Church and State...

[Bullypulpit]

I think we can all safely agree that a politician, regardless of whther he is religious or not, will carry some religious views into public office with them. And there is nothing wrong with this. The trouble arises when attempts are made to raise religious cannon to the level of constitutional law.

In a contitutional republic, such as we have in this country, the Constitution is the law of the land...not the Bible...not the Torah...not the Koran. These are examples of "God's Law". They are appear absolute and inflexible but are, ultimately, arbitrary as they are liable to interpretation by any yahoo who decides he/she has a direct pipline to their favorite deity. Constitutional law is rooted in precedent and case law...it is always subject to judicial and legislative review, much to the disgust and dismay of absolutists.

When the leadership in government attempts to make the religion of the majority the religion of all or provide it special priviledge history, both ancient and current, has shown us that that religion becomes corrupted by the power it comes to wield. We can look to the Catholic Church in medeival Europe for prime examples. More currently, we can look to Taliban controlled Afghanistan, or to Iran shortly after the collapse of Reza Palahvi's government. These governements were brutally repressive and the leadership lived in comparative luxury and comfort and even decadence, while the populace lived in fear, poverty and ignorance. But such are the fruits of any government rooted in religious doctrine rather than objective law.

 

[dilloduck]

I think we can all safely agree that a politician, regardless of whther he is religious or not, will carry some religious views into public office with them. And there is nothing wrong with this. The trouble arises when attempts are made to raise religious cannon to the level of constitutional law.

In a contitutional republic, such as we have in this country, the Constitution is the law of the land...not the Bible...not the Torah...not the Koran. These are examples of "God's Law". They are appear absolute and inflexible but are, ultimately, arbitrary as they are liable to interpretation by any yahoo who decides he/she has a direct pipline to their favorite deity. Constitutional law is rooted in precedent and case law...it is always subject to judicial and legislative review, much to the disgust and dismay of absolutists.

When the leadership in government attempts to make the religion of the majority the religion of all or provide it special priviledge history, both ancient and current, has shown us that that religion becomes corrupted by the power it comes to wield. We can look to the Catholic Church in medeival Europe for prime examples. More currently, we can look to Taliban controlled Afghanistan, or to Iran shortly after the collapse of Reza Palahvi's government. These governements were brutally repressive and the leadership lived in comparative luxury and comfort and even decadence, while the populace lived in fear, poverty and ignorance. But such are the fruits of any government rooted in religious doctrine rather than objective law.

Good thing America isn't like that ! huh bully ?

 

[padisha emperor]

When the State is not imbued, impregnated by Religion, it is better. Understand me correctly : nothing against the religion, but just that the State, the Administrration, Government...political institutions, have to keep a certain distance with the religion, because if all the State - gov. and Administration - are catholic and show obviuosly it, the jews or muslims would feel maybe insecure, or not at their good place.....
I think that the State have to have a neutraity with Religion.
respect of the private liberties, of the individual liberties.

Of course i say that because since 1905 in France, Church and State are separated.



And a last thing, but not the less important : if the State is imbued of religion, some fanatics could occupe important places in the administration, at the head of the State.
OR not fanatics here, but they could have advices from fanatics.......
look : a muslim fanatic : wants the Jihad
a jewish fanatic : wants to disperse all the palestinian to create the real state of israel, and to kill them.
a christian fanatic : wants to make crusades

of course, I caricature....
But in all the cases : they wants to impose their religion because they think that it is THE ONE, the ONLY one, the others are not real.....

For the USA : when I see GW Bush make the pledge of allegiance with the referecne to GOD, it hurts me, because I think that if muslims who feel threatened by UAS see it, they would feel more threatened and more in danger >> attack.........

 

[Merlin1047]

In a contitutional republic, such as we have in this country, the Constitution is the law of the land...not the Bible...not the Torah...not the Koran. // Constitutional law is rooted in precedent and case law...it is always subject to judicial and legislative review, much to the disgust and dismay of absolutists.

Not so fast, Gertrude. Where do you think the "Constitutional law" which you cite has most of its origin? Laws prohibiting murder, bigamy, theft, abortion, sale of illicit drugs all have their origin in religous teaching. Regulations concerning the sale of alcoholic beverages, parental rights, perjury laws, and laws governing property rights all stem from biblical concepts. Even the set of behavioral guidelines we refer to as "ethics" or "honesty" derive their basis from biblical teachings. So don't be in such a rush to denounce God's law in favor of what you think is "Constitutional" law.

The founding fathers were, for the most part, deeply religous and devout men. Their writings, their concepts of government, the Declaration of Independence and our Constitution were all influenced by their belief in God and by their adherence to biblical principles.

These are examples of "God's Law". They are appear absolute and inflexible but are, ultimately, arbitrary as they are liable to interpretation by any yahoo who decides he/she has a direct pipline to their favorite deity. Constitutional law is rooted in precedent and case law...it is always subject to judicial and legislative review, much to the disgust and dismay of absolutists.

Well, yes principles are both arbitrary and inflexible. That's why they're principles. Just because something is arbitrary, does not infer that it is either flawed or inappropriate. That is why law must be based on a wisdom that transcends man. Look at the current liberal attitude. The popular phrase is "if it feels good, do it." What a destructive philosophy. It leads to debauchery, drug use, alcohol abuse and many other undesirable behavioral traits which ultimately kill their adherents or land them in prison. Laws based solely on man made concepts would be as mercurial as fashion trends without the arbitrary and inflexible STANDARD OF CONDUCT outlined in the Ten Commandments. If humans were the sole standard for law, then the law would be a constantly and rapidly changing thing. If the law were that fickle, what would be the point in having law to begin with?

If you look at the Ten Commandments, the first four apply to those who are adherents to the Christian faith. So, unless you choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, you need not concern yourself with those. But let's talk about number 5 through ten. Here they are in the short version:

5. You shall not dishonor your parents. - This commandment is the basis for most laws which govern the rights and authority of parents over their children.

6. You shall not murder. - I don't think we need to belabor the obvious on this one or the next three.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

10. You shall not covet.

When the leadership in government attempts to make the religion of the majority the religion of all or provide it special priviledge history, both ancient and current, has shown us that that religion becomes corrupted by the power it comes to wield. We can look to the Catholic Church in medeival Europe for prime examples. More currently, we can look to Taliban controlled Afghanistan, or to Iran shortly after the collapse of Reza Palahvi's government. These governements were brutally repressive and the leadership lived in comparative luxury and comfort and even decadence, while the populace lived in fear, poverty and ignorance.

Without a doubt, men kill each other in greater numbers in the name of God than any other cause. But blaming religion is often too simplistic. The fact is that in the case of Christian abuses such as the Inquisition, you will find a violation of the First Commandment - which prohibits the establishment of false gods. By extension, it also prohibits the practice of a false religion. Corrupt men who gain power in a religion can do tremendous damage. But they and their followers commit their abuses in defiance of the teachings of Christ and therefore violate the very Commandments which they claim to espouse.

But such are the fruits of any government rooted in religious doctrine rather than objective law.

And this is an ill-considered statement when made in regard to Christianity. I will not address the muslim doctrine here, because I believe that their "religion" is an entirely different kettle of fish. The abuses you detail are most definitely NOT the result of adherence to Christian doctrine. New testament doctrine does not preach violence. It preaches love of neighbor and forgiveness.

I would not want to live in an America run by Pat Robertson or the Pope. But neither would I want to live in an America whose laws were based solely on the fickle and often depraved demands of folks like Kennedy, kerry, Bella Abzug, Ed Asner, Jane Fonda, Barbara Boxer or Diane Feinstein.

So it seems to me that we need to rely on biblical principle as an enduring standard to achieve consistency in our lawmaking efforts. And we need to temper those laws to assure that atheists and secularists have their rights preserved, because that too, is what this country is all about.

 

[eric]

Well, yes principles are both arbitrary and inflexible

Exactly !

Thomas Jefferson once said :

"In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock."

 

[rtwngAvngr]

See, libs love covetousness. It's the primary emotion they use to turn out their base.

 

[TheEnemyWithin]

For the USA : when I see GW Bush make the pledge of allegiance with the referecne to GOD, it hurts me, because I think that if muslims who feel threatened by UAS see it, they would feel more threatened and more in danger >> attack.........

CRY ME A RIVER.

 

[Gem]

Padisha Emperor Wrote:

For the USA : when I see GW Bush make the pledge of allegiance with the referecne to GOD, it hurts me, because I think that if muslims who feel threatened by UAS see it, they would feel more threatened and more in danger >> attack.........

So in your opinion, Padisha, the correct way to deal with terrorists is to give in to them, change the things about your culture that they find offensive, stop participating in traditions that have been part of your society for years....basically cave in and give them whatever they want???

Is that how YOU would deal with terrorists?

 

[Avatar4321]

For the USA : when I see GW Bush make the pledge of allegiance with the referecne to GOD, it hurts me, because I think that if muslims who feel threatened by UAS see it, they would feel more threatened and more in danger >> attack.........

Why on earth would they feel more threated by our acknowledgment of God? that makes no sense whatesover.

Also you misunderstand the purpose not establishing a state church. Government is not kept separate from religion to protect the government from corruption (What a stupid assumption). Government is separate from religion to protect religion from the corrupting influences of government. Its to prevent government from taking a pure and noble faith and turning it into something ugly.

In fact religious people are encouraged to speak out and exercise their rights for people. we are supposed to sustain moral and upright people as our elected officials so that corruption will not take place. Your attempts to persecute faith will not change the power it has in the lives of men and women.

 

[MissileMan]

Laws based solely on man made concepts would be as mercurial as fashion trends without the arbitrary and inflexible STANDARD OF CONDUCT outlined in the Ten Commandments. If humans were the sole standard for law, then the law would be a constantly and rapidly changing thing. If the law were that fickle, what would be the point in having law to begin with?

If you look at the Ten Commandments, the first four apply to those who are adherents to the Christian faith. So, unless you choose to follow the teachings of Jesus Christ, you need not concern yourself with those. But let's talk about number 5 through ten. Here they are in the short version:

5. You shall not dishonor your parents. - This commandment is the basis for most laws which govern the rights and authority of parents over their children.

6. You shall not murder. - I don't think we need to belabor the obvious on this one or the next three.

7. You shall not commit adultery

8. You shall not steal.

9. You shall not commit perjury.

10. You shall not covet.


So it seems to me that we need to rely on biblical principle as an enduring standard to achieve consistency in our lawmaking efforts. And we need to temper those laws to assure that atheists and secularists have their rights preserved, because that too, is what this country is all about.

Since our founding fathers were christian, the basic tenets of our laws are derived from the bible. If our founding fathers had been hindu, or muslim, or bhuddist, our laws would probably be very similar to what they are now, but not based on the 10 commandments. These cultures, as well, all have laws against murder and theft, etc.

We have laws already on the books that cover 5,6,8, and 9. Commandment 7 is only a law under the UCMJ that I know of. These are all pretty self-explanatory and are indeed a great foundation for a set of laws. Commandment 10, however, appears to be open to a LOT of interpretation. You shall not covet what?

 

[MissileMan]

For the USA : when I see GW Bush make the pledge of allegiance with the referecne to GOD, it hurts me, because I think that if muslims who feel threatened by UAS see it, they would feel more threatened and more in danger >> attack.........

Unless you are a terrorist, you have nothing to fear from the USA. If you are a terrorist, the threat is real, you are in danger, kiss your ass goodbye!

 

[Merlin]

There is a lot of discussion about separation of Church & State. This isn't anywhere in the Constitution, neither in the Bill of Rights, or in the other 17 amendments. Could it possibly be that the "intent" was there and they forgot to put in in there? They may have screwed up and forgot to put some words in, because the way it reads, the first amendment to the Bill Of Rights gives schools the right to pray and/or even teach religion if they so desire. The 10th amendment backs it up. The states can teach what they want to, but Congress can't tell the states which religion to establish over another. I envision each state eventually voting to decide which religion they want to teach in school.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There is a lot of discussion about separation of Church & State. This isn't anywhere in the Constitution, neither in the Bill of Rights, or in the other 17 amendments. Could it possibly be that the "intent" was there and they forgot to put in in there? They may have screwed up and forgot to put some words in, because the way it reads, the first amendment to the Bill Of Rights gives schools the right to pray and/or even teach religion if they so desire. The 10th amendment backs it up. The states can teach what they want to, but Congress can't tell the states which religion to establish over another. I envision each state eventually voting to decide which religion they want to teach in school.

That sure won't happen today. The ACLU would sue.

(unless, of course, you're teaching Secularism or Islam... )

I think it should be pointed out by Christians VERY LOUDLY that atheism and secularism and communism are also BELIEF SYSTEMS and to promote them in government or the schools is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Keep your dirty belief systems out of my government!