ACLU and "separation of church & state"

[Bullypulpit]

then why has this only become an issue as of late? The NATION was much more Christian 50, 100, 150 years ago and nobody complained. It is only now that the left is getting radical about abolishing all signs of Christianity in this country. Could it be because of a hidden agenda?

Are not our basic laws, as outlined by the forefathers, based upon Jedeo-Christian laws? If we take your thoughts on this into consideration, then almost all laws should be abolished since many were predicated upon biblical law.

Even 50 years ago, if you asked most people what Islam was, you would have been treated to a blank stare. Until as recently as forty or fifty years ago, the various Christian traditions and Judaism were the only schools of religious thought most Americans were acquainted with.

As for our legal system, the usefulness of the laws passed based upon Judeo-Christian ethics cannot be disputed. The laws passed deal, largely, with the consequences of our actions upon ourselves and others. But this is not consistent with an ethical system whose formulation and ultimate values are rooted in a mythical, metaphysical world beyonfd this one. Such a system of ethics divorces action from consequence as the pay-off , or punishment, lies not in this world, but in another.

For our ethiccal and moral systems, as well as the legal structures that are built upon them, to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life and in this world. This results in a ethical and legal system wherein man is the measure of all things as the consequences to human life, here and now are the yard-stick by which our moral and legal decisions are measured.

 

[dilloduck]

Even 50 years ago, if you asked most people what Islam was, you would have been treated to a blank stare. Until as recently as forty or fifty years ago, the various Christian traditions and Judaism were the only schools of religious thought most Americans were acquainted with.

As for our legal system, the usefulness of the laws passed based upon Judeo-Christian ethics cannot be disputed. The laws passed deal, largely, with the consequences of our actions upon ourselves and others. But this is not consistent with an ethical system whose formulation and ultimate values are rooted in a mythical, metaphysical world beyonfd this one. Such a system of ethics divorces action from consequence as the pay-off , or punishment, lies not in this world, but in another.

For our ethiccal and moral systems, as well as the legal structures that are built upon them, to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life and in this world. This results in a ethical and legal system wherein man is the measure of all things as the consequences to human life, here and now are the yard-stick by which our moral and legal decisions are measured.

So with the immigration of new religious philosophy, Christianity is supposed to take a back seat to whatever comes along?

 

[Merlin]

<blockquote>

Here too, we see "...a wall of separation between church and state..." which we now use a a kind of short hand for the Establishment Clause of the Constitution.

I think therein lies the problem. Are we going by intent, or what is written in the Constitution? If by intent, we need to revisit a lot more of the Constitution and clarify all of it. If by written word, I and my children has a right by the first amendment to pray in school or any other public place I see fit. It wasn't written as a seperation clause, it was written to give me the right to pray in public places including school.

 

[dilloduck]

I think therein lies the problem. Are we going by intent, or what is written in the Constitution? If by intent, we need to revisit a lot more of the Constitution and clarify all of it. If by written word, I and my children has a right by the first amendment to pray in school or any other public place I see fit. It wasn't written as a seperation clause, it was written to give me the right to pray in public places including school.

Agreed--a definition of the relationship between church and state put in the form of an amendment might be needed to ultimately resolve this issue--the public debate ought to be something to see in itself. I'm again noticing the LMM paying little attention to this battle

 

[Bullypulpit]

So with the immigration of new religious philosophy, Christianity is supposed to take a back seat to whatever comes along?

Christians follow their beliefs, Muslims follow theirs, Jews follow theirs, Buddhists follow theirs and so on and so forth. So long as those practices donnot infringe on the rights of others to practice their religions, or lead to the harm of themselves or others, there are no barriers to the practice of one's religion.

If reason cannot be used to convince another of the rightness of a particular religion, resorting to legislation, or the point of a gun, will do nothing to convince them either.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Agreed--a definition of the relationship between church and state put in the form of an amendment might be needed to ultimately resolve this issue--the public debate ought to be something to see in itself. I'm again noticing the LMM paying little attention to this battle

That is already present in the form of the Establishment Clause.

 

[dilloduck]

That is already present in the form of the Establishment Clause.

Apparently it's not clear enough for the libs

 

[KarlMarx]

Even 50 years ago, if you asked most people what Islam was, you would have been treated to a blank stare. Until as recently as forty or fifty years ago, the various Christian traditions and Judaism were the only schools of religious thought most Americans were acquainted with.

So what? Our culture is based on several sources, Judeo/Christian thought is one. We also base our culture on the thinking of the Greeks and Romans (the latter of which gave us Christianity, but that's another story). I also believe that school children in Asia probably learn the teachings of the Buddha, or the mythology of the Hindu religion, whatever is relevant to their culture.

As for our legal system, the usefulness of the laws passed based upon Judeo-Christian ethics cannot be disputed. The laws passed deal, largely, with the consequences of our actions upon ourselves and others. But this is not consistent with an ethical system whose formulation and ultimate values are rooted in a mythical, metaphysical world beyonfd this one. Such a system of ethics divorces action from consequence as the pay-off , or punishment, lies not in this world, but in another.

The laws of Moses that you are referring to are in the Old Testament, which preceeds Christ. The Old Testament has few references to an after life or of a judgement. In fact, the Jews around the time of Abraham and Moses did not believe in an afterlife as we do. They believed in a place where the soul went but it was more like the Greek idea of Hades. No, the Old Testament was pretty much concerned with this life, and the establishment of a set of laws that formed the basis of a society in preparation for the Jews occupying the Holy Land.

For our ethiccal and moral systems, as well as the legal structures that are built upon them, to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life and in this world. This results in a ethical and legal system wherein man is the measure of all things as the consequences to human life, here and now are the yard-stick by which our moral and legal decisions are measured.

They are already rooted in this life and their consequences to this life and in this world. If you kill someone, you go to jail now. However, all law has to have a moral foundation upon which to build, that is how a culture defines itself. For instance, there is a belief that humans are special and above animals, therefore there are laws against the killing of humans. There is a belief that lying is evil, therefore, there are laws against perjury, making false statements on your income tax and breaking contracts. There is a belief that adultery is wrong, therefore, adultery is grounds for divorce.

The problem with libs is that they see religion as being something entirely divorced from our culture. That is not true, it is an integral part of our culture. Or with some libs, religion may be part of our culture but has to be isolated within churches. That is not how it works. Christmas, for instance, is not a religious holiday to most people, but an expression of American culture. Prayer is also part of our culture (and was more prevelant years ago), Thanksgiving is not a relgious holiday, although it has religious overtones, but it is part of our history and our culture.

Furthermore, the same can be said about Judeo Christian values, they are part of our culture as well. Keeping your word, being faithful to your marriage vows, the view that homosexuality is wrong.... all of those are part of our culture. You can't make these things simply go away.

That is unless, of course, you have the idea of redefining our culture, redefining our society.... in which case, you would want to throw out religion, values, and beliefs that are in conflict with the new set of beliefs that you wish to institute. That happened in many communist countries e.g. China and Russia. It also happened in Nazi Germany, but instead of getting rid of religion, the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity with old pagan beliefs.

 

[dilloduck]

So what? Our culture is based on several sources, Judeo/Christian thought is one. We also base our culture on the thinking of the Greeks and Romans (the latter of which gave us Christianity, but that's another story). I also believe that school children in Asia probably learn the teachings of the Buddha, or the mythology of the Hindu religion, whatever is relevant to their culture.


The laws of Moses that you are referring to are in the Old Testament, which preceeds Christ. The Old Testament has few references to an after life or of a judgement. In fact, the Jews around the time of Abraham and Moses did not believe in an afterlife as we do. They believed in a place where the soul went but it was more like the Greek idea of Hades. No, the Old Testament was pretty much concerned with this life, and the establishment of a set of laws that formed the basis of a society in preparation for the Jews occupying the Holy Land.


They are already rooted in this life and their consequences to this life and in this world. If you kill someone, you go to jail now. However, all law has to have a moral foundation upon which to build, that is how a culture defines itself. For instance, there is a belief that humans are special and above animals, therefore there are laws against the killing of humans. There is a belief that lying is evil, therefore, there are laws against perjury, making false statements on your income tax and breaking contracts. There is a belief that adultery is wrong, therefore, adultery is grounds for divorce.

The problem with libs is that they see religion as being something entirely divorced from our culture. That is not true, it is an integral part of our culture. Or with some libs, religion may be part of our culture but has to be isolated within churches. That is not how it works. Christmas, for instance, is not a religious holiday to most people, but an expression of American culture. Prayer is also part of our culture (and was more prevelant years ago), Thanksgiving is not a relgious holiday, although it has religious overtones, but it is part of our history and our culture.

Furthermore, the same can be said about Judeo Christian values, they are part of our culture as well. Keeping your word, being faithful to your marriage vows, the view that homosexuality is wrong.... all of those are part of our culture. You can't make these things simply go away.

That is unless, of course, you have the idea of redefining our culture, redefining our society.... in which case, you would want to throw out religion, values, and beliefs that are in conflict with the new set of beliefs that you wish to institute. That happened in many communist countries e.g. China and Russia. It also happened in Nazi Germany, but instead of getting rid of religion, the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity with old pagan beliefs.

good job as usual---it comes down to things as simple as should a man who adheres to a religion hold public office?

 

[Bullypulpit]

They are already rooted in this life and their consequences to this life and in this world. If you kill someone, you go to jail now. However, all law has to have a moral foundation upon which to build, that is how a culture defines itself. For instance, there is a belief that humans are special and above animals, therefore there are laws against the killing of humans. There is a belief that lying is evil, therefore, there are laws against perjury, making false statements on your income tax and breaking contracts. There is a belief that adultery is wrong, therefore, adultery is grounds for divorce.

The problem with libs is that they see religion as being something entirely divorced from our culture. That is not true, it is an integral part of our culture. Or with some libs, religion may be part of our culture but has to be isolated within churches. That is not how it works. Christmas, for instance, is not a religious holiday to most people, but an expression of American culture. Prayer is also part of our culture (and was more prevelant years ago), Thanksgiving is not a relgious holiday, although it has religious overtones, but it is part of our history and our culture.

Furthermore, the same can be said about Judeo Christian values, they are part of our culture as well. Keeping your word, being faithful to your marriage vows, the view that homosexuality is wrong.... all of those are part of our culture. You can't make these things simply go away.

That is unless, of course, you have the idea of redefining our culture, redefining our society.... in which case, you would want to throw out religion, values, and beliefs that are in conflict with the new set of beliefs that you wish to institute. That happened in many communist countries e.g. China and Russia. It also happened in Nazi Germany, but instead of getting rid of religion, the Nazis wanted to replace Christianity with old pagan beliefs.

Religion is both an individual and cultural issue. What matters is when religion as a culture denies the validity of all other points of view, religious or secular and that point of view becomes codified as law. At that point, any horror can be justified so long as it is done in the name of one's favorite deity.

Values and morals don't require validation by religion. Morality rooted in the consequences to this human life, in this world leads to a more human, consistent and humane system of values and ultimately laws.

 

[Merlin]

good job as usual---it comes down to things as simple as should a man who adheres to a religion hold public office?

True, but that is also protected in the Constitution by Article Vl, Clause 3. (No test) But Libs. will probably see that in a different light also.

 

[KarlMarx]

Religion is both an individual and cultural issue. What matters is when religion as a culture denies the validity of all other points of view, religious or secular and that point of view becomes codified as law. At that point, any horror can be justified so long as it is done in the name of one's favorite deity.

Values and morals don't require validation by religion. Morality rooted in the consequences to this human life, in this world leads to a more human, consistent and humane system of values and ultimately laws.

Other points of view as in... it is OK to cheat on your spouse (hey there a lot of people in open marriages...), it is OK to lie under oath as long as it's about sex (couldn't resist that one!)?

OK, so you're an atheist, suppose. You can't tolerate other people praying in public?

Values and morals do require validation by something bigger than individuals. Organized religion does that. If everyone had their own set of values, then our society and our culture would die.

What is the definition of culture? According to Merriam Webster

http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=culture

"the integrated pattern of human knowledge, belief, and behavior that depends upon man's capacity for learning and transmitting knowledge to succeeding generations b : the customary beliefs , social forms, and material traits of a racial, religious, or social group c : the set of shared attitudes, values, goals, and practices that characterizes a company or corporation" Emphasis mine.

According to this definition, shared, common values are an INTEGRAL part of our culture! And without a shared set of beliefs, not only would our culture die out, but so would our nation! After all, if not everyone believed in a common good, e.g. fighting and perhaps dying for your country, our nation couldn't survive.

And I would further state that our morals and values didn't just pop up out of no where. In the very distant past, perhaps beyond recorded history, people saw the consequences of certain behaviors e.g. cheating, lying, adultery and codified a set of values and laws against them. Just because we don't know WHY we have those values doesn't mean that those values were arbitrarily created out of thin air!

Reinventing society (as well as messing around with the economy) is something like messing around with the environment. You just never know what the consequences are going to be. Sometimes, it's best to leave well enough alone! Human beings have their own ecology too...

 

[KarlMarx]

good job as usual---it comes down to things as simple as should a man who adheres to a religion hold public office?

Well.... at one time, a candidate who was caught sleeping with another woman other than his wife (remember Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado?) during a campaign was finished with the voters. Now.... it's SO WHAT? As if cheating on your wife is a separate issue from keeping your vows to serve the people and defend the constitution. If you have no compunction about breaking your marriage vows, I can't see how you'd have much compunction about breaking your promise to defend the Constitution, either!

 

[dilloduck]

Well.... at one time, a candidate who was caught sleeping with another woman other than his wife (remember Sen. Gary Hart of Colorado?) during a campaign was finished with the voters. Now.... it's SO WHAT? As if cheating on your wife is a separate issue from keeping your vows to serve the people and defend the constitution. If you have no compunction about breaking your marriage vows, I can't see how you'd have much compunction about breaking your promise to defend the Constitution, either!

i guess that's what the libs call separation--what a joke

 

[OCA]

Nobody is arguing <i>explicitly</i> for state sanctioned religion. However, when attempts are made to build the edifice of law upon the ethics of religion, the implicit argument is made. Or is that too subtle for you?

Bully only hears what he wants to hear..."hey lets have an official state church such as the Episcopal church" lol

Bully what I want to hear from your dumbass is if you think that seperation and secularism has been a success in America to date. I don't think you can logically argue that it has but when has logic ever stopped you, get er done!

Lets try a theocracy, lets bring religious teachings back into public education, lets stop trying to deny what this country was founded on....Christian principles not Jewish, not Muslim and not Buddhist etc. etc.

Make no mistake about it, yes the pilgrims were escaping the Anglican church but they were Christian in every sense of the word and would be horrified at the lengths to which we've overstepped on seperation and the results of these oversteps.

 

[OCA]

Even 50 years ago, if you asked most people what Islam was, you would have been treated to a blank stare. Until as recently as forty or fifty years ago, the various Christian traditions and Judaism were the only schools of religious thought most Americans were acquainted with.

As for our legal system, the usefulness of the laws passed based upon Judeo-Christian ethics cannot be disputed. The laws passed deal, largely, with the consequences of our actions upon ourselves and others. But this is not consistent with an ethical system whose formulation and ultimate values are rooted in a mythical, metaphysical world beyonfd this one. Such a system of ethics divorces action from consequence as the pay-off , or punishment, lies not in this world, but in another.

For our ethiccal and moral systems, as well as the legal structures that are built upon them, to have any real meaning, they must be rooted in their consequences to this life and in this world. This results in a ethical and legal system wherein man is the measure of all things as the consequences to human life, here and now are the yard-stick by which our moral and legal decisions are measured.

This has to be the worst pile of liberal claptrap gobbledlygook bullshit yet from Bully, its all about moral relativism. Well if that is the way its gonna go then for me to pump a few .44 rounds into your dumbass isn't wrong, its not in my belief system and as far as I can tell its not causing harm to anybody else rather a service to mankind.

Bully worships man, it is clear...he is a secularist and cannot be trusted.

 

[MissileMan]

Lets try a theocracy, lets bring religious teachings back into public education, lets stop trying to deny what this country was founded on....Christian principles not Jewish, not Muslim and not Buddhist etc. etc.

So which denomination of Christianity would become the new state religion? Are we all going to be forced to convert to Catholicism? Methodist? Baptist? Are you going to execute those who refuse to convert? Maybe just expel them from the country.

It is very true that Christian morals were the foundation for todays laws...the problem is, there are those who would have the entire building (establishment) constructed from Christian bricks. Our founding fathers weren't building a church, they were building a nation. They gave it a strong foundation knowing that anything built on top of it would be strong enough to survive. But I repeat, they were not trying to build a church.

 

[OCA]

You're not listening, I want religion to be brought back into education and our public life, hell you can teach from all the world's major religions because they all have something redeeming(well we can argue about Islam). Nobody is saying to make an official state church but lets stop denying the obvious and catering to the 10% non Christian sector of the population, its just not working.

 

[MissileMan]

You're not listening, I want religion to be brought back into education and our public life, hell you can teach from all the world's major religions because they all have something redeeming(well we can argue about Islam). Nobody is saying to make an official state church but lets stop denying the obvious and catering to the 10% non Christian sector of the population, its just not working.

Unfortunately, that's not what you wrote.

 

[OCA]

Why don't you quote me there slick where I said a state sponsored religion, just FYI theocracy does not mean state sponsored religion.

Typical liberalism though, read what you want to read and not what was wrote, your wrong on gay marriage and more than likely wrong on this issue.