Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[BreezeWood]

Maybe read what Natural Rights are and where they come from. Then maybe you will understand why.

Throughout the period immediately preceding and overlapping the Revolution the dissentient religious bodies were vigorously claiming their natural right to be free from the established church ...

- would rather be your priest you need to make your point with.

 

[ThisIsMe]

The Constitution prohibits the hierarchy of Churches/Religions from being involved in State/Federal government. Popes, bishops, priests, ministers are set apart from government. However, this separation does not apply to the laity. The Catechism of the Catholic Church states the vocation of the laity:

898 "By reason of their special vocation it belongs to the laity to seek the kingdom of God by engaging in temporal affairs and directing them according to God's will....

899 The initiative of lay Christians is necessary especially when the matter involves discovering or inventing the means for permeating social, political, and economic realities with the demands of Christian doctrine and life. This initiative is a normal element of the life of the Church….

People/citizens of faith are not only citizens of a nation, but are also citizens of the Kingdom of God. It is not only our right, but our duty to permeate the social, political, and economic realities within our governments.

The Constitution prohibits the hierarchy of Churches/Religions from being involved in State/Federal government

It doesn’t say that, I’m fact, Congress passed an act that was bi partisan, to make “in god we trust” the national motto and encouraged it being put in schools, federal buildings etc..

https://www.congress.gov/congressional-report/112th-congress/house-report/47/1#:~:text=IN%20GOD%20WE%20TRUST%20first,shall%20admit%20the%20inscription%20thereon.

 

[ding]

- would rather be your priest you need to make your point with.

I'd rather you read that document and educate yourself on the beliefs of the founding fathers of liberty and freedom instead of the doctrines of Karl Marx.

 

[alang1216]

So the 40 something miracles performed by Christ are honest mistakes. How does that work? How did they make that mistake?

Christians were actively trying to convert pagans and pagans respected power in their gods. Pagan mythology had plenty of stories of gods working miracles and demigods doing great deeds so, to compete, Christianity had to have myths at least as good.

 

[alang1216]

BUt the religious are like alcoholics and drug addicts and need to be educated by you because they are ignorant?

No, the religious find comfort in religion, just as it seems you do. As I said before, many are ignorant of some aspects of their religion.

 

[alang1216]

So you reject that religion provided a functional advantage? So why did it persist throughout the history of mankind?

What is the functional advantage of alcohol? So why is it found in almost every culture throughout the history of mankind?

 

[ding]

Christians were actively trying to convert pagans and pagans respected power in their gods. Pagan mythology had plenty of stories of gods working miracles and demigods doing great deeds so, to compete, Christianity had to have myths at least as good.

Do you have names? Motives? Any evidence at all?

 

[ding]

What is the functional advantage of alcohol? So why is it found in almost every culture throughout the history of mankind?

Are inanimate objects subject to natural selection?

 

[ding]

No, the religious find comfort in religion, just as it seems you do. As I said before, many are ignorant of some aspects of their religion.

And need to be educated by you. What exactly are you planning to educate them on? To not be addicts? To be like you?

 

[BreezeWood]

I'd rather you read that document and educate yourself on the beliefs of the founding fathers of liberty and freedom instead of the doctrines of Karl Marx.

they are one in the same ... your monarchical beliefs are what is nowhere found in any reality.

- you are delusional if there would be a distinction of natural rights not commiserate to marx and his essays ...

Throughout the period immediately preceding and overlapping the Revolution the dissentient religious bodies were vigorously claiming their natural right to be free from the established church ...

in fact you are probably the only person on earth that believes the desert religions are a security of natural rights and laws when in their bibles they rely on liars, moses their commandments and fibbers, abraham's hereditary idolatry - all contrary to the natural norm's as expressed in the above quote.

 

[Donald H]

Why would they? Are you suggesting that there's some universal code of common decency that everyone knows and accepts?

No.

Don't you guys usually argue that there's not?

Not me.

 

[Donald H]

Still stuck in this quagmire I see. Best to leave you to it. It's already been explained to you ad nauseam and frankly I'm sick of it.

I'm fully aware that you don't accept your bibles as the literal truth, but that doesn't help the children who accept the lies that it is.

Many of those children continue to believe the stories such as the big fish and the ark into adulthood.

You could say that's the quagmire that needs to change.

I've attempted a polite discussion with you but that too makes you feel sick. I think we know the reason why a discussion on Christian contradictions makes you feel sick.

 

[Donald H]

Wrong. I am not probably suggesting anything. I am outright stating that atheists are more likely to focus on what is best for people in their present life on earth, and are not focused on what may be best for their eternal life.

You would be right, inasmuch that atheists don't focus on any other life but the present. That by definition.

Monetary and physical riches here on earth cannot be taken with one into eternity.

Of course that would be true of atheists, but we believe that's true for all of us.

I think I can speak for all atheists because atheism by definition explains it to be true.

However, there's certainly going to be some non-believers who don't even consider the question.

 

[ding]

they are one in the same ...

No, they aren't. They are diametrical opposites.

 

[ding]

- you are delusional if there would be a distinction of natural rights not commiserate to marx and his essays ...

Incorrect. The underlying premise of Marxism is satisfaction of material needs and primitive instincts. The underlying premise of natural rights is that they come from the Creator. Marxists see no duty or obligation to the Creator. The founding fathers of freedom and liberty did.

 

[ding]

in fact you are probably the only person on earth that believes the desert religions are a security of natural rights and laws when in their bibles they rely on liars, moses their commandments and fibbers, abraham's hereditary idolatry - all contrary to the natural norm's as expressed in the above quote.

I disagree.

 

[ding]

No.

Not me.

You just contradicted yourself in the same post.

Why would atheists focus on what's best for other people if they weren't following some code of common decency?

 

[Donald H]

Are atheists focused on what is best for people in this life only?

I as an atheist, am not focused on this life 'only'. You could say that I'm not focused on any other life, and I'm able to focus freely on many other things too, without a prerequisite of needing to believe in a god.

As for what is best for people, an atheist wouldn't be less concerned than a Christian. And so you've brought us back to the general question of being able to show otherwise.

Did Christian missionaries do more good than harm and evil?

 

[Donald H]

You just contradicted yourself in the same post.

Why would atheists focus on what's best for other people if they weren't following some code of common decency?

My answers to all relevant questions can be found in my replies to Meriweather and others.

 

[Donald H]

Baloney. Science doesn't challenge ANYTHING. Science is a process of learning/exploring/obtaining information/improving its own data base. It asks questions yes. When questions or alternate theories are not allowed to be considered, you are not doing science but rather promoting dogma.

From a scientific viewpoint, the Genesis creation stories taken as metaphor/allegory which I do and intelligent design, Darwin and scientific theories on the origins of the universe can all co-exist quite peacefully.

Science does not challenge anything. Science looks for what is actual and true as much as is possible using the scientific method.

Science challenged religious beliefs in the 'Dover vs. Kitzmiller' court over religion's pseudo-science of I.D.

That resulted in one warning shot across religion's bow, sufficient for the church.

And now, as Meriweather maintains, religion can't be discussed as an alternative to modern science.

But you are free to try if you think you can prove otherwise. I can either let it go or not.