Compare & Contrast - State vs. Sponsored Religion?

[manifold]

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?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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?

 

[kyzr]

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?

 

[Gadawg73]

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.

 

[kyzr]

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.

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.

 

[MIPS]

Atheism is not a religion. An atheist, in not believing in God, has no dog in the fight of belief systems.

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.

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.

Which is why it's called "faith".

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.

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. "

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.

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.

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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?

 

[Cold Fusion38]

"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!!!???

 

[Cold Fusion38]

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.

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.

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!!!

 

[PeterS]

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?

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.

 

[MIPS]

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

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

 

[Gadawg73]

kysr, let me give you some current history of how radical religous right is in the Republican Party here in Georgia. This kind of crap happens all the time and it is not atheists doing it. It is the high and mighty hypocrites of the religous right. You might now be old enough to know but these are the shocking facts of the 1988 Georgia Republican primary.
Pat Robertson and his Christian Coalition attempted, and almost did it, to take over the Georgia REpublican Party in 1988. Their Georgia campaign head was outed as a former convicted felon just day into the convention. I know as I was there. "I think God intended for Christians to be the leaders" was and is their cry. Bush won the primary here but the Religous Right and Robertson's Christian Coalition picketed our state convention and wanted the "God" candidate Pat Robertson as the winner. The fact that Bush had a lot more votes than Robertson did not matter to the "God" supporters of Robertson. So we had 2 sets of delegates go to New Orleans and were an embarassment there.
That is what happens.
But one thing has always confused me. Robertson speaks often of his conversations with God.
How could God allowed Bush to win the 1988 primary here?

 

[Baruch Menachem]

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

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

That is just circular. Who created the creator?

 

[MIPS]

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

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

That is just circular. Who created the creator?

Your question goes to the nature of a creator not it's existence or non-existence, one could easily answer your question by stating (for example) that the "creator" exists outside of the dimension that we know as TIME and thus does not require a "beginning" or an "end".

 

[PeterS]

"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!!!???

Both atheism and a belief in the supernatural are based on irrationalism but just as not all supernatural belief is religious the same is true of atheism.

 

[PeterS]

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

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

Your logic is illogical. If god would not have made the universe would he not exist? You are arguing that the mere existence of a universe is proof of god...which, of course, logically it isn't.

 

[MIPS]

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

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

Your logic is illogical. If god would not have made the universe would he not exist? You are arguing that the mere existence of a universe is proof of god...which, of course, logically it isn't.

Learn how to read, nowhere did I state that was "proof" of anything, what I said was "lends more credence" which is not even close to saying "proof".... not to mention you seem to ignore the possibility that "god" (your words not mine I said "creator") exists within the boundaries of our Universe which doesn't necessarily need to be true anymore than the "creator" of a fish tank needs to live inside of it to have created it.

Nice try.... thanks for playing.

 

[Polk]

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.

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.

But who is arguing for state-enforced atheism? No one.

 

[PeterS]

Stop being obtuse, one can show by currently accepted scientific method what the contents of your closet are (even at night), however the same cannot be said regarding the existence or non-existence of a "creator". That being said, logic lends more credence to the existence of a "creator" because after all the universe does exist and supposing it didn't come into existence by some form of an act of creation one is left with an assumption that it just came about spontaneously which is illogical.

Your logic is illogical. If god would not have made the universe would he not exist? You are arguing that the mere existence of a universe is proof of god...which, of course, logically it isn't.

Learn how to read, nowhere did I state that was "proof" of anything, what I said was "lends more credence" which is not even close to saying "proof".... not to mention you seem to ignore the possibility that "god" (your words not mine I said "creator") exists within the boundaries of our Universe which doesn't necessarily need to be true anymore than the "creator" of a fish tank needs to live inside of it to have created it.

Nice try.... thanks for playing.

1) I am not arguing for or against the existence of god and 2) the question is 'logical' which your argument isn't. If you are going to argue "lends more credence" you should at least show how. You don't, only make the baseless assumption that spontaneous is illogical. But why? That's the question begged...

 

[☭proletarian☭]

Atheism is not a religion. An atheist, in not believing in God, has no dog in the fight of belief systems.

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.

Fail... Only gnostic claims require faith. Most athiests are not gnostics.