The Real intention of Separation of Church and State

[jeffrockit]

That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists.

Also, don't forget the evils of abortion.

If conservatives spent as much time, effort, and money on the children of unwanted pregnancy, then we could probably end abortion simply because there is an alternative.

Is that going to happen? Of course not. Conservatives only want to get them born. After that? Screw 'em. They don't care what happens.

And the whole issue would be solved if the liberals were smart enough to use birth control.

 

[pinqy]

How does paying for a christmas tree interfere with a muslims ability to prey in their own mosque therefore interfering with their freedom to practice their religion?

How does NOT paying for a Christmas tree interfere with Christians' ability to pray in their own church therefore interfering with their freedom to practice their religion? But by the government paying/supporting for a Christmas tree, but not the religious symbols of any other religion, Christians are granted the right to government support, de facto endorsement, and greater ability for their religious practices than others. If one group has more "rights" than another, do you really think they have the same freedoms?

to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.

And if the government paid for public celebration of say Birthdays, or Weddings, or any other significant event, but only for Whites, would you also be saying that Blacks enjoy the same freedom to have their celebrations?

 

[Cecilie1200]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

Yeah, and atheism spawned Stalin and Mao Tse Tung, so I think the world needs more protection from THOSE sorts of religious zealots. Feel free to stop patting yourself on the back until Christianity racks up the sorts of death tolls atheism has.

 

[Cecilie1200]

That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists.

Also, don't forget the evils of abortion.

If conservatives spent as much time, effort, and money on the children of unwanted pregnancy, then we could probably end abortion simply because there is an alternative.

Is that going to happen? Of course not. Conservatives only want to get them born. After that? Screw 'em. They don't care what happens.

I leftists spent as much money and effort on caring for children as they do on killing them, and as much time and effort on it as they do feigning outrage at what Christians do, the whole world would be better off.

I swear to God, if unjustified leftist self-righteousness and -satisfaction could be converted to energy, we'd never need another drop of oil or lump of coal again.

 

[antagon]

the church of england is part of their government, with cardinals granted seats in their house of lords to this date. the rest of europe was loyalist to the pope in rome at the time the bill of rights was penned. maybe the founders had a distaste for these ideas, and none of that other nonsense people have manipulated the document to 'say' on their behalf since the founder's died.

 

[JD_2B]

The real intent of the first amendment was not to snub religion out of public life such as taking down the wreaths at city hall but was to protect church's from the government. The first clause basically says that congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of... and the second part says that no law can be created that inhibits someone's religion.

I believe that the writers meant this to mean that government can't create a state church like the church of England because they knew that whenever the government got involved in anything it usually snuffed out its competitors. They feared that an official church of the state would destroy other people's churches and destroy the freedom for any individual to attend the church that they choose to along with it.

This protects individual's right to believe any religious beliefs that they want by preventing the state from creating an official church or inhibiting them from attending a church. This means that a small town full of Christians can have government funding for Christmas trees and a small town full of Muslims can fund <insert muslim ceremony here> without anyone else's right to believe or attend a different church being threatened simply because it separates church from state.

BTW, The expression's use of church does not refer to a person's religious beliefs associated with that church but the institution and organization itself. Its like saying separation of <the Vatican> from the state or separation of the Church of England from England. Its referring to the organization not the values associated with it.

You are almost completely right.. And it is very okay for religious beliefs to determine what laws are passed or not passed. I disagree with the underlined section.
The wall that separates the church from the state is a one way wall, like the way a two way mirror works. The state may not dictate to the people what religious beliefs should be followed, but the people, the citizens (who stand behind the mirror and speak through it, through face to face conversation, email, and other correspondence) may absolutely pronounce that proposed legislation goes firmly against/or for their beliefs and express their interest in it not being/ or being passed.

The problem comes when federal buildings want to put certain iconic religious symbolism up, in those federal areas. While I am okay with certain things being used for decoration, I am not okay with others. I do not want a cross being put anywhere. I do not like the ten commandments being displayed anywhere. A christmas tree is okay, because it is technically a mixture of a few different religions, and as such, is not a religious symbol, per se. A wreath is also not a religious symbol. I feel that putting a cross up somewhere, or keeping the ten commandments up, is much akin to putting a manger scene in the Supreme Court, or a statue that reveres the crucifixion of Jesus, even.
I am not anti-Christian, either. I am currently a Christian agnostic, and am thinking I might convert to being Jewish, but that is irrelevant here. I just think that there is a slippery slope when it comes to using actual icons of religions that may indicate that a specific religion is actually practiced within that federal building, or by the federal government as a whole.
If the whole nation, or even the majority, switched to Buddhism, then there would be a massive problem with having those ten commandments or the baby Jesus on tax-payer funded federal, state, or even local public property. Majority does NOT rule when it comes to separation of church and state. The separation should be in full, and the expression of faith should remain a one way avenue, and be only expressed by the people, not by the public servants of the people.

On a side note- I also think that it is retarded for anyone to put icons of Jesus or the cross anywhere, because, no matter how well intentioned it may be, it is idolatry, a sin in and of itself. =)

 

[JD_2B]

To ALL the anti- abortionists who have decided to HIJACK this thread..

Also, don't forget the evils of abortion.

If conservatives spent as much time, effort, and money on the children of unwanted pregnancy, then we could probably end abortion simply because there is an alternative.

Is that going to happen? Of course not. Conservatives only want to get them born. After that? Screw 'em. They don't care what happens.

When did it become my responsibility to take care of other people's children?

When did getting pregnant become some kind of curse of womanhood? Oh right.. since the beginning of time, right up until 1973, 50% of all women, worldwide have experienced unwanted or untimely pregnancies.
Well, Gee.. thank goodness there is now a medical fix to that curse!!!

In fact- Just because something I never asked for is growing in my body, doesn't mean I am responsible for giving it food, shelter and clothing for 18 years.. And if I do not want that responsibility, and you don't want it- then I guess you need to just respect the choice I make to end the pregnancy. I ain't asking you to pay for it. If a person is raped, and tax dollars pay for the abortion, the woman has to follow through and testify against the guy, and all this shit, anyways. The dude usually ends up paying for that, in fines, anyways. And if she doesn't follow through, she might pay for it anyways.

Mind your own business- thats all we pro-choicers want from you. Don't DEMONIZE us just because we don't have all those screwy intimacy issues that so many conservatives seem to have. Don't lash out at us, and act like we are hateful, just because we don't want to pay 10 grand for a pregnancy and birthing a child that we do not want to have INSIDE of us in the first place.

Rape goes beyond forced intercourse. Consensual sex resulting in having your body invaded and fucked up by a growing organism, and being told that you should have to keep it, birth it, and care for it, putting your ass hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt, is another form of rape. It rapes us of our autonomy. People don't screw just for the sake of having children. Many of us do it for recreation, as well. It happens to be a very pleasurable experience.

Now.. back to the issues. That was.. religious symbolism in public places and government sponsored religious events versus the separation of church and state. Lets get back on track. Stop hijacking the fucking thread, antis.

 

[Smartt33]

That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists.

Also, don't forget the evils of abortion.

If conservatives spent as much time, effort, and money on the children of unwanted pregnancy, then we could probably end abortion simply because there is an alternative.

Is that going to happen? Of course not. Conservatives only want to get them born. After that? Screw 'em. They don't care what happens.

This is stupid! "Unwanted pregnancies"? Let's see. A man and a woman go to bed, have sex, and the result is a baby...Who knew that would happen? Accident, I don't think so. If it was unwanted, you'd thing they would have porevented it. DUH!!!

When a man and woman want to have sex, they better prevent the baby, or let him/her live, or they will actually be killing a living being. They have no room for complaint when they are the brunt of what appears to be condemnation. They are being totally irresponsible.

Just to put the record straight, the conservatives are not the only ones responsible for caring for the "unwanted" babies. First, the ignorant partnts owe the greratest part of the cost, and duty. Then, the community who says sex is OK outside of marriage (which is who get pregnant and have abortions the most), should pick up the rest of the tab.

Immorality is the responsibility of the immoral.

 

[Smartt33]

How does paying for a christmas tree interfere with a muslims ability to prey in their own mosque therefore interfering with their freedom to practice their religion?

How does NOT paying for a Christmas tree interfere with Christians' ability to pray in their own church therefore interfering with their freedom to practice their religion? But by the government paying/supporting for a Christmas tree, but not the religious symbols of any other religion, Christians are granted the right to government support, de facto endorsement, and greater ability for their religious practices than others. If one group has more "rights" than another, do you really think they have the same freedoms?

to assure to the colored race the enjoyment of all the civil rights that under the law are enjoyed by white persons, and to give to that race the protection of the general government, in that enjoyment, whenever it should be denied by the States.

And if the government paid for public celebration of say Birthdays, or Weddings, or any other significant event, but only for Whites, would you also be saying that Blacks enjoy the same freedom to have their celebrations?

I don't think it is about the government picking up the tab for the Christmas Tree, or decorations, or whatever. I think there are enough people (individuals or a group) who as private citizenz, and who have a place of employment to decorate, who will gladly pick up the tab. No one is asking for the government to pay for religious decorations, or events.

 

[rdean]

And all this time, I thought it was to protect us from religious zealots. You know, those people who want to teach mysticism in place of science. That group whose religious leaders say God allowed 9/11 and Katrina to happen because of gays and feminists. Yea, they are creepy and dangerous. They spawned Timothy McVeigh.

And all this time you have been mistaken. It prohibits The government and enables the people. It keeps the government from morphing into a religious zealot, such as the church from which the founding fathers fled.

Actually, it was to protect those of minority religious groups from persecution by majority religious groups.

It was to protect the right of anyone to speak their religion freely, and not have it interfere with their right to participate freely in enterprise, politics, prosperity.

As usual, rgaygene, you have it exaclty ass backwards. Which is the way you like it, I'm sure.

No, again. Read what it actually says. The government shall pass no law...

Why should there be any need to protect against atheists? What is their agenda...to force others to believe as they do, that there is no God? That, in itself is a religion.

You're kidding, right? You've honestly never heard of blasphemy laws? And didn't know that many states in their original constitutions had religious requirements, usually just a basic statement of belief in God, in order to serve in office or serve on a jury? There have been plenty of laws either directly or indirectly against atheists.

And thank God they don't exist anymore.

BLASPHEMY!!!

Anti-blasphemy laws are unconstitutional

The New Blasphemy Law in Ireland - ABC News

Islamic countries push a global 'blasphemy' law | csmonitor.com

Blasphemy Laws in Pakistan

Expert: U.N. Resolutions Would Create 'Global Blasphemy Law' | Christianpost.com

Blasphemy laws in the 21st century | Psychology Today

CNSNews.com - Blasphemy Laws Seen As Root Cause of Violence Against Christians

Pakistan: Christians launch movement to repeal blasphemy laws - Jihad Watch

Church 'accepts end of blasphemy law' - Telegraph

Muslim bigots impose blasphemy laws on Victoria

There is one thing you are absolutely wrong about and I've heard the religious repeat it many times as if it were true, which it's not.

To use "heat" as a metaphor. Cold is the absence of heat. Many of the uneducated will automatically say, "heat is the absence of cold". The truth is, cold is absence. Take heat away and you have cold, but you can't take cold away. There is nothing there to take away. You can add heat or subtract heat, but you are adding and subtracting it to nothing.

Atheism is like that. It is a "lack" of mystical or "occult" beliefs. If you add beliefs in the supernatural, then you have religion. If you discount those imaginary beliefs, you have reality.

While an atheist might say, "Thank God" or "Oh my God!", they are just using a "phrase". They know that there is no invisible, imaginary spirit thingy looking over your shoulder. There is nothing there, hence, atheism is NOT a religion. It's an "absence" of religion.

What's also funny about that, is the right will occasionally try a lame attempt to somehow connect atheists. Like putting together Stalin and Madeline O'Hare. What it is actually saying, since atheism is the "absence" of mystical beliefs, is that they have "ZERO" in common.

I understand why they do it. You look at all the murders committed in the name of religion. The destruction, the suffering, all the murder. The religious want to somehow tie the atheists together in a similar manner. Only you can't. There is nothing there to connect. Atheism is a "lack" of belief, NOT "shared" belief. There is nothing there to share. The religious just assume there must be because they believe in that stuff.

 

[JakeStarkey]

rdean is absolutely wrong about atheism not being religious. It is a belief, a faith, in something, not in nothing. rdean, peddle it elsewhere, please.

 

[rdean]

rdean is absolutely wrong about atheism not being religious. It is a belief, a faith, in something, not in nothing. rdean, peddle it elsewhere, please.

Atheism is a faith? Tell you what, you tell me the mystical belief that atheists "believe" in and I will send you a bright and shiny coin.

I know how those on the right are enamored of the bright and shiny. Little bright golden crucifix and shiny silver chalices.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You can't prove that a deity does not exist.

Since you can't, then you have to have a faith that such is the case.

 

[rdean]

You can't prove that a deity does not exist.

Since you can't, then you have to have a faith that such is the case.

And you can't prove that the center of the moon isn't made from soft gooey cheese. And that's how atheists view the claims of those with "mystical" beliefs.

It's like, "Where do you get this stuff"? Do you really believe in Samson and Noah's Ark? Even worse, "angels and demons"? To scoff at that nonsense is NOT a belief. I honestly can't understand how anyone could believe in that stuff.

To atheists, believing in the "occult" is on par with believing "fairies" and "leprechauns". Or worse, believing that "astrology" is a "science'.

 

[Cecilie1200]

rdean is absolutely wrong about atheism not being religious. It is a belief, a faith, in something, not in nothing. rdean, peddle it elsewhere, please.

Atheism is a faith? Tell you what, you tell me the mystical belief that atheists "believe" in and I will send you a bright and shiny coin.

I know how those on the right are enamored of the bright and shiny. Little bright golden crucifix and shiny silver chalices.

Yes, dumbfuck. Atheism is a faith. It is the belief that God does not exist. I know you would all like to pretend that atheism is just an absence of any belief about God at all, but that would be vegetable-level stupidity, not atheism. The truth is that any human with enough intelligence to tie his own shoes actively has a belief about God and the supernatural, even if it's apathetic and nebulous. So if you are an atheist, you are actively believing that God doesn't exist.

And the fact that you twits tend to evangelize about it more than a goodly percentage of Christians do doesn't help.

 

[rdean]

rdean is absolutely wrong about atheism not being religious. It is a belief, a faith, in something, not in nothing. rdean, peddle it elsewhere, please.

Atheism is a faith? Tell you what, you tell me the mystical belief that atheists "believe" in and I will send you a bright and shiny coin.

I know how those on the right are enamored of the bright and shiny. Little bright golden crucifix and shiny silver chalices.

Yes, dumbfuck. Atheism is a faith. It is the belief that God does not exist. I know you would all like to pretend that atheism is just an absence of any belief about God at all, but that would be vegetable-level stupidity, not atheism. The truth is that any human with enough intelligence to tie his own shoes actively has a belief about God and the supernatural, even if it's apathetic and nebulous. So if you are an atheist, you are actively believing that God doesn't exist.

And the fact that you twits tend to evangelize about it more than a goodly percentage of Christians do doesn't help.

Let me try to communicate with words even you can understand, "Listen you sh*t for brains, dumbass, stupid f*ck moron (am I doing OK so far? I'm trying to write in your language. I may have misspelled, so you can fill in the vowels.), having no belief about something isn't a belief. If it's not a possibility, it's not even a consideration.
Do you believe it's possible the center of the moon could be made of soft gooey cheese? If I told you that "Luna", the mooN goddess of soft gooey cheese lives there, Would you believe it? If you didn't believe it, would that make it a religion anyway?

And believe it or not, there are some of us who don't believe in ghosts, spirits, or anything with a supernatural or mystical connection. IT ..... JUST..... DOESN'T..... EXIST.

 

[JakeStarkey]

IT ..... JUST..... DOESN'T..... EXIST is a belief system, rdean, a faith. Sorry, bud, but you can't get away from it. You are probably a bigger faith whore than even JenT.

 

[rdean]

IT ..... JUST..... DOESN'T..... EXIST is a belief system, rdean, a faith. Sorry, bud, but you can't get away from it. You are probably a bigger faith whore than even JenT.

So let me get this straight. You are saying that "it's possible" that the center of the moon is made of soft gooey cheese and could be the home of "Luna" the Moon Goddess?

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, you don't get to deflect.

The liability is yours.

The issue of what to believe itself is not in question, only the issue of belief itself. For instance, Willow believes in wingnut reactionary politics, which are (in my opinion) devoid of basic humanity, avoid of the decency and respect to which person is entitled. "What" she believes, however, is not the issue. "That she believes" is the point here. Similarly, you have a belief system. You believe that God does not exist. Thus, you have a belief system in which you have faith.

Be honest with yourself enough to admit it.

 

[Father Time]

No, you don't get to deflect.

The liability is yours.

The issue of what to believe itself is not in question, only the issue of belief itself. For instance, Willow believes in wingnut reactionary politics, which are (in my opinion) devoid of basic humanity, avoid of the decency and respect to which person is entitled. "What" she believes, however, is not the issue. "That she believes" is the point here. Similarly, you have a belief system. You believe that God does not exist. Thus, you have a belief system in which you have faith.

Bullshit.

Absolute bullshit. If you have a belief that you will drop the moment there's evidence against it, that's not faith. Faith requires belief without evidence. I don't believe in the Christian God not because of faith but because when I think of the stories of the Bible I see inconsistencies and plot holes that make me think the whole thing was made up. Although if anyone were to show evidence it actually happened I'd adopt their side. Now tell me how the hell that's faith.

But I'll guess we'll try your way.

Do you believe in Atlantis, unicorns, nessie, dragons or that the world would end in 2012? I just want to know what your religious beliefs are (because according to you an answer of yes or no to any of those questions would be 'faith').

Someone said it best before, if atheism is a faith then not collecting stamps is a hobby and bald is a hair style.