Separation Between Church and State?

[mongoose]

Interesting note: first used by Thomas Jefferson, not some "pinko commie".

Me, I've always supported this. What are your thoughts on this? I've always imagined that it would be a given in a non-medevial society, and an important part of freedom: the chruch should not be able to make laws, and should not be exempt from any laws.

School prayer doesn't bother me, as long as it's just something that the kids are doing during recess, and not an organized activity sponserd by the school.

What I find funny is that despite the fact that this is part of the constitution(not those same words, but it's in there, and Thomas Jefferso stated afterwards that it was the intent), some state in the U.S still have have the 10 commandments, and various other establishments of religion inside of the court rooms and inside schools. Though I think it's clearly wrong, I still don't see why some people get quite so worked about the 10 commandments in the court rooms. The school prayer thing bothers me though.

[Last Roman]

support it 110%

[Removed_user_012521]

I support a seperation between Church & State. The sole readon being that if one religion took power then it could persute other relgions and people, I would not want that to happen.

It is entirely different when people cry "bloody murdure the Huns are invading!!!" when a cop mentions God in school (I remember that a Cop was at a Public School and mentioned God "I prayed to God" and got in trouble for it) or the kids get an idea to put a Christmass tree inside there class.

[Last Roman]

It is entirely different when people cry "bloody murdure the Huns are invading!!!" when a cop mentions God in school (I remember that a Cop was at a Public School and mentioned God "I prayed to God" and got in trouble for it) or the kids get an idea to put a Christmass tree inside there class.

well that is what happens when PC takes over

[Farnan]

Actually Thomas Jefferson's opinion means absolutely nothing in relation to the Constitution, because he wasn't at the Convention and took no part in writing it. He was actually anti-Constitution.

That out of the way, I do believe in a seperation of Religion and State...

[Darth Wong]

Actually Thomas Jefferson's opinion means absolutely nothing in relation to the Constitution, because he wasn't at the Convention and took no part in writing it. He was actually anti-Constitution.

Irrelevant since separation of church and state was not in the original constitution, nor were any other human rights. The total absence of human rights in the Constitution was the reason Jefferson pushed for the Bill of Rights, and eventually the First Amendment. And guess where we find the establishment clause? In the First Amendment. So Jefferson's opinions are VERY relevant.
------

My public school, which is 99% Christian, every Easter and Christmas reads the poem "One Solitary Life" and people mention God, yet the 1% Non-Christian is not discriminated against, nor is there any attack against them and they can practice their non-religion (the Non-Christians are Agnostics and Atheists). This statement is to show that attacks against all religious speaking doesn't happen everywhere...

And yet, if someone stood up at this same ceremony and read a poem dedicated to Satan, the Christians would all be horrendously offended, wouldn't they?

Double post merged. Please use the edit button. - imb39

[Farnan]

My public school, which is 99% Christian, every Easter and Christmas reads the poem "One Solitary Life" and people mention God, yet the 1% Non-Christian is not discriminated against, nor is there any attack against them and they can practice their non-religion (the Non-Christians are Agnostics and Atheists). This statement is to show that attacks against all religious speaking doesn't happen everywhere...

[Removed_user_012521]

My public school, which is 99% Christian, every Easter and Christmas reads the poem "One Solitary Life" and people mention God, yet the 1% Non-Christian is not discriminated against, nor is there any attack against them and they can practice their non-religion (the Non-Christians are Agnostics and Atheists). This statement is to show that attacks against all religious speaking doesn't happen everywhere...

All it takes is one parent who whant theyre 15 minutes of fame to change that.

[Removed_user_012521]

And yet, if someone stood up at this same ceremony and read a poem dedicated to Satan, the Christians would all be horrendously offended, wouldn't they?

Yes because Saten is evil. Don't turn this into a thing about offending Satanist. Its one thing to talk about a religion that encourages peace and good will, quite another to encourage Satanism.

[Darth Wong]

Yes because Saten is evil.

That's hilarious. You don't realize that I could just as easily say God is evil? He kills millions of babies in the Old Testament. That is horrendously evil according to my ethical code, so by your own logic, I have every right to get angry and offended if someone says "God" in the school.

Don't turn this into a thing about offending Satanist. Its one thing to talk about a religion that encourages peace and good will, quite another to encourage Satanism.

In short, your position on church/state separation is that the rules of church/state separation should be different for your particular beliefs because your beliefs are real.

I can easily make a case for Satan being the misunderstood hero of the Bible, fighting for freedom against the ruthless dictatorial control of a megalomaniacal, pathologically narcisisstic genocidal psychopath named Jehovah.

[David Deas]

Isn't God evil?

In eastern religion God is both good and evil, representing the apparent and thought to be necessary balance between the two.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, the Hebrew God was supposed to be interpreted in a very similar manner, but lost that context throughout the accumulated years of western religious mistranslations of the scripture.

[Ahiga]

Isn't God evil?

In eastern religion God is both good and evil, representing the apparent and thought to be necessary balance between the two.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, the Hebrew God was supposed to be interpreted in a very similar manner, but lost that context throughout the accumulated years of western religious mistranslations of the scripture.

Which religion in particular?

Ahura Mazda of Zorasterism is the embodiment of pure goodness, though you may be right if you mean the almight deity Bramha (I mispelled that, I am afraid) in Hinduism, as the gods which derivate from him are both good and evil.

I wholeheardly agree with the separation. By his religion, I feel Bush has had his faith interfere with his duty, and find this to be far more an issue than displaying the 10 commandments.

Kind of like an Islamic Government where the Koran quotes might be displayed artistically in the gallery of a Government Building, and the Islamic government which desides to force women to wear full covering, because the President of it lifted such a ruling from that holy book which came out after the Koran (I forget whats it called, its been mentioned here a lot). Disagree with the analogy? While his ruling on Stem cell research (Which I loathe the opposition of) was not based entirely in faith. But his views on Gay marriage? Firmly rooted in Religious belief. Forcing women to wear veils might be a bit drastic compared to his refusal to accept Gay Marriage, but it's both based on religion, both discriminating a group of society.


I feel that if a figure cannot separate his religious beliefs when dealing with an issue that will effect more than just practitioners of that faith, he should not have been placed in office, or should not have the power to commit acts within that influence. I believe a quote of Kennedy's was well phrased in speaking that he was a president who happened to be catholic, not a catholic president (Though that was likely just to deal with any discrimination he might have incurred for being catholic). It is obviously very difficult for someone who is highly religious to deal with something which persists to his religion. Thats why he should just step back and let Congress decide it, instead of abusing his power and projecting those religious beliefs upon the masses. If congress passed a bill demanding you must eat meat on friday (This is highly humerous, but its the point Im trying to make, not the example.), which according to the less gentile versions of Catholicism, is sinful, right?

Our president at the time is Catholic. He veto's the law not because it's highly illogical or illegal to demand such a thing from citizens, but because his religion demands you do not eat meat on friday. Is that a good action as a catholic, and a bad action as a president? I'd think so. Better for him to have stood back, let Congress pass it, and known that Catholics would refraim from eating meat on friday, no matter the conseqeunses.

So in short, while I wish for the separation of church and state to exist in public schools, government, and so forth, I am not really objective in the Fundementalist Leftist style, towards displaying religious objects or subjects, so long as it does not appear to come from the authority, or truly does.

As they have the right to show off such holy things, I have the right to critise such things...well, I do not, I believe, because I would incur wrath of being..whatever the PC term is for being against someones religion. It's like...I'm not going to demand a church to put a bag over their Cross because I might be offended..that's just whiney.

[Darth Wong]

Isn't God evil?

In eastern religion God is both good and evil, representing the apparent and thought to be necessary balance between the two.

If I'm not terribly mistaken, the Hebrew God was supposed to be interpreted in a very similar manner, but lost that context throughout the accumulated years of western religious mistranslations of the scripture.

Be that as it may, the idea that it's OK to show religious symbols in school but not if Christianity considers them "evil" is so preposterously and obviously unfair and in violation of the Establishment clause that it can't be taken seriously.

[Turbo]

The problem i see with separating the Church from the state is that Secularism takes over and the children become indoctrinated with it and are taught to accept and tolerate a wide variety of sin, perversion, and lies under the guise of "political correctness". Keeping a child on the plan of life can be difficullt.

As Christians we must recognize that the state public school system is hopeless lost, at least for now. Using a community home learning circle is good and carefully selecting higher education that provides for spiritual direction with corporate apostolate is critical in the work of God.

[Lusted]

Turbo, whilst i understand where you are coming as according to your religion being taught in a secular school/living in a secular society instead of a christian one will lead more people down the road of sin/eternal damnation, i must disagree with you.

I myself am an atheist, and wouldn't want my kids when i have them to go to a school, that indoctrinates them in a religion. I want them to grow up free from religion so that when they are old enough they can decided from themselves what religion they want to follow, if they want to follow one. I feel that religion is a personal choice, and there is no right or wrong onemyself, but many people here will disagree with me. Making people learn about only one religion can only lead to intolerance of other ones and cause hatred towards them.

[Turbo]

Turbo, whilst i understand where you are coming as according to your religion being taught in a secular school/living in a secular society instead of a christian one will lead more people down the road of sin/eternal damnation, i must disagree with you.

I myself am an atheist, and wouldn't want my kids when i have them to go to a school, that indoctrinates them in a religion. I want them to grow up free from religion so that when they are old enough they can decided from themselves what religion they want to follow, if they want to follow one. I feel that religion is a personal choice, and there is no right or wrong onemyself, but many people here will disagree with me. Making people learn about only one religion can only lead to intolerance of other ones and cause hatred towards them.

Lusted -

You find the public school system acceptable because it mirrors your thinking. What if you were a Christian and see the importance of safeguarding a child's faith, their soul, and their ultimate salvation? How are children being given 'free choices' when political correctness is forced on them?

Children are not allowed midday devotions in the public school system, they are taught to read forbidden books despite the efforts of parents, and taught to venerate a faithless secular system that treats all religions as intellectual studies and not a plan of life. Don't you consider that this actually interferes with my child's right of worship not to mention the rights of the parents? What gives the state school system the right to tell my child what to think and believe?

[Lusted]

And what right do you have to tell youchildren what to think and believe? Are you giving your children the right to explore different ideas from your own, are they being indoctrinated by you in your religion without the chance to explore other possibilities?

This is pretty pointless as we are bound to disagree with one anoither. I feel religion should be kept seperate form the education system, apart from teaching general information on religions. You feel that children should be bought up as christian from day one. I feel we should agree to disagree, and i hope i have not offended you in the wayi have worded myself.

[Veresov]

And what right do you have to tell youchildren what to think and believe? Are you giving your children the right to explore different ideas from your own, are they being indoctrinated by you in your religion without the chance to explore other possibilities?

This is pretty pointless as we are bound to disagree with one anoither. I feel religion should be kept seperate form the education system, apart from teaching general information on religions. You feel that children should be bought up as christian from day one. I feel we should agree to disagree, and i hope i have not offended you in the wayi have worded myself.

Isn't it the duty of parents to teach their kids what to think and believe? I would trust the parents and their love for their kids before I would trust a government agency. The vast majority of parents want is best for their kids. Parents want to create the best environment possible for kids in an environment without drugs and perverts in a caring environment where their kids are with other normal children as their peers. Helping guide these kids on their path of life are people who are committed towards their spiritual vocation. Why wouldn't you want your kids to be taught the virtues of honesty, integrity, and commitment towards the work of God?

What about your "In your Face" manner of attacking Religion and reiligous beliefs on this forum?

It seems I am not the only one who has picked up on this personality trait that Darth has.

[Sidmen]

Wow, I read all of that...

Few notes:
1. I find christians very 'in your face' even when I am one of them.

2. If you want your child to grow up in a christian enviroment, either teach em yourself or send them to a religious school. (they exist, I went to one for grades K-2)

3. You can pray in school, just not on school time durring class. And not out loud inviting someone to be offended. I sit by a kid that says grace every lunch and sometimes I join him, but thats the way it should be. "If you want to do it, seek him out, not ask everyone else to do it with you.

4. When was the last time you guys have been in school? Athiests are plainly ignored and treated as everyone else, because they act like everyone else. If you start telling people that they are wrong your gonna get sued or hit.

5. Christianity isn't the only religion out there, and if we would like to respect anyone, we need to respect everyone. To be fair, Courts and government buildings should be allowed to hang any kind of document they want. As long as they don't judge someone because they are a muslim, or athiest, or gerogian they break no laws.

6. If you are offended by a cross, a crusifix<sp?>, an upside down cross(sign of the devil?), a crecent moon, or anything else. So what? Have a good day, your going to be offended by somthing and if you pick religion you're dumb, and we don't reward dumb people.

[mischief]

speaking as an outsider, the idea that America has a seperation of church and state is pretty wierd, to be honest. I know it's in the constitution, but lets not

when GHW Bush says he doesn't consider atheists citizens, when no president can be elected without talking about faith, when the pledge is 'one nation under God'...

*shrug* just sayin'...