Separation of Church and State?

[NumberSix]

What are people's opinions on this?

[Suguru101]

It is essential.

Look at Muslim states.

Now, people will think "Christians wouldn't be that bad, it's not the Middle Ages anymore, when they killed millions..."

Put any religious group in power, and let them be lawfully intolerant of other religions, and you will get chaos.

[UK2K]

What are people's opinions on this?

Its way overblown.

I dont want the US to be controlled by the Catholic Church, but at the same time, I recognize there are positive values in Christianity.

But being 'offended' because the Ten Commandments are on government property just screams 'you're a little bitch and annoying as ****'.

[ShackEelOKneel]

It should be done, but for some reason it isn't.

[~primetime~]

http://stream1.gifsoup.com/view5/2129126/ben-stiller-do-it-o.gif

[DonDadda59]

Sharia law>>>>the Constitution.

[Akrazotile]

Well the fact is, political ideologies operate exactly like religions. Liberalism in particular. That's the great irony.

So if we separate "church" from state, then we have to separate moralism in general from state. Because if religious morals are arbitrary, then certainly left wing moralist ideals are as well.

The left has a particular worldview they want to force onto everyone in America. It's really not that different from what Islam tries to do, just with a different doctrine.

[Derka]

Isn't America overwhelmingly Protestant?

Roman Catholics make up the largest single Christian denomination at like 22% of the population, give or take a couple points. Protestants make up the other 48% of what would be considered "Christian" but its spread out over a bunch of different faiths (Lutherans, Baptists, Methodists, Orthodox, Catholics not in communion with Rome, etc).

Strangely enough, the single biggest chunk of the pie...25% of the country claims no religion whatsoever.

[navy]

Fvck your religion.

[Jailblazers7]

Its way overblown.

I dont want the US to be controlled by the Catholic Church, but at the same time, I recognize there are positive values in Christianity.

But being 'offended' because the Ten Commandments are on government property just screams 'you're a little bitch and annoying as ****'.

It's natural to have people/politicans be influenced by those values. I don't think many would argue that is a bad thing. It is much different to have government sponsor a religion tho. Being offended by the ten commandments being posted at a government building is very reasonable imo when you have a representative democracy where all voters do not follow Christianity.

[RidonKs]

easier said than done

that should probably be the op's user title btw

[ThePhantomCreep]

Well the fact is, political ideologies operate exactly like religions. Liberalism in particular. That's the great irony.

So if we separate "church" from state, then we have to separate moralism in general from state. Because if religious morals are arbitrary, then certainly left wing moralist ideals are as well.

The left has a particular worldview they want to force onto everyone in America. It's really not that different from what Islam tries to do, just with a different doctrine.

Does liberalism/progressivism involve following the teachings of bronze age sky fairies? Then it's not exactly like religion, not even close. Your rationale is laughable.

[RidonKs]

Well the fact is, political ideologies operate exactly like religions. Liberalism in particular. That's the great irony.

So if we separate "church" from state, then we have to separate moralism in general from state. Because if religious morals are arbitrary, then certainly left wing moralist ideals are as well.

The left has a particular worldview they want to force onto everyone in America. It's really not that different from what Islam tries to do, just with a different doctrine.
lol at liberalism in particular

religions are bad! political ideologies are bad in the same way! and the ones i hate are especially bad because i hate them so much! and the left! dont get me started on the left!

all morality is arbitrary. way to break new ground.

[NumberSix]

The actual point of the thread was, some people believe that separation of church and state is the law in the United States, when it actually isn't.

[ThePhantomCreep]

The Establishment Clause is too vague for the religious kooks apparently.

"No, we will not grant your imaginary sky special privileges" might have worked better, but I doubt it.

[KingBeasley08]

It's essential to this country. Hell, many of the Founders like Jefferson would get shit by today's Evangelicals today for not being Christian enough

[NumberSix]

The Establishment Clause is too vague for the religious kooks apparently.

"No, we will not grant your imaginary sky special privileges" might have worked better, but I doubt it.
Do you understand what "establish" means?

[Bandito]

Do you understand what "establish" means?
Do you?

[NumberSix]

Do you?
Yes.

[KevinNYC]

The actual point of the thread was, some people believe that separation of church and state is the law in the United States, when it actually isn't.

And those some people include generations of Supreme Court justices, do they not?

[Patrick Chewing]

The country needs more Jesus in their life. Look at the news every day. Country is in chaos.

[NumberSix]

And those some people include generations of Supreme Court justices, do they not?
No. :no:


In a strict literal sense, there is a separation between church and state. The United States doesn't have an established religion like the Church of England. But, in the colloquial way that people use the phrase, as if there is some kind ban on religious symbols on government buildings, that doesn't exist.

As for the Supreme Court, they have ruled that things like "in god we trust" can be on the money, 10 commandments monuments can be on government grounds, etc. are fine.

The government can't pass laws regarding an establishment of religion, but that doesn't mean religion is banned from all things to do with the government like some people mistakenly think it does.

[RidonKs]

No. :no:


In a strict literal sense, there is a separation between church and state. The United States doesn't have an established religion like the Church of England. But, in the colloquial way that people use the phrase, as if there is some kind ban on religious symbols on government buildings, that doesn't exist.

As for the Supreme Court, they have ruled that things like "in god we trust" can be on the money, 10 commandments monuments can be on government grounds, etc. are fine.

The government can't pass laws regarding an establishment of religion, but that doesn't mean religion is banned from all things to do with the government like some people mistakenly think it does.
:roll: :roll: :roll: :lebroncry: :whatever: :kobe: :wtf: :wtf: :wtf:

[KevinNYC]

Country is in chaos.

Violent Crime Drops to Lowest Level Since 1978
https://www.aei.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/crime.jpg
Violent crime in the U.S. fell 4.4 percent last year to the lowest level in decades, the FBI announced Monday.

In 2013, there were 1.16 million violent crimes, the lowest amount since the 1978’s 1.09 million violent crimes, Reuters reports.

All types of violent crimes experienced decline last year, with rape dropping 6.3 percent, murder and non-negligent manslaughter dropping 4.4 percent and robbery dropping 2.8 percent.

The rate of violent crime is 367.9 crimes for every 100,000 people, which marked a 5.1 percent decline since 2012. The rate has fallen each year since at least 1994.


Teen Pregnancy Rates Hit Historic Lows
http://www.guttmacher.org/graphics/HeadingDown(Graph)-rev.png

Death from War down Worldwide
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_QYMSiVAAAf_uy.jpg

Teens are using less pot, alcohol, and cigarettes
http://cdn3.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/843558/past-month_drug_use_teens.0.png

[RidonKs]

Death from War down Worldwide
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B_QYMSiVAAAf_uy.jpg
that is a *potentially misleading chart

[Patrick Chewing]

Kev, I don't want your stupid stats. They are meaningless.


Morals in this day and age are at an all time low. Being deceitful and a downright evil person do not reflect on those stats of yours.

[Patrick Chewing]

that is a *potentially misleading chart


No shit. Geeeee, hmm I like how that chart starts right around WWII.


Kev is a fraud.

[KevinNYC]

No. :no:


In a strict literal sense, there is a separation between church and state. The United States doesn't have an established religion like the Church of England. But, in the colloquial way that people use the phrase, as if there is some kind ban on religious symbols on government buildings, that doesn't exist.

As for the Supreme Court, they have ruled that things like "in god we trust" can be on the money, 10 commandments monuments can be on government grounds, etc. are fine.

The government can't pass laws regarding an establishment of religion, but that doesn't mean religion is banned from all things to do with the government like some people mistakenly think it does.
Not one of your better arguments.

Yes, there is a separation. However some people think strawman reason so therefore there is no separation.

[KevinNYC]

Kev, I don't want your stupid stats. They are meaningless.


Morals in this day and age are at an all time low. Being deceitful and a downright evil person do not reflect on those stats of yours.
Um, you claimed the country was in chaos. It is not.

Breathe into a paper bag.
Get some time in the sun this weekend.
Drive out to Elmhurst and get some good Thai food.

[LongLiveTheKing]

Keep religion out of law making like it's supposed to be. Just because someone believes in something doesn't mean everyone in America should have to live by it. Of course there are laws that fall under people's religious beliefs and are morally right.
Conservatives are stuck in the past

[RidonKs]

Keep religion out of law making like it's supposed to be. Just because someone believes in something doesn't mean everyone in America should have to live by it. Of course there are laws that fall under people's religious beliefs and are morally right.
Conservatives are stuck in the past
strange juxtaposition of positions sir, if you pardon my saying so

do elaborate if you have time and will

[LongLiveTheKing]

I mean keep religion out of the government making laws. But there are some laws that can satisfy some people religion beliefs while not forcing something unusual for everyone.
Hard to explain what I'm saying.
But yes i believe church and state should be separated.

[ThePhantomCreep]

No shit. Geeeee, hmm I like how that chart starts right around WWII.


Kev is a fraud.

Bushbot can't even read a chart. :lol

Forget WWII, fewer people are dying in wars right now than they were in the 1990's, BEFORE the war on terror. We're at the most peaceful point in human history.

[RidonKs]

Bushbot can't even read a chart. :lol

Forget WWII, it's lower right than it was in the 1990's, BEFORE the war on terror. We're at the most peaceful point in human history.
the 90s rise in ethnic tensions were largely a result of the soviet union breaking up. whenever an empire is forced to abandon its satellites, violent conflict is virtually inevitable. we'll see how that historical fact bears on the decline of american hegemony. i'm strangely optimistic.

[KevinNYC]

that is a *potentially misleading chart

No shit. Geeeee, hmm I like how that chart starts right around WWII.Kev is a fraud.
No, it's not. You just need to know how to read charts.

You can Ignore WWII and start in the 1960's, 70's and 80's and still see a downward trend.

You can even start in post WWII lows and still see a decline.


If you want to read Steven Pinker's argument (http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424053111904106704576583203589408180) you can go here

But he also points the 1940's as the last time the maps were rewritten through war.

Why is war in decline? For one thing, it no longer pays. For centuries, wars reallocated huge territories, as empires were agglomerated or dismantled and states wiped off the map. But since shortly after World War II, virtually no borders have changed by force, and no member of the United Nations has disappeared through conquest. The Korean War caused a million battle deaths, but the border ended up where it started. The Iran-Iraq War killed 650,000 with the same result. Iraq’s annexation of Kuwait in 1990 backfired. Israel seized land in 1967, but since then most has been returned and the rest remains contested.

[RidonKs]

i know mr pinker's argument. or at least i have read excerpts from his book and heard a series of his lectures. i have also read a long rebuttal by ed herman which will not be hard for you to find if you want to take a look. pinker is a smart man but plays loose with figures to further his agenda. nevertheless i think his thesis has merit, if not for precisely the same reasons he elaborates.



Why is war in decline? For one thing, it no longer pays. For centuries, wars reallocated huge territories, as empires were agglomerated or dismantled and states wiped off the map.
here is a 2 second rebuttal for you to mull on

throughout history, land has been the dominant commodity for getting returns on investment. i suppose next to capital and labour. but that has become less and less the case in recent history. borders don't move because they don't have to. power interests will be served either way, as geographical constraints fade away.

[TripleA]

Kev, I don't want your stupid stats. They are meaningless.


Morals in this day and age are at an all time low. Being deceitful and a downright evil person do not reflect on those stats of yours.

:lol dog its ok just because Obama is president the world not gonna end.

[DonDadda59]

The country needs more Jesus in their life. Look at the news every day. Country is in chaos.

Look at this paranoid drama queen :lol

Stop watching faux news' Obama apocalypse propaganda and you won't have to sleep with your night light on.


We're at the most peaceful point in human history.

And look at the places where Church and State are one and the same- bastions of peace and knowledge. Yet there's some people like Chewing who want to see the Christian equivalent of ISIS in America. :facepalm

[RidonKs]

patrick chewing has no idea what the great preacher was talking about

if he did, he'd be marching alongside the hoods, craning his neck to witness with pride the gravest execution of all time

[bladefd]

Separate them. There is no reason for them not to be.

If someone wants to be religious, they have a right to it.
if someone wants to run for office, they have a right to it.
if someone wants to do both, they have a right to it.
if someone wants to do neither, they have a right to it.

There is no mention of any specific religion anywhere in the US constitution except for the word "god" once. The reason is the founding fathers did not intend for this country to be a Christian country only and wanted people to not be judged for who they are or what they believe.

Imagine an atheist or agnostic trying to run for office. They will never make it unless if they lie about their religion. They will be judged by the people without giving them a fair chance. That truly hurts freedom of religion.

That is what I have an issue with. How is that fair or reasonable? Why should your religious views or lack thereof impact what kind of person you are and how people look up to you?

As fools often say on fox news: don't force your views onto me. Don't force your religious views onto me through laws and state :)

[NumberSix]

Separate them. There is no reason for them not to be.

If someone wants to be religious, they have a right to it.
if someone wants to run for office, they have a right to it.
if someone wants to do both, they have a right to it.
if someone wants to do neither, they have a right to it.

There is no mention of any specific religion anywhere in the US constitution except for the word "god" once. The reason is the founding fathers did not intend for this country to be a Christian country only and wanted people to not be judged for who they are or what they believe.
That's not really all that accurate. The founders actually did envision the United States as a Christian nation. But there are many different sects of Christianity. If you understand the history of the Catholic Church and the Church of England in the United Kingdom, you can understand the reason for not wanting an established church.

The founders obviously believed that citizens should have freedom of religion and the government should not have a religious establishment... but the founders were also very clear about what kind of people they wanted and from where.

It's not a clear cut issue with an entirely clean history.


Imagine an atheist or agnostic trying to run for office. They will never make it unless if they lie about their religion. They will be judged by the people without giving them a fair chance. That truly hurts freedom of religion.

That is what I have an issue with. How is that fair or reasonable? Why should your religious views or lack thereof impact what kind of person you are and how people look up to you?

As fools often say on fox news: don't force your views onto me. Don't force your religious views onto me through laws and state :)
Well, it's fair because citizens can vote for whatever reason they want. If you prefer an atheist, fair enough. If you prefer a catholic, fair enough.

[RidonKs]

It's not a clear cut issue with an entirely clean history.
whats history got to do with it?

[NumberSix]

whats history got to do with it?
The point is, the founding fathers aren't inherently right about everything. You can have principles that are different from the founding fathers.

[ThePhantomCreep]

That's not really all that accurate. The founders actually did envision the United States as a Christian nation. But there are many different sects of Christianity. If you understand the history of the Catholic Church and the Church of England in the United Kingdom, you can understand the reason for not wanting an established church.

The founders obviously believed that citizens should have freedom of religion and the government should not have a religious establishment... but the founders were also very clear about what kind of people they wanted and from where.

It's not a clear cut issue with an entirely clean history.


Well, it's fair because citizens can vote for whatever reason they want. If you prefer an atheist, fair enough. If you prefer a catholic, fair enough.

:lol The crazy things conservatives say:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/

#1 sums it up.

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution." ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789


Beyond barring the government from establishing a national religion, the founding fathers went out of their way to keep religion from dictating policy. Many were atheists. If you think they wanted a bunch of Bible thumpers running around, you're delusional.

[NumberSix]

:lol The crazy things conservatives say:

http://www.addictinginfo.org/2013/07/04/35-founding-father-quotes-conservative-christians-will-hate/

#1 sums it up.

“If I could conceive that the general government might ever be so administered as to render the liberty of conscience insecure, I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution." ~Founding Father George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia, May 1789


Beyond barring the government from establishing a national religion, the founding fathers went out of their way to keep religion from dictating policy. Many were atheists. If you think they wanted a bunch of Bible thumpers running around, you're delusional.
Yes. The founding fathers were utterly against a government established religion. We are all in agreement about that.

[bladefd]

That's not really all that accurate. The founders actually did envision the United States as a Christian nation. But there are many different sects of Christianity. If you understand the history of the Catholic Church and the Church of England in the United Kingdom, you can understand the reason for not wanting an established church.

The founders obviously believed that citizens should have freedom of religion and the government should not have a religious establishment... but the founders were also very clear about what kind of people they wanted and from where.

It's not a clear cut issue with an entirely clean history.

Majority of the founders also envisioned the USA to always be isolated from foreign issues. Many of them like George Washington even wanted to have no party political system to avoid 2 groups going to separate extremes. They envisioned many such things, but they decided not to make their beliefs be accepted as the US constitution requirement. They may have envisioned this being a Christian nation, but they never wanted that in the US Constitution. There was no debate over that.

The reason is that they realized the times change, people change, things change so they wanted to keep it open to be decided by the people for the people. That is the tenet this country was founded upon. "for the people, by the people"


Well, it's fair because citizens can vote for whatever reason they want. If you prefer an atheist, fair enough. If you prefer a catholic, fair enough.

It's not a question of "can" but a question of "would they?"

If you watched any pre-election campaign, you will hear mentions of what a person's faith is. Imagine what would happen if a person openly admitted to being atheist several months before an election and the discussions that would ensue. "This guy is a non-believer" "He doesn't believe in god" .. People would question his morals and whether he is a good man just because he is an atheist. Same even if he was agnostic.

I am agnostic myself and I question whether god exists or not & whether we can prove it without seeing him fly around and do magic & make day night and night day at will like the books say.. but that has nothing to do with whether I'm a good guy or bad guy. I always have good intentions, and I like to think I'm a good guy, but that's not for me to decide. Only thing that can decide it is my actions and what others think of me.

Religion should never determine what kind of person I am or what I am not, but my actions should and what morals/virtues I live my life by.

[KingBeasley08]

I've always wondered how many politicians there are who are secretly atheists or agnostics. Gotta at least be a few