A theory on the Church/State question.

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

jtexas wrote.<br /><br />

I disagree; a society will decide what is proper. Atheistic communist regimes have laws. Cannabalistic heathen tribes have codes of conduct, whether or not codified as "laws." We have a lot of laws that are completely unrelated to religion. Laws exist to aid society; surely you don't think that no one would have figured out that murder is bad for society if God hadn't put it in the 10 commandments. How did we decide to impose speed limits?<br />

Speed limits are based on "reasobale" limitations of the roads that are traveled. Nevermind we have MORON drivers out there.<br /><br />The Ten Commandments pretty much cover it all. But, one needs a sense of "Common Sense" to interpret them. Common sense is not-common.<br /><br />As said previously, we no longer have a common sense based justice system, we have a LEGAL system. All based on past cases, good or bad, doesn't matter. Only the precidence does. Very dangerous, IMHO.

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Yes, what Pony said. I even left an example that religion was not part of No-Smoking laws, add speed limits if you like.<br /><br />Pony is dead on though, how can you agree that right and wrong definitions come from religion and then dissagree that laws do? <br /><br />I would suggest that even "Cannabalistic heathen tribes" based there laws on some type of religion. Yes, they got it wrong, but that's the point too. Here is a group that decided eating people was a good thing. Who in this day of no condemnation is gonna stand up and say they were/are wrong? PETA has openly stated that there is no difference between Hitler gassing 6M Jews and Tyson slaughtering 6M chickens. With that thinking then eating 6M Jews is no different than eating 6M chickens. Maybe they're right. Nobody has a right to challenge their position, right? Who am I to believe that Chickens are less important and less valuable than Humans? Who decided that? Guys writing laws? What if PETA was writing the laws?

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by JB:<br />Isn't that what the quarrel is about? Refining interpretation?

Indeed.<br /><br />The Constitution itself, although the basic foundation on which our goverment is set and our society is run, is actually only a basic guideline. Nothing more.<br /><br />Interpretation is required. And often, that interpretation can change.<br /><br />For example, the Constitution lays the foundation for the Judicial Branch as:<br /><br />

The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

This is a very simple outline, a far cry from District Courts, Appelate Courts, different circuits and levels. This simple description falls very short of our complex Judicial System. Interpretation is REQUIRED. If we tried to set a judicial system based solely in the literal wording of the Constitution, it would never stand.<br /><br />The separation of church/state is much the same. The Constitution lays the basic groundwork that the State shall make no law, but We the People, as a society, have decided to interpret it to mean a complete separation.

 

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JB wrote:<br /><br />

I don't think I can say that about the Nazi. I know Germans to be a pretty religious people,

That is funny. The Germans are probably the most secular society, on the planet.<br /><br />Again, JB, who mentioned "religion" over faith. Two completely different belief systems. <br /><br />Anyone can fall to what society calls a "religion", whether it be total dedication to an Emperor, like Japan, or following a political leader, like Hitler. We're, USA, falling into the latter. We view politics and environmnetalism as the new religion. Those two have unlimited/unchecked power.<br /><br />Those are NOT to be confused with FAITH. And, I mean faith in my Savior-Jesus Christ.<br /><br />Call me faithfull, but DO NOT call me religious. I take great offense at that.<br /><br />I do not belong to socalled "old time religions": those being, Catholic, Lutheran, Baptist, etc. Those "religions" were developed, by men, to control society, beside the governments, which had lost much control.<br /><br />The Constitution, provides me the privelge to display, worship and believe, as I please. Unfortuneately, I am a Christian.<br /><br />All "religions", sects, etc. are OK, as long as they are not Christianity. The blind can see that. If people choose to ignore it, that is their choice. It doesn't make it right. It's segregation, at a new time.<br /><br />The socalled "non religious" can offend me, all they want. And that's OK????<br /><br />I guess so.

 

[Pony]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Hey DJ....that was me quoting jtexas

 

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Pony,<br /><br />So sorry. My misread. It has been duly changed.<br /><br />Thanks for the correction.

 

[kenimpzoom]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by DJ:<br />

Also, if there is a constitutional amendment that banishes all relgious references from the governement, I will abide by it.<br />

I won't, because it's based on bogus information.<br /><br />The terms: "seperation of church and state" appear NOWHERE in the constitution.<br /><br />This whole falicy is based on an obscure letter.

What I meant was, if there was a NEW constitutional amendment passed.<br /><br />I agree, there is no way the first amendment can be interpreted to mean seperation of church and state.<br /><br />Ken

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

pony85 wrote:<br />jtexas, how is this possible. you agree that without religion there is no definition of right and wrong, but then also say that society can deem what is appropriate behavior without religion.......those two ideas counter each other don't they. <br />

Yes there are laws that arent necessarily religiously based...

One might say, "yes there are laws based on religion, but...." <br /><br />Any society (literally an association of like-minded individuals) will determine what is and isn't acceptable behavior, and punish or excile the offenders. They can do this without any reference to religion or religious principles. Behavior is acceptable because the group accepts it. (Maybe this is what makes "right and wrong"; if so, I have to retract that last bit you quoted.)<br /><br />I think you could have a successful civilization whose laws are totally based on "the good of the society," with no thought to religion whatsoever. Of course they would have a lot of the same laws as a religious society, since religion (most of 'em) favor treating people well.<br /><br />Is murder illegal because it is wrong, or because it's bad for society? Is it wrong because it's bad for society, or because the Ten Commandments prohibit it?<br /><br />I think "right and wrong" as in "morality and immorality" are a religious concept. In my theoretical society, you could have law-abiding citizens that don't distinguish between right and wrong. Instead of asking themselves, "WWJD" they ask, "is it legal?"<br /><br />Right doesn't equal legal, nor does illegal equal wrong. <br /><br />I can't really argue that point vigorously, pony85, but that's my reasoning (such as it is). Probably just semantics.<br /><br />"We hold these truths to be self-evident...."

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by JB:<br />I see all that as irrelevant to the real question, though. It is not about whose truth is the true truth (if any), it is about whether our Constitution allows the government to pay deference to one set of truths to the exclusion of all others.

It may seem that my posts are off topic JB, but don't you have to pick one set? Isn't acknowledging that there is a set of rules (truths) and acknowledging their origin OK? Yes, they can be modified to address changes that are needed, but does that require removing any references to religion? There are an awful lot of people that are not Judeo-Christian who come here to avoid religious persecution . . . Seems like the rules are true enough for them.<br /><br />I am not promoting religion. Only throwing out for discussion that a complete separation is impossible if the rules are religious based. Which, frankly, they are.

 

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

jtexas wrote:<br /><br />

I think you could have a successful civilization whose laws are totally based on "the good of the society," with no thought to religion whatsoever. Of course they would have a lot of the same laws as a religious society, since religion (most of 'em) favor treating people well.<br />

The Germans thought that executing Jews was "good for society". And the list goes on. Be it noted that Christianity was banished from the German society with SEVERE punishment threat. If that's what you think. God help us. My fate is at your WHIM.<br /><br />Will you pull the trigger?<br /><br />Human nature is to pick and choose, based on personal beliefs and the situation at hand.<br /><br />That doesn't make it right or beneficial to society.<br /><br />I have NO faith in "society" coming up with the right answers.<br /><br />That is one of the reasons that the US has a Representative Republic, form of goverrnment. NOT a democracy.

 

[Pony]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

posted by jtexas:<br />

One might say, "yes there are laws based on religion, but...." <br /><br />Any society (literally an association of like-minded individuals) will determine what is and isn't acceptable behavior, and punish or excile the offenders. They can do this without any reference to religion or religious principles. Behavior is acceptable because the group accepts it. (Maybe this is what makes "right and wrong"; if so, I have to retract that last bit you quoted.)<br />

jtexas- Personally I feel that a group accepts a behavior as acceptable based on moral principles that are derived from some sort of religion whatever that may be. I personally believe religion is how we determine right vs wrong etc, and thus most moraly based laws are somehow rooted in religion in some way.....likewise I would ask how do we deem what is legal? If we say its what is best for society, then I have to think morals play a role<br /><br />This is just a question to anyone, cuz i can't think of any....Is there a society that doesn't have its laws/behavioral code rooted in religion? Is there a true atheist society?

 

[wilkin250r]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Quietcat:<br /> It may seem that my posts are off topic JB, but don't you have to pick one set? ... <br /><br />...<br /><br />I am not promoting religion. Only throwing out for discussion that a complete separation is impossible if the rules are religious based. Which, frankly, they are.

How can you possibly pick one set, but then expect them to apply to ALL people, even those that don't believe in that set of truths?<br /><br />While nobody can change the origin of rules and laws, we CAN change their basis. Laws are not based on morality and religion, but rather on personal freedoms not to be infringed upon.<br /><br />Even if the original origin of laws against murder are based on The 10 Commandments, that does not mean they still based on that today. They are based on the principle that all people have the right to life, and it is illegal to infringe upon that right. (except for due-process and the death penalty).<br /><br />In a society with laws that apply to people of ALL faiths and religions, can your really pick just one religion to govern all? Especially in a society that values religious freedoms? <br /><br />It seems to me the only choice would be NO religion. (not to be confused with atheism)

 

[Pony]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

"Even if the original origin of laws against murder are based on The 10 Commandments, that does not mean they still based on that today. They are based on the principle that all people have the right to life, and it is illegal to infringe upon that right. "<br /><br />So where does that principle come from then?? not refuting your point as of yet, just asking

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by DJ:<br /> jtexas wrote:<br /><br />

I think you could have a successful civilization whose laws are totally based on "the good of the society," with no thought to religion whatsoever. Of course they would have a lot of the same laws as a religious society, since religion (most of 'em) favor treating people well.<br />

The Germans thought that executing Jews was "good for society". And the list goes on. Be it noted that Christianity was banished from the German society with SEVERE punishment threat. If that's what you think. God help us. My fate is at your WHIM.<br /><br />I have NO faith in "society" coming up with the right answers.<br /><br />That is one of the reasons that the US has a Representative Republic, form of goverrnment. NOT a democracy.

I didn't say it would be good, just possibly successful. How successful was the Nazi regime? Note their form of government "homicidal dictator" is quite different from ours. And they turned out to be wrong about how "good for society" their ideas were.<br /><br />Our society's choice of representational republic as our form of government is completely unrelated to religion. I don't think this kind of government appears anywhere in the bible. Our representatives are members of society; if the laws they make reflect their religious beliefs, so be it.

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by wilkin250r:<br /> They are based on the principle that all people have the right to life, and it is illegal to infringe upon that right. (except for due-process and the death penalty).<br />

Why?<br /><br />

Originally posted by wilkin250r:<br /> In a society with laws that apply to people of ALL faiths and religions, can your really pick just one religion to govern all?

Who picked one religion? I continue to lobby only for a recognition of the historical origin of our laws; I am not sure why that needs to be continually watered down. The US is a culture who's principles and laws came from the Judeo-Christian bibles. Why does that fact have to be eliminated? Who is it hurting? Those that it protects?

 

[mattttt25]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

"This is just a question to anyone, cuz i can't think of any....Is there a society that doesn't have its laws/behavioral code rooted in religion? Is there a true atheist society?"<br /><br />very much doubt it. i think you need to define religion and look at it's history to answer the question. i usually get slammed for my thinking, but it seems so clear to me. religion is man made. from everything i've read, it formed from fear and unknowns. can't explain why the sun comes up and down each day? must be a god (choose any number of terms) that does it. why does the wind blow? add a god for that, too. as humans (and science, the arch enemy of religion) have explained away their fears, these gods disappeared. as i stated in another thread, about the only fear (unknown) left is death. if we happen to ever explain that and what happens when we do die, religion may perish for good.<br /><br />of course, i believe good things have come from this man made thing we call religion. since people were afraid of so many things, they tried to figure out what would **** off these gods. from that grew doctrines, rules, etc to govern people. live by these rules (commandments, etc) and god will take care of you (and keep the sun going up and down, harvest strong, you get my point). religion for the most part has been good to us. we've also seen the negatives, but nothing is perfect.<br /><br />so, since all groups and societies have unknowns, i doubt any were formed or exist without any religious influence.<br /><br />btw, don't care either way about the money. i'll collect and use it regardless of how it looks.

 

[PW2]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

OK, here's one.<br /><br />You are required to drive on the right side of the road.<br /><br />Where's the religious reference there, and yet it is a fairly important behavior I would think

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> OK, here's one.<br /><br />You are required to drive on the right side of the road.<br /><br />Where's the religious reference there, and yet it is a fairly important behavior I would think

You're serious?

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Pony85:<br /> jtexas- Personally I feel that a group accepts a behavior as acceptable based on moral principles that are derived from some sort of religion whatever that may be. I personally believe religion is how we determine right vs wrong etc, and thus most moraly based laws are somehow rooted in religion in some way.....likewise I would ask how do we deem what is legal? If we say its what is best for society, then I have to think morals play a role<br /><br />

Which came first, morals or religion? I think the concept of "morality" is religious, but is it religious because it's moral?

 

[12Footer]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by JB:<br />Now you guys are making me feel that logical thinking is liberal thinking. I thought conservatives believed that only conservatives think logically. Liberals are supposed to think emotionally, but I am seeing more emotion from the right here.

<br />You're right. Liberals do not think with their brains, they think with their hearts (in general, anyhow). If you think this is voodoo, test it yourself on any subject. When backed-into a logical corner, libs will get very emotional.<br /><br />

Originally posted by JB:<br /><br />Let's hear how you would think logically (or feel, if you are so inclined) about "In Buddha we trust" or "One nation, under Mother Nature. . . ."

Logically,in America's governing arrangement, if there are enough Budists to get it on the currency, why not? Right? <br />But America is a predominantly Christian country, represented by same. It was predominantly founded by Christians also.<br /><br />It can be changed to Budist or atheistic, if enough Budists or atheists vote. you know all this tho, JB. <br />I "feel" like i'm being condescending for no reason here.