Why is a State Religion a bad idea ?

[JDzBrain]

Athiesm is a religion, whether you admit it or not.

Actually Avatar, although I agree with almost everything you've said up to now, as a card carrying atheist, I do have to take exception to this statement.

While atheism IS a belief, it is NOT a belief SYSTEM. And religions are belief SYSTEMS that are intended as an explanation for the life, the universe and everything. ;~)

Being an atheist doesn't try to explain anything other than they don't believe in a divinity. They can believe in everything from science to Shinto or WHATEVER to explain the existence and order of the universe. THOSE...are religions, as much as the dogmatic among us would try to deny it!

So while I'll give you it IS a belief and can be PART of a belief system, it is NOT a belief system by it's self and therefore not a religion.

As a matter of fact, MOST of the Atheist I know are actually more agnostic about EVERYTHING! LOL

And yes...I am just happy as hell to have this as a religious nation. It is the ONLY thing that keeps our rights DIVINE and out of the reach of man!

 

[Mr Natural]

All religion is a bad idea.

 

[JoeB131]

There is no such thing. You can disbelieve, but that's still a religion. And belief or lack of belief doesnt change the fact that God is still there.

And yes, for most of history church and state went hand and hand. Thankfully, the Founders learned from early Israel and the early Christian ages when there wasnt a Church and state established.

That's kind of funny from someone who belongs to the only "religion" who attempted to establish a theocracy in this country before the feds slapped you down in 1857.

And if Atheism is a religion, then not collecting stamps is a hobby.

By your own standards, you have a lot of religions then.

You don't believe in Baal, Zeus, Odin, Osiris, Krishna, Amaterasu, etc. There a whole lot of Gods you don't believe in, therefore you have a lot of religions.

I just believe in one less God than you do.

Which, of course, is outright false as no theocracy has ever been attempted. Nor did the Feds slap anyone down. In fact, Buchannan's blunder made the Feds look incredibly stupid for trying to put down a non-existant rebellion. Especially when he didnt do anything about the actual rebellion occuring in the States.

Athiesm is a religion, whether you admit it or not.

Well, If Buchanan had put Brigham Young at the end of a rope in 1857, I doubt Lee and Davis would have tried their nonsense in 1861. Sadly, what you had was a territorial governor illegally ignoring the dictates of the Federal Government, until they sent in an Army after a few massacres like Mountain Meadows.

But Brigham Young did use the term "Theodemocracy" to describe what he was trying to do.

Final point. What about all the Gods you don't believe in. Is each disbelief a "religion" to you?

 

[FA_Q2]

Come on avatar. Your better than this trolling statement.


Murder laws are not in existence soley because of the bible. I don't think they have any connection with the bible or religion at all. In general and disregarding governmental corruption/idiocy, most laws exist for one of two reasons: ether to regulat and control the generall activities of society to make things run smother or to protect another's rights. Murder laws are there because you are infringing on all my rights should You murder me.


Ideally, no laws should be rooted in religious dogma. That's not to say religion does not impact law, the mere fact that religions men and women write law/ vote means that it will have an indirect impact through the morals and worldviews of those individuals. Religion influencing law is not the same as law written based on dogma. For instance:
Laws in the bible belt that require businesses to be closed on Sunday's are religios laws. Honestly, they should not exist.

Laws that make robbery and theft illegal are not religios laws even though they are in religious books. They protect my property rights.

Actually FA...he's not trolling and you are dead wrong!

There are SEVERAL countries in this world right now that sanction MURDER by the Judeo Christian definition of murder that our laws AND the American culture IS based on. Honor killing of girls in MOST Muslim countries for one example.

We've put a half dozen Muslim fathers in jail over the last few years for it and they go home and eat supper with what's left of their family in the middle east!

Like it or not...our laws ARE based on the bible. There is a REASON that the 10 Commandments as written in Exodus are prominently carved in stone in the Supreme Court building and in THOUSANDS of state and court houses...the places we make and maintain law...all across this country. (Click HERE to see examples) And that reason is NOT because Moses had copies made and we are preserving them as antiquities.

It's because 99.9% of the people who settled and founded this country WERE CHRISTIANS and the bible says, Thou shalt not kill, Thou shalt not steal, Thou shalt not commit adultery, Thou shalt not bare false witness...the very foundations our laws are based on.

A society...ALL societies and their laws are based on their collective experience. Foremost in that is religion and the edicts directed by it. It's been that way throughout all of history. From the Druids to the Aztecs who sacrificed humans because their gods demanded it and whose laws reflected that to the Romans to the United States of America.

To deny THAT...is to deny our very nature!

No, laws are not BASED on the bible. You are incorrect in that. I specifically stated:

That's not to say religion does not impact law, the mere fact that religions men and women write law/ vote means that it will have an indirect impact through the morals and worldviews of those individuals.

So, while religion has impacted law through the men and women who wrote it as you stated that does not mean that law is based upon the bible. There is a clear reason why honor killings are not legal, and though that is based on a moral system influenced by the bible it is not based on the bible itself. There is a world of difference.

 

[Sky Dancer]

All religion is a bad idea.

Religion mixed with government is a bad idea.

 

[ConservaDerrps]

Why is state religion a bad thing?

Because millions of people don't even believe in God. And when the Government starts getting into the business of praising or condemning one religion over the other, it never leads to peace and prosperity.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The social compact does not require a state religion. Madison believed that America would be the freest nation in the world without a national religion. And the USA has perhaps the freest religious environment in the world today. Your comment regarding "individual conscience" is to the point, I believe.

For the record, I DO NOT believe there should be a State Religion
and I believe most people do, as well.

Why is it "bad" or why do you think it is bad ?

But as Locke argued and as I believe,
the government lacked authority in the area of individual conscience.
and the social contract should avoid it....

 

[JakeStarkey]

Atheism is a belief system, in that you have faith no gods exist. No one can prove they do not exist either philosophically or empirically, thus the belief is a system indeed.

Athiesm is a religion, whether you admit it or not.

Actually Avatar, although I agree with almost everything you've said up to now, as a card carrying atheist, I do have to take exception to this statement.

While atheism IS a belief, it is NOT a belief SYSTEM. And religions are belief SYSTEMS that are intended as an explanation for the life, the universe and everything. ;~)

Being an atheist doesn't try to explain anything other than they don't believe in a divinity. They can believe in everything from science to Shinto or WHATEVER to explain the existence and order of the universe. THOSE...are religions, as much as the dogmatic among us would try to deny it!

So while I'll give you it IS a belief and can be PART of a belief system, it is NOT a belief system by it's self and therefore not a religion.

As a matter of fact, MOST of the Atheist I know are actually more agnostic about EVERYTHING! LOL

And yes...I am just happy as hell to have this as a religious nation. It is the ONLY thing that keeps our rights DIVINE and out of the reach of man!

 

[JDzBrain]

Atheism is a belief system, in that you have faith no gods exist. No one can prove they do not exist either philosophically or empirically, thus the belief is a system indeed.

Atheism is A belief. A SINGLE statement of belief. Religions are belief SYSTEMS. The very word system is defined by plurality. Systems have multiple moving parts. A single statement has only ONE part.

The statement God exists does NOT make that a religion. Most EVERY belief system that is described as a religion makes that statement. It's the tenants...the moving parts of the individual religions that make them a particular religion.

As I said, atheism CAN be part of a belief system and in that case COULD be described as a religion. Just as can science, junk or otherwise. Like global warming science which is based more on beliefs and wants than empirical data. But to claim the single statement, I believe god does not exist is a religion is tantamount to saying that if I say, I believe my shoes are Nike makes that a religion.

That argument defies logic.

Now if I said I believe my shoes are Nike and they are telling me to play basketball...THEN we have a whole nother thang! ;~)

 

[JakeStarkey]

False analogies, JDzBrain, indicate you do not understand logic.

The fact that you could even come up with a defense for your belief does show you have a belief system in that you try to defend it.

 

[JDzBrain]

False analogies, JDzBrain, indicate you do not understand logic.

The fact that you could even come up with a defense for your belief does show you have a belief system in that you try to defend it.

Actually Starkey, the analogy is dead on target. As a matter of fact, the statement, I believe my shoes are Nike would come even CLOSER to being a religion than I don't believe god exist. Why? because it involves an icon and all religions involve iconolgy of some sort.

And I'm not defending anything. I'm making a simple statement of FACT as I see it. My shoes are Nike, the earth orbits the sun, I'm and atheist. I am the complete skeptic. I don't worship anything and I don't feel a need to impose a belief SYSTEM on someone else. So I think we'll call this one closed! ;~)

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, JDzBrain, the fact that you defended your system reveals you have a belief system. You cannot get away from that it.

This is over, move along.

False analogies, JDzBrain, indicate you do not understand logic.

The fact that you could even come up with a defense for your belief does show you have a belief system in that you try to defend it.

Actually Starkey, the analogy is dead on target. As a matter of fact, the statement, I believe my shoes are Nike would come even CLOSER to being a religion than I don't believe god exist. Why? because it involves an icon and all religions involve iconolgy of some sort.

And I'm not defending anything. I'm making a simple statement of FACT as I see it. My shoes are Nike, the earth orbits the sun, I'm and atheist. I am the complete skeptic. I don't worship anything and I don't feel a need to impose a belief SYSTEM on someone else. So I think we'll call this one closed! ;~)

 

[Listening]

How would it be enforced, this non-existent "State religion?"

Check your history book.

After the USC was signed, many of the states had a state supported religion which was never challenged by anyone. This happened through the mid 1830's when the last one was written out of the state constitution.

Nobody had anything enforced. The state supplied money to one religion or to several. And their tennents were not written into statue. They simply got money.

The Congregationalists owned the north and they were smearing Jefferson from the pulpit during the election of 1800.

Jefferson would refer to them as that "irritable tribe of priests" and it is the issues of 1800 that led Jefferson to write his famous letter.

However, Jefferson never argued that states had the right to support religions. He did argue that the federal government had no authority whatsoever to do anything like that.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The fact remains the Constitution only prohibits a national church not state churches.

 

[Listening]

The fact remains the Constitution only prohibits a national church not state churches.

While I agree with you and so does Clarence Thomas BTW.

The disgusting doctrine of selective incorporation has been used to crowd religion out of the public arena (meaning no ten commandments at the courthouse).

 

[Sallow]

Religion is inherently evil and divisive.

That's part and parcel why it should never become part of the governing body.

 

[Sallow]

The fact remains the Constitution only prohibits a national church not state churches.

Sure it does. The constitution prohibits states from declaring a religion.

It's not just the first amendment, either.

 

[JDzBrain]

Actually, JDzBrain, the fact that you defended your system reveals you have a belief system. You cannot get away from that it.

This is over, move along.

Starkey...there is only ONE thing I believe in...ME!

And I ain't no system!

Just a damned old redneck trying to get through life alive.

But you ARE right about one thing. It IS time to move along.

The fact remains the Constitution only prohibits a national church not state churches.

Sure it does. The constitution prohibits states from declaring a religion.

It's not just the first amendment, either.

Ok...if ANYone can show me where in the Constitution is says ANY of that crap about separation of church and state or no state's church...I'll kiss their ass on the court house steps and give you a half hour to draw a crowd!

IT AIN'T THERE!!!

The only...and I mean ONLY reference to religion in Constitution BESIDES the 1st Amendment is Article VI - Debts, Supremacy, Oaths---clause 3, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

And the title of the 1st Amendment, is "Freedom of Religion"...NOT Freedom FROM Religion!

It says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion," It does NOT say Congress shall pass no law respecting a religion!

It always amazes me the number of jackwagons out there that think the men who were smart enough to establish a government and nation that has lasted over 200 years and most of whom MADE THEIR LIVINGS WITH WORDS weren't smart enough or good enough with language to know the damn difference between respecting and establishing a religion!

The reason that is in there is because the King of England ESTABLISHED a religion for the SOLE PURPOSE of divorcing England from Roman Catholics so the King could control the wealth of the church. And besides the fact that the vast majority of our founders didn't much like the Monarchy, they viewed the notion of our government controlling the wealth of churches as NOT being freedom OF religion!

Respecting...establishing, two VERY different things!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

No, the Constitution does no such thing. The 14th Amendment does not incorporate this part of this 1st Amendment or the Constitution.

The fact remains the Constitution only prohibits a national church not state churches.

Sure it does. The constitution prohibits states from declaring a religion.

It's not just the first amendment, either.

 

[Listening]

The fact remains the Constitution only prohibits a national church not state churches.

Sure it does. The constitution prohibits states from declaring a religion.

It's not just the first amendment, either.

Edited

Did you miss the part about states having sponsored religions or just sponsoring religion in general up through the 1830's ?

These were never challenged by anyone. It was constitutional.

The states themselves realized it was a bad idea and wrote them out of their constitutions (state constitutions).

The USC was never used to knock them down.

On this one (like most), you fail.