What Really Happens When You Don't Separate Church and State

[manifold]

Are you really comparing a wild and wholly unlikely hypothetical with an absolute hard reality in some assbackwards attempt to make your op not JUST about Islam in the middle east?

I think you get the point i made... societies are much healthier when church and state are separate

I get it and I agree.

And how many modern examples of unhealthy co-mingling of the two can you come up with that do not involve Islam?

No need to answer, since I'm pretty sure you get MY point.

 

[Si modo]

Are you really comparing a wild and wholly unlikely hypothetical with an absolute hard reality in some assbackwards attempt to make your op not JUST about Islam in the middle east?

I think you get the point i made... societies are much healthier when church and state are separate

I get it and I agree.

And how many modern examples of unhealthy co-mingling of the two can you come up with that do not involve Islam?

No need to answer, since I'm pretty sure you get MY point.

I definitely get it. And the existence of these Islamic theocracies is an excellent lesson for thinking societies to keep on the track they are - being wary of mixing religion with government.

 

[bodecea]

So in essence sharia law could be applied against anybody not of the muslim faith because as "infidels" we can all be seen as warring against god. The human rights violations against the women of that faith are deal breakers as far as I'm concerned. Anytime people can rape women and make it her fault, can stone women, can shoot women, or cut off their noses and ears all in the name of a faith without there being a punishment for such crimes means there is no seperation of church from state. That is a sick oppressed society.

in a theocracy like iran, it can be used against anyone.

do you think that if the line between church and state were destroyed in this country that the 'g-d hates fags' or 'let's burn korans' crowd would be any different? you know, like when we had witch hunts here.

It wouldn't be different if it weren't for our secular laws protecting everyone of all faiths. Once one faith takes over, look out.

 

[The Rabbi]

So in essence sharia law could be applied against anybody not of the muslim faith because as "infidels" we can all be seen as warring against god. The human rights violations against the women of that faith are deal breakers as far as I'm concerned. Anytime people can rape women and make it her fault, can stone women, can shoot women, or cut off their noses and ears all in the name of a faith without there being a punishment for such crimes means there is no seperation of church from state. That is a sick oppressed society.

in a theocracy like iran, it can be used against anyone.

do you think that if the line between church and state were destroyed in this country that the 'g-d hates fags' or 'let's burn korans' crowd would be any different? you know, like when we had witch hunts here.

It wouldn't be different if it weren't for our secular laws protecting everyone of all faiths. Once one faith takes over, look out.

Not necessarily. Israel has no separation of church and state but minority religions are well protected. The Ottoman Empire was of course Muslim but minority religious groups generally did fine.
It is more of a cultural than a religious issue.
OTOH, look what happens when the state has no moral conscience at all, like Cambodia.

 

[WillowTree]

So in essence sharia law could be applied against anybody not of the muslim faith because as "infidels" we can all be seen as warring against god. The human rights violations against the women of that faith are deal breakers as far as I'm concerned. Anytime people can rape women and make it her fault, can stone women, can shoot women, or cut off their noses and ears all in the name of a faith without there being a punishment for such crimes means there is no seperation of church from state. That is a sick oppressed society.

in a theocracy like iran, it can be used against anyone.

do you think that if the line between church and state were destroyed in this country that the 'g-d hates fags' or 'let's burn korans' crowd would be any different? you know, like when we had witch hunts here.

Jillian. The progressives still conduct witch hunts. In the right here and now, they stop short of burning someone at the stake but they practice the politics of personal destruction. If you ask me liberal/progressives would be the group to fear much more so than a Christian.

 

[boedicca]

There is a curious irony to all religions that no one ever seems to recognize, at some point along their trajectory, their followers realize and live lives that are separate from the fundamentalism inherent in all religion. How many religious in an advanced society live according to the 'dictates,' I can think of lots of examples. Are there some who still live an orthodox faith, yes, but given other elements of society they eventually separate the two naturally.


"When we blindly adopt a religion, a political system, a literary dogma, we become automatons. We cease to grow." Anais Nin

Islam has not undergone a reformation - nor is there any significant evidence that it is on a natural path to do so. If anything, the extremist factions that dream of a Global Caliphate are the thought leaders - which does not bode well for the world in general.

 

[lizzie]

If a 'right wing' member of the forum had posted this, truthmatters would be asking us why we hate Islam and telling us we're encouraging Muslim fundamentalists to attack us, that we want a 'war with Islam'. Funny old world.

you know, i actually think this is a topic worth exploring. TM doesn't much interest me on any level.

I agree. In general, much of the left in this country seems to believe that anyone who is Christian in this country, who also happens to be republican, wants the equivalent of a theocracy, when nothing could be further from the truth, but when a true theocracy is pointed out elsewhere in the world, and republicans don't support it, they are accused of being intolerant toward Muslims.

 

[Toome]

I think some are missing a fundamental point. Islam is more than just a religion. It is a culture and way of life. I don't think it's as simple as "separating" church and state when the customs, traditions, and laws are embedded into every aspect of their lives.

We in the West see religion as a part-time obligation. Go to church on Sunday, donate a portion of money to the poor box, go home and forget about it until next Sunday. It's easy to "separate" church and state under these circumstances to the point that we get all wrapped around the axle because someone erected a Nativity scene in front of city hall.

I don't advocate a theocracy and think it's a good thing that we separate church and state (up to a point: I think the whole city hall Nativity scene debate is childish and stupid). However, I think that it's pretty arrogant of us to think that countries like Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia can simply decide to separate church and state overnight. Their societies have to evolve over time to reach that point.

Perhaps the solution is to set up more McDonalds, Wal-Marts and Blockbuster Videos in those countries to speed up the process.

 

[jillian]

I see Islam using the Koran as their Constitution of sorts on one end of the political spectrum. I see Liberals wanting to ban all religious activity on the other end.

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government..

that whole 'oooh...*they* want to ban religion is just bizarre, imo.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

There is no constitutional separation.

There is no constitutional union of religion and government, unless you want to argue that the power of Congress to tax and spend to provide for the general welfare, gives Congress authority over the people's religions.

If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands.

--James Madison; 1792
​

 

[manifold]

In a silly attempt to make this topic broader than what it really is (about modern-day Islam), Jillian has essentially been repeating the following statement of the obvious:

If the US was a theocracy like Iran, then the US would be a theocracy like Iran, and that would suck.

Thanks for that insightful bit of brilliance and wisdom.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I see Islam using the Koran as their Constitution of sorts on one end of the political spectrum. I see Liberals wanting to ban all religious activity on the other end.

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government.

I don't mind a connection, as long as there's no civil government authority whatsoever over religion.

 

[Missourian]

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry...my wife is putting me to work so I have to be quick.



I would NEVER be in favor of a Christian theocracy.

What I am OPPOSED to is the notion that all religion must be removed from the public square.

I agree 100% with this statement:

“Passive displays like the World War I Memorial, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, or statements like the National Motto do not force anyone to participate in a religious exercise and, thus, do not establish religion,” commented Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, in response to the high court’s ruling.​

"The ruling" referred to is Salazar v. Buono.

On April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to send the case back to a lower court.[9] Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".[10]​

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[jillian]

I see Islam using the Koran as their Constitution of sorts on one end of the political spectrum. I see Liberals wanting to ban all religious activity on the other end.

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government.

I don't mind a connection, as long as there's no civil government authority whatsoever over religion.

I am equally concerned that religion have no authority whatsoever over government. by the example of the O/P, you see what happens when that is taken to the extreme.

and you can't have one without the other.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

I see Islam using the Koran as their Constitution of sorts on one end of the political spectrum. I see Liberals wanting to ban all religious activity on the other end.

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government..

that whole 'oooh...*they* want to ban religion is just bizarre, imo.

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

 

[rdean]

I see Islam using the Koran as their Constitution of sorts on one end of the political spectrum. I see Liberals wanting to ban all religious activity on the other end.

Not banning. When has the left ever wanted to "ban" religion. That's one of the many lies from the right. You would think that people who insist they are against lies would practice lying less often.

We just don't want mysticism and the occult pushed into our lives and forced on our children. No one is taking away the Church's tax exempt status.

What's ironic is that it's the right who are fighting to keep Muslims in New York from expressing their constitutional rights. Isn't that ironic?

 

[jillian]

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry...my wife is putting me to work so I have to be quick.



I would NEVER be in favor of a Christian theocracy.

What I am OPPOSED to is the notion that all religion must be removed from the public square.

I agree 100% with this statement:

“Passive displays like the World War I Memorial, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, or statements like the National Motto do not force anyone to participate in a religious exercise and, thus, do not establish religion,” commented Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, in response to the high court’s ruling.​

"The ruling" referred to is Salazar v. Buono.

On April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to send the case back to a lower court.[9] Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".[10]​

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they sent it back for further action.

and there are clearly symbols in the public realm.... there are menorah's, christmas trees, etc,

interestingly

The cross was stolen on the night of May 9–10, 2010.[11][12] National Park Service spokeswoman Linda Slater said a $25,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the thieves. The VFW promised that the memorial will be rebuilt."This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell said.[13] On May 20, a replica cross was discovered to have been erected in place of the original. Park officials said it was erected overnight, but because of the court ruling park employees would have to remove the replica

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Annie]

So in essence sharia law could be applied against anybody not of the muslim faith because as "infidels" we can all be seen as warring against god. The human rights violations against the women of that faith are deal breakers as far as I'm concerned. Anytime people can rape women and make it her fault, can stone women, can shoot women, or cut off their noses and ears all in the name of a faith without there being a punishment for such crimes means there is no seperation of church from state. That is a sick oppressed society.

in a theocracy like iran, it can be used against anyone.

do you think that if the line between church and state were destroyed in this country that the 'g-d hates fags' or 'let's burn korans' crowd would be any different? you know, like when we had witch hunts here.

Ah, but we have the right to burn Korans, the Bible, the flag, and any other symbol that we wish to protest about-as long as not destroying others property. We have the right to see Westboro yell about fags and mock them. Same with drawing inflammatory cartoons or exhibits like 'piss Christ'.

We do not have the right to cut off parts of gays or attack others property-then we meet the judicial system, after the police system.

That is a significant difference don't you think?

 

[The Rabbi]

I see Islam using the Koran as their Constitution of sorts on one end of the political spectrum. I see Liberals wanting to ban all religious activity on the other end.

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government..

that whole 'oooh...*they* want to ban religion is just bizarre, imo.

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

 

[jillian]

Ah, but we have the right to burn Korans, the Bible, the flag, and any other symbol that we wish to protest about-as long as not destroying others property. We have the right to see Westboro yell about fags and mock them. Same with drawing inflammatory cartoons or exhibits like 'piss Christ'.

We do not have the right to cut off parts of gays or attack others property-then we meet the judicial system, after the police system.

That is a significant difference don't you think?

the law as it exists allows us to be as stupid as we want.

i'm not quite certain what your complaint is about the latter since all that is is a prohibition against letting one's stupidity take away rights from others.

i'm not sure what your point is, though. sorry.