A theory on the Church/State question.

[jtexas]

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

Bingo!...if we can figure out that it's good for everyone to drive on the same side of the road, surely we can figure out that stealing is bad, and murder is bad. <br /><br />Why aren't jelousy and idolatry illegal? Because we (we the people) pick and choose from among the moral codes presented by religion, as if it were a menu. "I like that one, but not that one."<br /><br />Maybe religion is so closely linked with codified law because, with few exceptions, leaders have always claimed a devine right to make the rules.<br /><br />Hammurabi<br />Moses<br />The Roman Ceasars<br />European monarchs<br />Chinese & Japanese emperors

 

[PW2]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

12 footer,<br /><br />I'm really glad you keep telling us how liberals think and feel!<br /><br />If I had to rely on the evidence alone, I would have to conclude that the only ones getting intensely emotional in this thread, at least, are the self proclaimed conservatives.

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Listen guys. I am not attacking your beliefs or your faith. I have said that.<br /><br />I have my own beliefs and faith. They are private because among my beliefs is a belief that they are personal. Pushing them at others is, in my belief system, immoral. Like DJ, I don't accept labelling.<br /><br />I am merely asking a question and offering a theory. I am frustrated that so many passionately advance arguments that are irrelevant to the question. Christians complain that they are being persecuted, non-Christians complain that Christians claim ownership of our society and wont surrender what they have no right to.<br /><br />Maybe both points of view are correct, but so what? If we need new or different laws, that is the job of Congress, so long as those laws do not violate Constitutional restraints.<br /><br />Since John Marshall some people have screamed about an "activist" court. So long as there are cases that must go to the Supreme Court it will remain so. That is what the Court is for. To decide cases.<br /><br />Like many people of my generation, I turn on the TV or read the newspaper and wonder if I have been transported to another planet. I realize that I have only survived into another age. There is some about it that I like and a lot that offends me.<br /><br />Your turn will come.

 

[12Footer]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> 12 footer,<br /><br />I'm really glad you keep telling us how liberals think and feel!<br /><br />If I had to rely on the evidence alone, I would have to conclude that the only ones getting intensely emotional in this thread, at least, are the self proclaimed conservatives.

See what i mean, JB?

 

[Elmer Fudge]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Religion and faith are very different things.<br /><br />Some may not put their trust in same God as you do, their concept of who or what God is or is'nt may not be the same as your religion proclaims.<br /><br />JB wrote: "Because all Jews and all Christians agree on who God is, and pretty much on every other important question except the divinity of Jesus, could they have agreed that "In God we trust" and the Ten Commandments were pretty universal and did not state a religious preference? You don't find Jesus, one of the things Jews and Christians don't agree on, mentioned anywhere in these documents."<br /><br /><br />This statement leads me to think that Jews and Christians do not at all agree on who God is, for if Jews do not believe in the divinity of jesus then they most certainly worship a God that is different from the Christian God.

 

[JasonJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

This is actually an interesting thread. Since I am not religious, where did my sense of right and wrong come from? I assume it came from my upbringing. While religion was not a part of my upbringing, my mother and the rest of her siblings were brought up under the Catholic religion. So did my mother develop her sense of right and wrong from that, and pass it on to me?<br /><br /> I really have no idea if our standards of right of wrong came from religion or not. It is also entirely possible that religion partially came from the sense of right and wrong that humanity had to develop to ensure survival.<br /><br />I think most can agree that at some point humans realized that it is more productive to get along with each other to ensure survival than it is to go at it alone and kill everyone in your path. The question in my mind is whether religion came from that, or did religion cause it. I think a society can function as well in an absence of religion as it does with religion. <br /><br />We have no real way of knowing how we came to where we are today, but I think we really need to rethink how this is handled. As it stands, there is way too much division and negative emotion over something that is supposed to be good and bring peace. I am sure if Jesus is watching this right now, he is shaking his head at everyone. I don't know about God, but I do belive in Jesus, and I believe that if he walked the earth again, he would be crucified again within a very short time because society has made almost no progress since his first crucification. We have fancy cars and houses, but we are still emotional barbarians who are convinced our own way is the only way.<br /><br />My personal belief is that all this legislature to remove God from the pledge of allegience and all the other things that are happening along that line is not doing our society much good. It just seems like it is segregating and causing too much hate. I use this forum as an example. Those who choose to believe are extremely emotional and feel threatened that their belief is being persecuted. I don't blame them. I personally don't want to be bible-thumped, but my ability to tune it out or walk away is all I need. I don't need the government to remove any reference of God from my life, I can choose when and how I believe in whatever I believe in. I don't want people to have to practice their faith in a basement like a bad crack habit. They have just as much right to practice their beliefs as others do to not practice. JB is right, we will get our turn as society continues to evolve...

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by Elmer Fudge:<br /> Religion and faith are very different things.<br /><br />Some may not put their trust in same God as you do, their concept of who or what God is or is'nt may not be the same as your religion proclaims.<br /><br />JB wrote: "Because all Jews and all Christians agree on who God is, and pretty much on every other important question except the divinity of Jesus, could they have agreed that "In God we trust" and the Ten Commandments were pretty universal and did not state a religious preference? You don't find Jesus, one of the things Jews and Christians don't agree on, mentioned anywhere in these documents."<br /><br /><br />This statement leads me to think that Jews and Christians do not at all agree on who God is, for if Jews do not believe in the divinity of jesus then they most certainly worship a God that is different from the Christian God.

It is my understanding that anyone who worships a single omnipotent all-powerful deity worships the same God, whatever name is ascribed to It. Christian and Jews would each say the other is mistaken about many things, one of which being Jesus as the Messiah, but both groups pretty much acknowledge a common God.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by 12Footer:<br /> 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.

I disagree. In America's governing arrangement, a Budist majority could not impose its values on me. I am protected by the first and fourteenth amendments from being forced to procelitize for any religion every time I want to spend money.<br /><br />Besides, which Christian value is it that requires "In God we trust" to be printed on the money?

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by DJ:<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.

not a change, DJ...that's how it's been since way before America was a gleem in Ben Franklin's eye.

 

[DJ]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

JB wrote:<br /><br />

Christians complain that they are being persecuted, non-Christians complain that Christians claim ownership of our society and wont surrender what they have no right to.<br />

We are JB, I guess it depends on how jaded one is against, to realize. But, it is written. We know it's coming. Unfortuneately, the "doers" don't.<br /><br /><br />

Like many people of my generation, I turn on the TV or read the newspaper and wonder if I have been transported to another planet. I realize that I have only survived into another age. There is some about it that I like and a lot that offends me. <br /><br />

That's the problem. The "main stream media" has left many behind, for their own political purposes.<br /><br />My father in law is a perfect example. He supports President Clinton, to the end. Even though proven that the Pres. was and is a proven liar. Personal or not. A lie, is a LIE. Concept lost-today.<br /><br />I think allot less of my FIL because of that. Has he lied to me?

 

[ebbtide176]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

(i'm having trouble putting my thoughts into words, so bear with me)<br />IF we were governed by "human" thought, where would we stand on adultery? i wonder.... even though everyone here understands the principle of "one for all, and all for one" that seems pretty clear. but how would we have developed if we only went on what society could accept?(in other word, an individual vs group opinion)<br /><br />the definition:-----------------------------<br />Historically adultery has been subject to severe sanctions including the death penalty and has been grounds for divorce under fault-based divorce laws. In some places the method for punishing adultery was traditionally stoning to death.<br /><br />In the original Napoleonic Code, a man could ask to be divorced from his wife if she committed adultery, but the adultery of the husband was not a sufficient motive unless he had kept his concubine in the family home.<br />---------------------------------------------<br />now this seems to me to be the difference in many things. we as humankind, can temporarily work out differences, and we can imagine ourselves to know what is best for our time. but it would take many many yrs to realize the implications of our decisions. i think this may be a reason to understand religion. that's just a small point, granted.<br /><br />just thinking...<br /><br />so far, i still feel religion was the basis for human decisions that led to moral development, even though humankind developed certain laws over the yrs. i can't say i still feel we can be left up to our own decisions. we may not be right, but we can be led by supernatural intervention.<br /><br />but then again, i believe in the revelations, and have doubts as to our ability without thousands of years of experience. hence moral understanding via supernatural advice. just a thought until i get more info on how to live life.<br /><br />just my 2c here JB. i'm just pondering things, and expecting to get some good ideas, and probably some caustic opinions. <br /><br />in other words, i do believe it took belief in a higher power to make a society resist temptation, and evolve. i do think we americans owe homage to the religious background of our forefathers. we can't make anyone choose to feel the same way, but we as a country do abide by their principles, which include reference to a higher power.<br /><br />thats JMHO until i get better opinions.

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by ebb:<br />in other words, i do believe it took belief in a higher power to make a society resist temptation, and evolve. i do think we americans owe homage to the religious background of our forefathers. we can't make anyone choose to feel the same way, but we as a country do abide by their principles, which include reference to a higher power.<br /><br />thats JMHO until i get better opinions.

Well said!! I am with you and I am not very religious. It's just that it makes me crazy that many believe that a) scientific advances over the last 150 years negate the possibility of a God and b) that somehow referencing or accepting that religious principles shaped our society's morals, and as a result our laws, is somehow offensive to someone. Neither is or should be considered accurate!! So I choose to resist any attempt to eliminate those references and try and promote what good those principles represent. It is really that simple to me. I don't think anything is broken . . .

 

[PW2]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Scientists, or Theologians, have yet to be able to conclusively prove whether god does or does not exist. Lots of people believe lots of different things, but it is all based on something other than concrete proof. That is why it is called faith.<br /><br />A society needs rules and standards to function, as does any organization, including religions.<br /><br />The problem comes when in our free society, the government ought not to be taking sides in this debate. The government has the right to make laws that allow society to function, but they don't have the right to establish what is or isn't "moral" That is up to the individual.<br /><br />There is always going to be overlap that confuses things of course. Society cannot allow murder, not necessarily because it is immoral, but because without personal security freedom is not possible. <br />Most would agree that it is immoral, for sure, but that is not the primary reason it is banned by the government.

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

I don't disagree with you on your general theme, PW2, but history, including as recent history as this morning, is loaded with sanctioned murder committed in the name of religion.<br /><br />"Morality" is in people in the name of civilized society. While virtually every civilized community uses some form of religion as a unifying and disciplining force, too many fiercely claim that their truth is the only truth. Self righteousness and the evil it produces are a dark companion of religion and are immoral.

 

[jtexas]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by ebb:<br /> in other words, i do believe it took belief in a higher power to make a society resist temptation, and evolve. i do think we americans owe homage to the religious background of our forefathers. we can't make anyone choose to feel the same way, but we as a country do abide by their principles, which include reference to a higher power.<br /><br />thats JMHO until i get better opinions.

I'd say you summed it up pretty well, ebb.<br /><br />"took belief in a higher power to ... resist temptation and evolve"<br />I keep saying that thoughout world history leaders have claimed a devine right to rule, I guess that's what it took to become a leader?<br /><br />"we can't make anyone choose to feel the same way, but we as a country do abide by their principles"<br />That's for sure, you can't control somebody's thoughts/feelings/beliefs, but you can control their behavior.<br /><br />"i do think we americans owe homage to the religious background of our forefathers."<br />I agree in principle, but is homage a debt that can be enforced on another? I mean, you & I can "owe homage" but only because we acknowledge it. Not sure I'm making sense here. <br /><br />Anyway, I think laws need to be justified on some basis other than religious principle. As long as elected representatives and the judges they appoint are "representative" of "we the people," the laws they make will necessarily reflect their religious beliefs. We should be able to find ways to pay homage.<br /><br />When I was a kid, we started our school day with a prayer, not spoken aloud though, teacher said time to pray, every body bowed their heads for a moment of silence. Even if you didn't pray, it still made an impression. The few Jewish kids had a couple extra holidays, the Catholic kids got to skip football practice a day a week for "catechism" class. <br /><br />Religion was all around us, if anybody was hurt by it I couldn't tell. I don't think it was forced on anybody. <br /><br />I don't remember my preacher ever discussing politics from the pulpit, but it is my understanding that it is common in many churches for the pastor to deliver political messages (example the Rev. Jackson); I won't say that's wrong, but there's something about it, I can't quite put my finger on it.<br /><br />Guess I'm saying, I grew up around Church and State, they existed in the same places, but were separate enough so that I knew the difference. <br /><br />Any of that make sense at all?

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by PW2:<br /> Scientists, or Theologians, have yet to be able to conclusively prove whether god does or does not exist. Lots of people believe lots of different things, but it is all based on something other than concrete proof. That is why it is called faith.<br />

I totally agree. I would submit that those who don't believe in some sort of Intelligent Designer require even more faith than those who do. I am not sure what that faith is in, but it is faith just the same. I guess it is faith that something can "poof" out of nothing . . .

 

[QC]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Originally posted by jtexas:<br /> Guess I'm saying, I grew up around Church and State, they existed in the same places, but were separate enough so that I knew the difference. <br /><br />Any of that make sense at all?

Yes, lots.

 

[Skinnywater]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

What then, of the agnostics and the atheists? Were they simply over-ruled or did they not care?

JB, I think the framers as a whole were the smartest of the day back when practicality was demanded.<br />It's likely the atheists or agnostics of that time were practical also. Since they didn't believe in god, it wasn't an issue. They, the atheists and agnostics themselves didn't care.<br />Practical thought from an atheist would recognise that you can't be hurt from something you don't think exists.<br /><br />Todays atheists are completely hypocritical.<br />How is it harmful to an atheists rights, feelings or well-being to be exposed to something he knows doesn't exist?<br />Practically speaking, the issue of GOD to an atheist, isn't an issue.<br />The only issue that seems practical now to an atheist is the conflict.<br />To an atheist the absolute worst feeling he could have is his own chip on his shoulder.

 

[DaleT]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Skinny nailed the religion issue, with regards to true atheists, with absolute accuracy. Essentially it doesn't effect me in any way, until it is forced upon me. I, as an adult, have the ability and choice as to what I will subject myself to with regards to religion and its recognition. For example, a close freinds father recently passed away. His family held a Catholic memorial service, which I attended. Not because I believed in the rituals but as a show of support for my friend and his family. Some will say this makes me a hypocrite, I don't really know or care. My point is whether or not the framers of our constitution sought to exclude or include religion as part of the governing bylaws may not rely so much in their ideals as in the practical thoughts. Meaning, they had seen what government sponsored religion could do to a country and wanted to avoid it. Does that mean there should be no reference whatsoever? It seems to me that, as our country has done since the adoption of said constitution, the issue must be reexamined and updated as our society evolves into different ages. Essentially that is the ultimate beauty of our country, the ability to adapt to the times for better or worse.

 

[JB]

Re: A theory on the Church/State question.

Well, Skinny, I don't agree.<br /><br />This thread contains several stories of persons being "punished" for non-participation in Christian rituals sponsored or required by our government.<br /><br />Whether it is a child ostracized and ridiculed in school, a military recruit ridiculed and forced to attend indoctrination, a witness ridiculed in court and perhaps not being allowed to testify, any person swearing an oath of office. . . .ad nauseum.<br /><br />What choice has a non-Judeo-Christian but to pretend or be a target for outraged Christians? I have never met a Jew, Buddhist, Shintoist, Muslim, Hindu, etc, who was angered that someone didn't agree with his/her beliefs...only fundamentalist Christians, and only in USA.<br /><br />My experience is probably statistically insignificant with regard to contact with non-Judeo-Christians, but it is consistent.<br /><br />I don't think non-believers and doubters are threatened by something they don't believe in. It is the people who do believe that are the threat.