Compare & Contrast - State vs. Sponsored Religion?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by manifold, Feb 14, 2010.

  1. manifold
    Offline

    manifold Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2008
    Messages:
    48,778
    Thanks Received:
    7,234
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    your dreams
    Ratings:
    +20,889
    Seems that a lot of posters here believe that it's perfectly reasonable (and constitutional) for the government to sponsor one particular group of religions (Christianity) as long as they do not declare any particular "state" religion.

    Compare and contrast the practical implications of both a state religion and a state sponsored relgion. Why would one violate the 1st Amendment but not the other?
     
  2. Baruch Menachem
    Offline

    Baruch Menachem '

    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2008
    Messages:
    14,204
    Thanks Received:
    3,235
    Trophy Points:
    185
    Ratings:
    +3,305
    I think you missed something.

    They cant sponsor it either.

    They can be a member of a religion, they can practice that religion, but they cant use the authority of the state to compel that religion. So Kennedy can be as Catholic as he wants, and Carter can be as Baptist as he wants (Neither one of them seemed that enthusiastic) but if they start spending money to preach... That is a different kettle of fish.

    What particular thing in the news brought this up?
     
  3. kyzr
    Offline

    kyzr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,447
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +630
    1. the state does not sponsor Christianity. (thats a lie)
    2. a state religion happens when the state sponsors atheism by removing references to God.

    Can the state sponsor atheism as a religion on behalf of a tiny minority when the Constitution does not?

    Whining about Christianity when 85% of the population are Christian is going nowhere, so why whine about it?
     
  4. Gadawg73
    Offline

    Gadawg73 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2009
    Messages:
    14,426
    Thanks Received:
    1,603
    Trophy Points:
    155
    Location:
    Georgia
    Ratings:
    +1,677
    Atheism is not a religion. An atheist, in not believing in God, has no dog in the fight of belief systems.
    NO ONE can prove that my religous beliefs are false. NO ONE. That is because all religous beliefs are beliefs only and can not be proven.
    Please inform us where, ANYWHERE,are there any references whatsoever to God in the US Constitution.
    The Founders had EVERY oppurtunity to put it in and voted that down. Contrary to popular opinion, we are not a nation of man and his religions, we are a nation of LAWS.
    If you want to have a religous government of any form, they do it the religous and God way in Iran. Delta is ready when you are.
     
  5. kyzr
    Offline

    kyzr Gold Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2009
    Messages:
    3,447
    Thanks Received:
    450
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +630
    Atheism is a religion the same way zero is a number. If the state enforces atheism that is in fact a state sponsored religion.

    Besides, you dodged my point that the state does not promote Christianity. Secondly, majority rules, the minority can't whine about the majority's religious preferences. They could, but no one would care. Like NAMBLA or other fucked-up people, the majority doesn't need to allow/consider their whines.
     
  6. MIPS
    Offline

    MIPS Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 15, 2010
    Messages:
    963
    Thanks Received:
    156
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +156
    True on the religious point Atheism does not meet the criteria of a "religion" , however it does require FAITH since it's a belief system that is based on the premise of something which cannot be proven by current scientific method. The same can be said about the belief system of those of us that have faith in the existence of a "creator" yet do not subscribe to any particular religion.

    Which is why it's called "faith".

    Well said and I agree 100%, however you appear to ignore the state constitutions some of which do in fact contain direct references to god, this speaks to the importance that faith played in the "founding era" of the nation.

    A couple examples
    Maine (Preamble)
    "We the people of Maine, in order to establish justice, insure tranquility, provide for our mutual defense, promote our common welfare, and secure to ourselves and our posterity the blessings of liberty, acknowledging with grateful hearts the goodness of the Sovereign Ruler of the Universe in affording us an opportunity, so favorable to the design; and, imploring God's aid and direction in its accomplishment, do agree to form ourselves into a free and independent State, by the style and title of the State of Maine and do ordain and establish the following Constitution for the government of the same. "

    Rhode Island(Preamble)
    "We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government. "

    I don't know anybody outside of the extreme religious radicals that is advocating anything like an Iranian form of theocracy in the United States and by all appearances this is a very small (but sometimes vocal) minority which isn't emblematic of either mainstream conservative or progressive views.
     
  7. Cold Fusion38
    Offline

    Cold Fusion38 SUPER GENIUS

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    4,088
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In the desert chasing that damn roadrunner.
    Ratings:
    +307
    Allowing ONE religion to put RELIGIOUS SYMBOLS on gov't property IS "STATE SPONSORED" religion. If you are going to put a Ten Commandments display on govt owned property then you have to put a similar display from EVERY OTHER RELIGION to avoid a conflict of interest. It's just that SIMPLE!!! So to avoid a "PUBLIC SQUARE" full of religious monuments it is better to have NONE!!! If you NEED to see the Ten Commandments then you can go a CHURCH what a concept huh?
     
  8. Cold Fusion38
    Offline

    Cold Fusion38 SUPER GENIUS

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    4,088
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In the desert chasing that damn roadrunner.
    Ratings:
    +307
    "True on the religious point Atheism does not meet the criteria of a "religion" , however it does require FAITH since it's a belief system that is based on the premise of something which cannot be proven by current scientific method. The same can be said about the belief system of those of us that have faith in the existence of a "creator" yet do not subscribe to any particular religion."





    So it requires FAITH to know there isn't a MONSTER in your closet at night not just COMMON SENSE!!!???
     
  9. Cold Fusion38
    Offline

    Cold Fusion38 SUPER GENIUS

    Joined:
    Aug 6, 2009
    Messages:
    4,088
    Thanks Received:
    305
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    In the desert chasing that damn roadrunner.
    Ratings:
    +307




    THIS person would be MORE than happy to enforce an IRANIAN style THEOCRACY because "majority rules". But he is a FUCKING IDIOT because the CONSTITUTION trumps the "majority rules" concept and that is EXACTELY WHY we have a seperation of CHURCH and STATE!!!
     
  10. PeterS
    Offline

    PeterS Active Member

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2008
    Messages:
    973
    Thanks Received:
    71
    Trophy Points:
    28
    Ratings:
    +71

    What does removing references to god have to do with atheism? I am not an atheist but if a atheist has no right to seek political influence over me then I have no right to seek political influence over him which is why references to god outside the founders intent, Natures God as the authority for Natural Law, should be stripped from the political domain.
     

Share This Page