptions to every rule.

what about "reason" taking over religion?

What are you talking about?

Sounds like the taliban to me. not any "islamic theocracies".

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/theocracy
Islamic theocracies exist, every state that gives the Church a degree of Authority and influence is a theocracy.

Wasn't Saddam elected also?

Congratulations. You have now about, what, two elected individuals who turned out to be Tyrants? There are more, yes. Democracy has only been around for a short period, and its had its share of poor rulers and eventual Dictators. Just as every other form of Government has, for thousands of years. Try again?

you don't know what government type i'm proposing

So far you are proposing a Government where the separation of Church and state does not exist, therefore giving the Church a degree of authority, therefore a theocracy.

really? describe the large and wide list of morally bankrupt deeds in "islamic theocracies" you keep talking about. hanging of rape victims and gays only happen every full moon. try again

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Human_rights

I could continue, but the point has been made. All of these states use a contorted view of religion to enforce their ideals, the Church in all of these states holds a high degree of authority, and therefore they are all Theocracies.

wow. i can't believe you don't realize how messed up this society is

Do you actually have an argument for this yet?

a man can have 50 mistresses but it's unlawful to have more than one wife?

In most Western countries a marriage gives you certain tax benefits, the ability to pass on money to the person after death, insurance policies, etc. In Western countries Civil unions/marriages are just as much about being economically responsible as they are about being religious, or to show your commitment to that one particular person. To have more than one Wife would, to say the least, skew the entire system.

[Ummagumma]

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

Not on such a scale? Are you so sure? The WHO would like your sources...

your beliefs are dogma too

My only dogmatic belief is that nothing is beyond question. Other than that, anything goes, really - as long as you can formulate a decent, constructive argument for or against something. It's not like my ideas are carved in stone..

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

Pianka? Mims - as you are doing - took him out of context. He was not advocating genocide - he was predicting it. There is a not so subtle difference. I fear you are treading on the icy ground of deluded theorists.

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

Where do you draw the line though? As soon as you have religious legislation, where do you stop? Different people put different values on different doctrines within any religion, so will always shout for their interpretation to become a legal system.. As you full well know there are already too many twisted ideologies and perversions of faith to let any have a direct hand in the state. Instead it should be governed by the people. If the people follow a particular ideal, it will become reinforced through law, but only if it is a majority consensus rather than an autocratic decree.

this same society also has the highest recorded, verifiable rate of suicide highest recorded, verifiable rate of alchoholism. highest recorded, verifiable rate of depression. highest recorded, verifiable rate of drug addiction.

^fixed that for you. It would be good if other societies were so accountable though.

objectifying of women.

If some girl wants to try and please me with her physical appearance then fair play to her. Surely it's better having an open minded society to one that thinks a woman getting in a car with a man she is not married to should be gang raped. But, if you think Zoo magazine is worse than repressed psychos then so be it.

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?

Do you really think you have the armament to start discussing failures in justice systems? You are on thin ground trying to use that as an argument..

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."

Mumbo jumbo.

[Mansa musa]

This goes for all religons.

in your dreams it does

Exceptions to every rule.

and the caliphate of baghdad
and the ottoman caliphate
and the umayyad caliphate
and the rashidun caliphate

What are you talking about?

logic and reason replacing religion. how bout it?

Congratulations. You have now about, what, two elected individuals who turned out to be Tyrants? There are more, yes. Democracy has only been around for a short period, and its had its share of poor rulers and eventual Dictators. Just as every other form of Government has, for thousands of years. Try again?

oh yeah. Mugabe was also elected. so was George bush senior and George Bush jr. i didn't say anything about giving a church authority. Mosque yes. church no

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egypt#Human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libya#Human_rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#Human_rights

I could continue, but the point has been made. All of these states use a contorted view of religion to enforce their ideals, the Church in all of these states holds a high degree of authority, and therefore they are all Theocracies.

egypt is a secular state and so is libya. Monarchies constitute jahiliya not islamic governance. besides that point saudi arabia is much less crime and violence free than other countries. the muslim world is actually very crime free. an interesting fact for instance is that khartoum is the most peacefull non violent city in africa

Do you actually have an argument for this yet?

um let's see rape. pornography. women depicted as sexual objects. pedastery. sex before marriage. children being born out of wetlock. depression. Anger problems. severe anger problems. armed robberies. gang banging. drug dealing. drug wars. drug addiction. alchoholism. greed jealousy divorce through the roof. adultery through the roof. homosexuality lesbianism. abortions. large amounts of petty theft. imperialism. racism. large amounts of xenophobia. serial killings. suicide. drunk driving. lung cancer. corrupt police. organized crime. interest banking and many many more.

In most Western countries a marriage gives you certain tax benefits, the ability to pass on money to the person after death, insurance policies, etc. In Western countries Civil unions/marriages are just as much about being economically responsible as they are about being religious, or to show your commitment to that one particular person. To have more than one Wife would, to say the least, skew the entire system.

you're missing the point. it's not unlawful to have 50 mistresses but you're supposed to show a committment to one person?

[Mansa musa]

My only dogmatic belief is that nothing is beyond question. Other than that, anything goes, really - as long as you can formulate a decent, constructive argument for or against something. It's not like my ideas are carved in stone..

i am i'm doing so right now. if you can prove that i'm wrong you're obliged to go ahead and maybe i'll admit that i am

Pianka? Mims - as you are doing - took him out of context. He was not advocating genocide - he was predicting it. There is a not so subtle difference. I fear you are treading on the icy ground of deluded theorists.

yeah he's not advocatin genocide just humanocide. i don't know how you can take we're going to wipe out 90% as taking him out of context. or the notion of airborne ebola. or killling everybody. or his satanic laughs and the wierd eirry jeering and enjoyment coming from the crowd.he also said that "he only speaks to converts" whatever the hell that means wink wink

Where do you draw the line though? As soon as you have religious legislation, where do you stop? Different people put different values on different doctrines within any religion, so will always shout for their interpretation to become a legal system.. As you full well know there are already too many twisted ideologies and perversions of faith to let any have a direct hand in the state. Instead it should be governed by the people. If the people follow a particular ideal, it will become reinforced through law, but only if it is a majority consensus rather than an autocratic decree.

you draw the line at ethical actions of the government. nothing more. for the west at least

If some girl wants to try and please me with her physical appearance then fair play to her. Surely it's better having an open minded society to one that thinks a woman getting in a car with a man she is not married to should be gang raped. But, if you think Zoo magazine is worse than repressed psychos then so be it.

tell that to feminists

Do you really think you have the armament to start discussing failures in justice systems? You are on thin ground trying to use that as an argument..

i don't think i am. eat 17 people and get life imprisonment. what the hell?

Mumbo jumbo.

the very problems of western society proves that it's not just mumbo jumbo. this is what happens when you set your own rules of morality

[Scorch]

in your dreams it does

Of course it does. If a state's government openly bases its laws off any religion, it means that human rights abuse and generally tyrannical rule is usually not far behind.

oh yeah. Mugabe was also elected. so was George bush senior and George Bush jr. i didn't say anything about giving a church authority. Mosque yes. church no

So? Take the amount of cruel and oppressive dictators generated by democratic rule and multiply it by fifty, and you have a conservative estimate of how many cruel and oppressive dictators have gained power in a non-democratically ruled country.

egypt is a secular state and so is libya. Monarchies constitute jahiliya not islamic governance. besides that point saudi arabia is much less crime and violence free than other countries. the muslim world is actually very crime free. an interesting fact for instance is that khartoum is the most peacefull non violent city in africa

As long as they base their laws off the religious book of one religion, make it illegal to be anything other than that religion, openly discriminate against other religions, suppress other views and break basic human rights in the name of that religion, you have no business calling them secular states.

um let's see rape. pornography. women depicted as sexual objects. pedastery. sex before marriage. children being born out of wetlock. depression. Anger problems. severe anger problems. armed robberies. gang banging. drug dealing. drug wars. drug addiction. alchoholism. greed jealousy divorce through the roof. adultery through the roof. homosexuality lesbianism. abortions. large amounts of petty theft. imperialism. racism. large amounts of xenophobia. serial killings. suicide. drunk driving. lung cancer. corrupt police. organized crime. interest banking and many many more.

And guess what? That's universal. Muslim countries have that too, sorry.

But obviously, I'm arguing with someone who blames secularism for the emergence of lung cancer, so ...

you're missing the point. it's not unlawful to have 50 mistresses but you're supposed to show a committment to one person?

The state refuses to shove religious beliefs down the throats of its citizens and allows people to do as they please and believe what they please, as long as it doesn't harm other people.

Repeat after me: this is not a bad thing.

[Mansa musa]

Of course it does. If a state's government openly bases its laws off any religion, it means that human rights abuse and generally tyrannical rule is usually not far behind.

...beccause religion is an evil scourge on humanity right?

So? Take the amount of cruel and oppressive dictators generated by democratic rule and multiply it by fifty, and you have a conservative estimate of how many cruel and oppressive dictators have gained power in a non-democratically ruled country.

what? i'm not saying that the people shouldn't choose the leaders. what i'm saying is that people are idiots and will vote for anything. take tony blair for example. or more recently. George W. bush re-elected 2 times when he's not even capable of taking care of an egg.

As long as they base their laws off the religious book of one religion, make it illegal to be anything other than that religion, openly discriminate against other religions, suppress other views and break basic human rights in the name of that religion, you have no business calling them secular states.

great. i'm not for a secular state. neither am i for any of the things you've suggested. neither are the majority of islamists today

And guess what? That's universal. Muslim countries have that too, sorry.

But obviously, I'm arguing with someone who blames secularism for the emergence of lung cancer, so ...

no it is not. stop lying to yourself. the only muslim countries that have these things are those that are secularized.

lung cancer. cigarettes...stench of capitalism.

The state refuses to shove religious beliefs down the throats of its citizens and allows people to do as they please and believe what they please, as long as it doesn't harm other people.

Repeat after me: this is not a bad thing.

so having 50 mistresses doesn't harm the wife at all?

[Scorch]

...beccause religion is an evil scourge on humanity right?

I'm Christian, actually.

great. i'm not for a secular state. neither am i for any of the things you've suggested. neither are the majority of islamists today

I don't think from your sheltered life in the US you have any business speaking for the majority of "Islamists" today.

no it is not. stop lying to yourself. the only muslim countries that have these things are those that are secularized.

Says you. Interesting.

lung cancer. cigarettes...stench of capitalism.

So no one in Muslim countries smokes? In fact, due to the scientific advances allowed by secularist government policies and legislations, we are reducing deaths from lung cancer and encouraging people not to smoke.

so having 50 mistresses doesn't harm the wife at all?

You make it sound as if every married person in any western nation commits adultery at an almost incredible rate. Killing people for what is ultimately a choice the government should not intervene in is completely stupid. Even you should realise that.

[Mansa musa]

I don't think from your sheltered life in the US you have any business speaking for the majority of "Islamists" today.

i'm not speaking for anybody.

Says you. Interesting.

ok. saudi arabia has drugs crime and a very large amount of rape.

So no one in Muslim countries smokes? In fact, due to the scientific advances allowed by secularist government policies and legislations, we are reducing deaths from lung cancer and encouraging people not to smoke.

secularist government policies allow scientific advances?

You make it sound as if every married person in any western nation commits adultery at an almost incredible rate. Killing people for what is ultimately a choice the government should not intervene in is completely stupid. Even you should realise that.

it IS at an incredible rate. i didn't say anything about killing people. killing people is also ultimitately a choice. and since you can't kill people for a choice...

[Scorch]

secularist government policies allow scientific advances?

Yes, because open-mindedness, tolerance and intellectual advances are, in the end, promoted by secularist governments much more than the theocracies that exist today, or indeed, the theocracies that have existed in the past.

it IS at an incredible rate. i didn't say anything about killing people. killing people is also ultimitately a choice. and since you can't kill people for a choice...

No, it's not. I'd ask you to provide reliable figures, but I know you're either BS them, refuse or ignore me.

So by extension, if you can't kill people for what is ultimately their choice, why should you be able to punish them either? The government should not be involved in personal relationships. So basically, punishing people for their own personal relationship-related choices is stupid, yet you constantly blame secularism for increasing rates of adultery (which you have pulled out of your ass, I believe) even thought you admit punishing people for adultery, a personal choice regarding their personal relationships, is stupid.

[removeduser_487563287433]

The more secular the government and people the more scientific advancement flourishes. For example stem cell research - it's not happening in the US largely because of religious objection - it's happening in the UK, so we will get the breakthroughs.

[Captain Blackadder]

Mansa Musa

You talk of how Western Society leads to immorality yet that is not true. Theocracies have the exact same problem for you see by banning many of these things that are deemed immoral that it leads to people doing it anyway as a recent article that made the round around here indicated.

Here is a list of common search terms in a country by country basis

"Egypt is currently #1 for “fat sex.”
Pakistan, Morocco, and Egypt are at the top of the list when it comes to “animal sex.”
For “children sex,” Pakistan is at #1, Egypt #2 and Iran #3. The most common languages used to conduct the search in are Arabic and Turkish.
For “sexy children,” these results are probably the most disturbing. Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
For “sexy child,” Pakistan is #1, followed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and . Common languages are Persian, Arabic, and
For “rape,” Pakistan is at 1.
For “bird sex,” Egypt is at 1. (Come ON!)
For “ass sex,” Saudi Arabia comes first, followed directly by Egypt and Morocco. Most common language is Arabic.


So please don't talk about how Western Society and secularism leads to immorality.

[Richard]

Regarding aborted foetuses (foetii?) I don't see the harm in using them for stem cells. It's not like they're being killed FOR their stem cells. They're just going to end up in a Chinese landfill otherwise.

Mansa Musa

You talk of how Western Society leads to immorality yet that is not true. Theocracies have the exact same problem for you see by banning many of these things that are deemed immoral that it leads to people doing it anyway as a recent article that made the round around here indicated.

Here is a list of common search terms in a country by country basis

"Egypt is currently #1 for “fat sex.”
Pakistan, Morocco, and Egypt are at the top of the list when it comes to “animal sex.”
For “children sex,” Pakistan is at #1, Egypt #2 and Iran #3. The most common languages used to conduct the search in are Arabic and Turkish.
For “sexy children,” these results are probably the most disturbing. Pakistan, Syria, Iran, Egypt, Saudi Arabia
For “sexy child,” Pakistan is #1, followed by Iran, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and . Common languages are Persian, Arabic, and
For “rape,” Pakistan is at 1.
For “bird sex,” Egypt is at 1. (Come ON!)
For “ass sex,” Saudi Arabia comes first, followed directly by Egypt and Morocco. Most common language is Arabic.


So please don't talk about how Western Society and secularism leads to immorality.

I'm pretty sure those stats aren't reliable. I remember the thread about it and they were from some outfit I'd never even heard of.

[Tankbuster]

I'm pretty sure those stats aren't reliable. I remember the thread about it and they were from some outfit I'd never even heard of.

Those surveys have been done over and over again, by different search engines (the one Captain Blackadder posted was from yahoo). The results are the same.

To quote you:

stop lying to yourself. the only muslim countries that have these things are those that are secularized.

[Legionem Insanis]

Separation of powers is key to preventing totalitarian abuses: Separation of legislature, electorate and judicial systems; separation of church and state; separation of the marketplace from central planning, etc.

I would argue that communism and fascism, although non-theistic, functioned as religions with their own sets of beliefs and dogmas that everyone was expected to buy into. In these one party states they had a monopoly on thought just like in any theocracy.

As for morality, just what is so moral about decisions made by clerical elites making interpretations of ancient writings? It sounds like a prescription for oppression and abuse of power. I would argue that the West with its tradition of civil rights is far more moral than any Islamic state. Persecuting people for victim-less crimes is NOT morality. Respecting peoples civil rights, to me, is the very definition of morality.

Secularism is key to the survival of the human race. I think most Westerners look at the Islamic world with its sectarian violence and think that it is where the Christian world was several hundred years ago.

[Sleeper]

For me it all comes down to this:

As a person of faith I know my faith is not founded in reason.
As a person of intellect I want my government to be.

Or, if one prefers, speak to a student of religious history for more than ten minutes.

[Scorch]

The sub-thread about Stem Cell Research have been split to this thread and several other off-topic posts have been deleted.

[Chaigidel]

there is no benefit to having religion mixed with governance-- they must remain eternally seperate.

[klops]

there is no benefit to having religion mixed with governance-- they must remain eternally seperate.

Is there a country where they truly are separated?

[Sleeper]

The more secular the government and people the more scientific advancement flourishes. For example stem cell research - it's not happening in the US largely because of religious objection - it's happening in the UK, so we will get the breakthroughs.

That is a rather simplistic belief. The UK, to use your example, made some of the most significant breakthroughs in history because of the religious fervor of the Protestant Reformation. The Enlightenment was born in the centers of Papal power. India, a very religious country, produces many of the best scientists and doctors in the world today. And the US has been and remains the center for medical and pharmaceutical research in the world. Stem cell research is a small issue, and just recently, it was US researchers who developed a process to make stem cells without using fetuses.

Is there a country where they truly are separated?

No. One could claim China (or any communist country in theory), although it is likely that many in power there keep their religion private enough. Think of the US Republican Party. They know they have homosexual members in Congress, but as long as they don't get caught or mouth off, it isn't a big deal.