Church and State

[top gun]

As I said so (had you taken the trouble to read the rest of my post).

Let me spell it out for you. It is not the Declaration of Independence, but rather the Constitution and Bill of Rights that the basis of our government and source of our rights. Thomas Jefferson wrote in the Declaration of Independence: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights; that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness; that, to secure these Rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just Powers from the consent of the governed . . .” The framework of our government, however, did not incorporate the ideals expressed by Jefferson in the Declaration of Independence. The founding fathers, the framers of our Constitution and Bill of Rights, created a nation of laws and not men; which represents a compromise between the rights of individuals and the sovereign power of the state. All men are not created equal - they are equal under the law; and the rights to “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” may be unalienable, but they are not absolute. In this compromise rests the security for our individual rights and freedoms, including religious freedom. It is the Dominionists - those Christian fanatics - that would rewrite history and turn our nation of laws into a theocracy, when history has shown that state-sponsored religion results in the limitation of religious freedom, and, ultimately, religious persecution. The United States was not founded on religion; and to impose religious doctrine in place of our secular law would be to return to the horrors of the Inquisition and iniquities of the Court of Star Chamber.

I was going to jump in here and help out but I can see you hold this debate in the palm of your hand and need none.

Good job my friend...

 

[USMC the Almighty]

I was going to jump in here and help out but I can see you hold this debate in the palm of your hand and need none.

Good job my friend...

He didn't say anything thoughtful or relevant. He just rambled on about something off topic...

 

[numinus]

I find it worrying that a certain sect of the population no longer believes in the seperation of church and state, and as a matter of fact is supportive of mixing and blending the two. I would say this clearly shows a naive perspective of history. It would be easy for me to drop the cliche argument against church and state by pointing out the theocratic regimes in the Middle East, or even point to periods in the past where church and state were united, resulting in much religious persecution.

It is also a spit on the founding fathers intentions to assume that they did not want a seperation between church and state. Aside from the first ammendment in the bill of rights, there have been a number of other documents that state their opinions on the matter. If the founding fathers truly wanted it to be a Christian state, they could have easily done so during the founding of the country but they refused, even during the Constitutional Conference, they voted down a Christian qualification in order to run for office.

Religion is a right of thought and inseparable from the human person.

A church on the other hand, is an organization made up of people with like faiths.

The principle of separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of a church to wield the coersive powers of the state, as manifested in the police and military.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any particular church is in possession of such powers in the us.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Religion is a right of thought and inseparable from the human person.

A church on the other hand, is an organization made up of people with like faiths.

The principle of separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of a church to wield the coersive powers of the state, as manifested in the police and military.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any particular church is in possession of such powers in the us.

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

 

[numinus]

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

You mean there is a law that prohibits one from being gay or a transexual?

And you say the military or police, acting on orders from a church, is enforcing this?

 

[DrWho]

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

The social discrimination existing in our country are driven by the people in our country. It is just as prevalent in non-religious people as it is in religious people.

 

[DrWho]

Religion is a right of thought and inseparable from the human person.

A church on the other hand, is an organization made up of people with like faiths.

The principle of separation of church and state refers to the prohibition of a church to wield the coersive powers of the state, as manifested in the police and military.

There is nothing whatsoever to suggest that any particular church is in possession of such powers in the us.

Very interesting statements.

However, if the principle of the claus were to limit the power of a church to wield power then the claus would read "a church shall make no law..." As it is the claus reads "congress shall make no law..." The intent is to limit congress' power to wield the coersive powers of the state in the name of religion.

Religion empassions people greatly. The state wields great coercive power. Mixing the two is indeed dangerous.

Of the two I fear the state far more as I can avoid religion if I choose to.

 

[top gun]

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

I agree with you.

Often I hear the argument that the separation claus is one sided... that it only protects the church from the state. This is not the case and it is obvious if you break down what happens if the state endorses and is not separate outside of the church's influence. By doing so you will see how the separation claus also protects government from the church.

As soon as the government officially supports any one religions doctrine that by its very nature discriminates against all other religions and that if it were the only thing would violate the very principle of the state not being allowed to interfere with the church... any church.

We skirt the issue by speaking of God but God is a general term. All religions think they have God. Notice we don't say... In Jesus we trust.

 

[Justinian]

Hmmm

The laws discriminating against homosexual and transgendered people are driven entirely by religion, there is nothing to support any prohibition against gays and trannies EXCEPT religion, but yet the Christian majority in this country has managed to use the power of the government to push their religious agenda on us.

And this is why we do it. If you would conform to the understanding of community and social decency, then you would lose the label of freak and gain the recognition of a challenged Christian.

 

[Justinian]

In Defense of Christianity and Religion

Intent upon an egalitarian condition for society, the humanitarian tries to extirpate those spiritual essences in man which make possible truly human life.

 

[Segep]

The only thing I'd like to see extirpated around here is your posts.

 

[Coyote]

Intent upon an egalitarian condition for society, the humanitarian tries to extirpate those spiritual essences in man which make possible truly human life.

What's wrong with humanitarians? You'd be dead now without them.

 

[top gun]

The only thing I'd like to see extirpated around here is your posts.

That's too funny!

 

[numinus]

Very interesting statements.

However, if the principle of the claus were to limit the power of a church to wield power then the claus would read "a church shall make no law..." As it is the claus reads "congress shall make no law..." The intent is to limit congress' power to wield the coersive powers of the state in the name of religion.

Religion empassions people greatly. The state wields great coercive power. Mixing the two is indeed dangerous.

Of the two I fear the state far more as I can avoid religion if I choose to.

The principle of the separation of church and state is a european invention. The first ammendment of the us constitution is merely a manifestation of this principle.

Ironically enough, it was meant to prohibit the state from interfering in religious affairs, and not the other way around.

The most important aspect to consider in any question of separation of church and state is political power, which theoretically, holds the right to command the armed forces.

 

[DrWho]

The most important aspect to consider in any question of separation of church and state is political power, which theoretically, holds the right to command the armed forces.

In that case the churches have virtually no political power. The most they can do is influence voters to favor candidates who favor one point of view or another. They can't even name a particular candidate from the pulpit.

Personally, I think they should be able to name candidates that they favor just as most major newspapers endorse candidates that they favor. As it is most churches I have been in have no official position and the work of influencing the congregation takes place one person to another - very grassroots.