Ridiculous Seperation Of Church And State

[Hobbit]

I'm talking about letting state and federal government dictate what movies and TV shows we can watch, or what magazines or books we are allowed to read, or whether a person is allowed to have a beer in the privacy of their own home. The implication of the thread is that we are given too much freedom in these and similar areas, thus leading to a breakdown of society. So whose morals are going to be those we all have to live by?

No, the breakdown of society occurs when religions are no longer allowed to express themselves outside their own buildings and the idea that once you enter a public area, you are considered to be speaking for the government and cannot then endorse a religion. The sequestering of religion leads to a society that sees no deeper reason for morals and becomes extremely self-centered, as our society is now. If the Rainbow Coalition can get up on the capitol steps and proclaim that it's perfectly alright to be gay, anyone else should be able to get up on the capitol steps and preach the gospel. As long as both groups are allowed and they are both charged/payed equally, it's all good.

 

[MissileMan]

No, the breakdown of society occurs when religions are no longer allowed to express themselves outside their own buildings and the idea that once you enter a public area, you are considered to be speaking for the government and cannot then endorse a religion. The sequestering of religion leads to a society that sees no deeper reason for morals and becomes extremely self-centered, as our society is now. If the Rainbow Coalition can get up on the capitol steps and proclaim that it's perfectly alright to be gay, anyone else should be able to get up on the capitol steps and preach the gospel. As long as both groups are allowed and they are both charged/payed equally, it's all good.

I'm pretty sure that anyone who wanted to could preach the gospel on the capital steps. Provided it was on their own time, who could object? What isn't allowed is for someone to wield their religion like a weapon to assault someone or to take advantage of a situation where someone is unable to walk away, like the workplace, and use it as an opportunity to figuratively beat someone over the head with their holy book. There are those who see that restriction as infringing on their freedom of religion. If the religious weren't so agressive in their quest to "spread the word", radical organizations like the ACLU would have no ammunition to fight with.

 

[MissileMan]

No, the breakdown of society occurs when religions are no longer allowed to express themselves outside their own buildings and the idea that once you enter a public area, you are considered to be speaking for the government and cannot then endorse a religion. The sequestering of religion leads to a society that sees no deeper reason for morals and becomes extremely self-centered, as our society is now. If the Rainbow Coalition can get up on the capitol steps and proclaim that it's perfectly alright to be gay, anyone else should be able to get up on the capitol steps and preach the gospel. As long as both groups are allowed and they are both charged/payed equally, it's all good.

For another thing, your allegation that religion is being sequestered is baseless. Sunday morning television and radio broadcasts are clearly evidence that refute your notion. Movies with religious significance like "The Passion of the Christ" being shown in public movie theaters is more evidence.

 

[Annie]

I'm pretty sure that anyone who wanted to could preach the gospel on the capital steps. Provided it was on their own time, who could object? What isn't allowed is for someone to wield their religion like a weapon to assault someone or to take advantage of a situation where someone is unable to walk away, like the workplace, and use it as an opportunity to figuratively beat someone over the head with their holy book. There are those who see that restriction as infringing on their freedom of religion. If the religious weren't so agressive in their quest to "spread the word", radical organizations like the ACLU would have no ammunition to fight with.

I'd have to say, with all my personal animosity or ambivalence to the religious right aside, that it's groups like the ACLU who've forced the Religious Right to come out vehemently or be driven underground.

Catholics have tended to keep a large seperation between Church and state, probably due to prejudice from way back, largely from the same religious right I do have some problems with. In some ways though, I can see the Religious Right's point of view, since contrary to the 'Deists being the founders', it was really the persecution of the scriptured based Puritans that begat this country.

 

[Avatar4321]

And those laws have been passed, and it is legal to watch a porno movie while browsing through a Playboy magazine and drinking a beer. Get over it! What's really tiresome is the constant whining by the religious right because we aren't all forced to live as Christians. Live your lives as you see fit and let everyone else live theirs as they see fit, within the bounds of law of course.

Actually, no. the american people did not pass laws legalizing pornography. the courts did that.

What im getting sick and tired of is people trying to force things on people and then claim that the majority has no voice in whether they want it. If you want to view or drink garbage go ahead, but dont pretend that your view is the view of a majority when the majority had no freakin say in the matter.

 

[Annie]

Actually, no. the american people did not pass laws legalizing pornography. the courts did that.

What im getting sick and tired of is people trying to force things on people and then claim that the majority has no voice in whether they want it. If you want to view or drink garbage go ahead, but dont pretend that your view is the view of a majority when the majority had no freakin say in the matter.

Avatar, knowing that you are in law school, I will not explain the difference between a pure democracy and representative government. Let's just say, we don't vote on all issues, only referendums.

 

[Avatar4321]

Avatar, knowing that you are in law school, I will not explain the difference between a pure democracy and representative government. Let's just say, we don't vote on all issues, only referendums.

That's not the point. The point is if the people wanted to pass laws against pornography, we can't. So i dont want to hear this BS about the people creating laws allowing it.

 

[Annie]

That's not the point. The point is if the people wanted to pass laws against pornography, we can't. So i dont want to hear this BS about the people creating laws allowing it.

It's not 'people.' It's the Constitution. First Amendment. Now you have the right not to buy, read, watch, listen. Your locale has the right to place restrictions on the shops selling-such as not being visable, not selling to minors, videos in an 'adult only' section.

 

[Bullypulpit]

There is no such thing as "separation of church and state" per se. Our Constitution just prevents the "establishment" of religion.

Religious expression is a freedom under the Constitution.
Religious expression should be expressed at will in the public square, our schools, our Congress, or anywhere, anytime in a FREE country.

We are LOSING our freedom of religion and our free speech due to the ACLU communists forcing their version of "separation of church and state" upon us.

I have no objection to the expression of one's religion in schools, Congress or public square, so long as all religions are free to do so.

Now, which is it the ACLU or the Communists?

 

[Avatar4321]

Now, which is it the ACLU or the Communists?

You act like they separate organizations.

 

[MissileMan]

Actually, no. the american people did not pass laws legalizing pornography. the courts did that.

Care to share a link to a law that was passed by a court that legalized pornography?

What im getting sick and tired of is people trying to force things on people and then claim that the majority has no voice in whether they want it. If you want to view or drink garbage go ahead, but dont pretend that your view is the view of a majority when the majority had no freakin say in the matter.

And as Kathianne stated, unfortunately for you, and fortunately for the rest of us, this country isn't run on a majority rules basis. The majority is free to elect as many representatives who share their goals as they can and then lobby them to pass new laws. Could it possibly be that the reason you can't get any of these morality laws passed is because you aren't the great majority you think you are?

 

[OCA]

I'm talking about letting state and federal government dictate what movies and TV shows we can watch, or what magazines or books we are allowed to read, or whether a person is allowed to have a beer in the privacy of their own home. The implication of the thread is that we are given too much freedom in these and similar areas, thus leading to a breakdown of society. So whose morals are going to be those we all have to live by?

You guys are so way off base of where I was going. Why do we go out of our way to accomodate things that we know are fucking wrong such as homosexuality, abortion etc. etc. and pay so much attention to things such as the rights of criminals and prisoners? AMERICA IS FREEDOM TAKEN TO THE RIDICULOUS EXTREME! I'm not talking about establishment of a state religion but about endorsing common truths that are expoused by almost all religions(well except maybe Islam), the values that are held by, well because I don't know how they are expressed by other religions, the ten commandments. Why do we go out of our way to appease secularists here and persecute religion?

Of course I knew people from the vile ilk such as Bully could not argue this except to talk about the Taliban and other ridiculous bullshit, this subject is way above their heads.

 

[OCA]

And those laws have been passed, and it is legal to watch a porno movie while browsing through a Playboy magazine and drinking a beer. Get over it! What's really tiresome is the constant whining by the religious right because we aren't all forced to live as Christians. Live your lives as you see fit and let everyone else live theirs as they see fit, within the bounds of law of course.

Except when your secularism intrudes upon others and my rights to live safely, then its becomes my problem.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Except when your secularism intrudes upon others and my rights to live safely, then its becomes my problem.

Such woeful oversimplification...It's a hallmark of modern conservative thinking and the path preferred by the intellectually lazy.

The causes of America's problems are many and varied, each acting synergistically to lead the nation closer and closer to the precipice. A good first step, though, would be returning to the concept of responsibility for one's actions. This is neither a religious of secular course to take, but it can have its roots in either.

To scapegoat secularism, as you have, is a canard and merely a distraction from the many real problems America faces.

 

[OCA]

Such woeful oversimplification...It's a hallmark of modern conservative thinking and the path preferred by the intellectually lazy.

The causes of America's problems are many and varied, each acting synergistically to lead the nation closer and closer to the precipice. A good first step, though, would be returning to the concept of responsibility for one's actions. This is neither a religious of secular course to take, but it can have its roots in either.

To scapegoat secularism, as you have, is a canard and merely a distraction from the many real problems America faces.

Oh no secularism isn't to blame :crutch: :crutch: :crutch: :scratch:

 

[OCA]

Such woeful oversimplification...It's a hallmark of modern conservative thinking and the path preferred by the intellectually lazy.

The causes of America's problems are many and varied, each acting synergistically to lead the nation closer and closer to the precipice. A good first step, though, would be returning to the concept of responsibility for one's actions. This is neither a religious of secular course to take, but it can have its roots in either.

To scapegoat secularism, as you have, is a canard and merely a distraction from the many real problems America faces.

You see liberals like to try and muddle the conversation with forked roads(and tongues) and use big words because they think if they can get you going in several different convoluted directions at once you won't discover that they have no point at all.

 

[MissileMan]

You guys are so way off base of where I was going. Why do we go out of our way to accomodate things that we know are fucking wrong such as homosexuality, abortion etc. etc. and pay so much attention to things such as the rights of criminals and prisoners? AMERICA IS FREEDOM TAKEN TO THE RIDICULOUS EXTREME! I'm not talking about establishment of a state religion but about endorsing common truths that are expoused by almost all religions(well except maybe Islam), the values that are held by, well because I don't know how they are expressed by other religions, the ten commandments. Why do we go out of our way to appease secularists here and persecute religion?

Of course I knew people from the vile ilk such as Bully could not argue this except to talk about the Taliban and other ridiculous bullshit, this subject is way above their heads.

While it may be a majority of Americans think that homosexuality and abortion are wrong, it's not even close to unanimous. Since neither of those things are illegal, you're just going to have to get used to them being around. You have choices available to you. You can elect to not associate with homosexuals and elect to not watch shows or read books with homosexual themes. You can also elect to not have an abortion.

But I'll ask you again, since the 10 commandments are well represented in our laws, what more do you think is necessary?

 

[OCA]

While it may be a majority of Americans think that homosexuality and abortion are wrong, it's not even close to unanimous. Since neither of those things are illegal, you're just going to have to get used to them being around. You have choices available to you. You can elect to not associate with homosexuals and elect to not watch shows or read books with homosexual themes. You can also elect to not have an abortion.

But I'll ask you again, since the 10 commandments are well represented in our laws, what more do you think is necessary?

That we stop trying to distance ourselves from these things and embrace them. Enough removal of things from the public square and bring prayer back into public schools.

 

[Gunny]

Oh no secularism isn't to blame :crutch: :crutch: :crutch: :scratch:

Right AND wrong. True secularism is not to blame. To blame are those anit-religion, pseudo-intellectual wingnuts that dishonestly attempt to associate anything that mentions or represents religion as some trespass against the First Amendment.

The First Amendment is written in a fairly simple manner. It does not preclude religion from our government. It prevents A religion from controlling our government.

All these smoke-n-mirror arguments to the contrary represent those whose self-centeredness has gone beyond the point of caring whether or not it is destroying the moral foundation of this country.

 

[archangel]

While it may be a majority of Americans think that homosexuality and abortion are wrong, it's not even close to unanimous. Since neither of those things are illegal, you're just going to have to get used to them being around. You have choices available to you. You can elect to not associate with homosexuals and elect to not watch shows or read books with homosexual themes. You can also elect to not have an abortion.

But I'll ask you again, since the 10 commandments are well represented in our laws, what more do you think is necessary?

The homosexual agenda is forced down our throats everyday...it is pushed in schools and in the work invironment to name a couple...also as for abortion...yes a woman can elect to not do it...but what about the fetus...does it have a choice in this matter...humm! is what it gets!