Umm Separate The Church And State Please!!!

[1029066]

The United States claims separation of the church and state right? But then why is it that religion plays such a huge role in politics? Its influences can be subtle, but they are certainly present. The illegalization of abortion and gambling and prostitution and gay marriage all have their religious influences right? And the ban of the sale of alcohol on sundays in some areas?? It's not really a separation. I'm not against people believing in what they want to believe, that's completely cool with me. I just want it to be separate from politics because it ruins peoples' fun and hurts the economy. By banning the sale and the participating of activities that do not cause violence or include a victim, it hurts the US market. And it interferes with peoples' lifestyle choices that they have a right to make.

So what do you think?

 

[tryreading]

The United States claims separation of the church and state right? But then why is it that religion plays such a huge role in politics? Its influences can be subtle, but they are certainly present. The illegalization of abortion and gambling and prostitution and gay marriage all have their religious influences right? And the ban of the sale of alcohol on sundays in some areas?? It's not really a separation. I'm not against people believing in what they want to believe, that's completely cool with me. I just want it to be separate from politics because it ruins peoples' fun and hurts the economy. By banning the sale and the participating of activities that do not cause violence or include a victim, it hurts the US market. And it interferes with peoples' lifestyle choices that they have a right to make.

So what do you think?

Seems like a lot of the blue laws have been pushed aside, like buying liquor on Sundays. I can buy whiskey on the Sabbath, now, in Florida. That's the way it has to be.

But there are still scary examples of religion and politics sneaking into the cloak room together. When President Bush nominated Harriet Myers for Supreme Court Justice, his people immediately had a large conference meeting with many of the famous and opinionated Christian leaders of the day, and assured them that she would be the right one, anti abortion and all, you know. I believe this was even before the American people were informed of her nomination. I thought that was pretty strange at the time. Still do.

 

[Geo Patric]

.
So what do you think?

i agree. but we are in a very decided minority. the 'separation' was certainly Jefferson's idea, but it is not law, as such. most americans are not really in favor of keeping faith personal. they want to have a state 'guided' by 'christian principles' and based on a supposed judeo-christian moral tradition, as fervently as any islamist wants sharia.

but.... that you and I and m. Jefferson would have a true separation of church and state does not mean there must needs be a separation between politics and religion... both are practices protected by our notion of liberty. you can and certainly should expect that people will allow their religious principles to influence their political thinking. so, that puritan ethinc is gonna be there. voting your faith is not a violation of the wall of separation.

i would endorse any movement to remove ALL religious icongraphy from secular political life... our money, for instance. money is a pretty significant signifier.

geo.

 

[Panache]

The United States claims separation of the church and state right? But then why is it that religion plays such a huge role in politics? Its influences can be subtle, but they are certainly present. The illegalization of abortion and gambling and prostitution and gay marriage all have their religious influences right? And the ban of the sale of alcohol on sundays in some areas?? It's not really a separation. I'm not against people believing in what they want to believe, that's completely cool with me. I just want it to be separate from politics because it ruins peoples' fun and hurts the economy. By banning the sale and the participating of activities that do not cause violence or include a victim, it hurts the US market. And it interferes with peoples' lifestyle choices that they have a right to make.

So what do you think?

How much democracy do you want? If you think democracy is a good idea, you can't blame people for voting in a way consistent with their beliefs. The issue of morality being imposed by the government is not limited to the religious right. Forced charity through social programs comes from the same playbook, as do anti-discrimination laws, affirmative action, etc...

 

[Geo Patric]

How much democracy do you want? If you think democracy is a good idea, you can't blame people for voting in a way consistent with their beliefs.

tch.... now, see... you were doing fine up to this point. a perfectly rational thing to say... then you let your rightwing ideologiocal demons take over your brain.

ok... you are opposed to laws antidiscrimination laws... laws that disallow you from telling ... who? black folk? mexicans? Jews? women? cripples? whatever, SOME group or groups that they are not welcome. but, that is how democracy works... most of the rest of us have graduated beyond such... emm.... (searching for a polite term) 'provincial', and alas, in a democracy, the majority rule.

god doesn't like intransigent stiff necked people any more now than he used to, ya know....

geo.

 

[Panache]

tch.... now, see... you were doing fine up to this point. a perfectly rational thing to say... then you let your rightwing ideologiocal demons take over your brain.

Those pesky right wing ideological demons, I just can't get rid of them.

ok... you are opposed to laws antidiscrimination laws... laws that disallow you from telling ... who? black folk? mexicans? Jews? women? cripples? whatever, SOME group or groups that they are not welcome. but, that is how democracy works...

Why are you repeating what what I just said? Of course that isn't how democracy works. As I just pointed out, people will vote according to their beliefs. Voting based on religious morality is the example cited in the OP, but it is not the only example. Secular morality has just as much influence in the government. As an example, the majority think it is immoral for me to tell black people that they can't eat in my restaurant, and so it becomes a law that I must serve them. The majoriy think that prostitution is immoral, so prostitution is illegal. If the majority think that gay marriage is immoral, then gay marriage will remain illegal. That is how democracy works.

most of the rest of us have graduated beyond such... emm.... (searching for a polite term) 'provincial', and alas, in a democracy, the majority rule.

Right. Exactly my point. The majority rules. If the majority is Christian, then Christian doctrine will dominate any democratic government.

god doesn't like intransigent stiff necked people any more now than he used to, ya know....

Then why does it seem that all His followers are intransigent stiff necked people?

 

[digsbe]

Separation of church and state means that religion or religious organizations cannot govern. However, people with religious morals and beliefs have every right to have their beliefs represented in law. An opinion based on religious conviction is no less valid than one based purely on secular thinking. Religious people have every right to have their morals and beliefs influence their politics and politicians.

 

[Jerry]

The United States claims separation of the church and state right? But then why is it that religion plays such a huge role in politics? Its influences can be subtle, but they are certainly present. The illegalization of abortion and gambling and prostitution and gay marriage all have their religious influences right? And the ban of the sale of alcohol on sundays in some areas?? It's not really a separation. I'm not against people believing in what they want to believe, that's completely cool with me. I just want it to be separate from politics because it ruins peoples' fun and hurts the economy. By banning the sale and the participating of activities that do not cause violence or include a victim, it hurts the US market. And it interferes with peoples' lifestyle choices that they have a right to make.

So what do you think?

1029066


.......................

 

[Guy Incognito]

The United States claims separation of the church and state right?

This is not accurate. There are two religion clauses contained in the First Amendment, the freedom to exercise one's religion, and the freedom from government establishment of religion. There is no reference to a separation of church and state, and a government interaction with religion that does not constitute an endorsement of a particular religion is perfectly legal.

 

[Geo Patric]

Those pesky right wing ideological demons, I just can't get rid of them.

it shows.

the majority think it is immoral for me to tell black people that they can't eat in my restaurant, and so it becomes a law that I must serve them.

no... they may think it immoral but it is not morality that is being legislated in antidiscrimination laws but the liberty of citizens to in obligiing public access to public places and equal protection under the law.... that irritating old 14th amendment. but you have options.... make your restaraunt private, members only, disallow black folk and yer problem is solved. of course, you limit your customer base that way, but would be worth it to maintain your ideological purity.

The majoriy think that prostitution is immoral, so prostitution is illegal. If the majority think that gay marriage is immoral, then gay marriage will remain illegal. That is how democracy works.

usually, not always. antidiscrimination laws in the 60's were opposed by more than not. the laws were not based on popular opinion but the 14th amendment... remember, Brown vs BoE?

If the majority is Christian, then Christian doctrine will dominate any democratic government.

and you do not like that? if it were some other reason... perhaps that prostitution, while certainly a woman's right, is, in actuality, a version of economic servitude. and we don't like that so we make it illegal. is THAT not ok? is it not ok simply because the majority do not like it, the majority is religious or that the majority thinks differently than you (and i, for that matter).

Then why does it seem that all His followers are intransigent stiff necked people?

well many are of course and god bless em for it still, there are more sheep than rams in the flock.

geo.

 

[OKgrannie]

Separation of church and state means that religion or religious organizations cannot govern. However, people with religious morals and beliefs have every right to have their beliefs represented in law.

No, they do not. Congress is forbidden to make any law RESPECTING an establishment of religion. Passing laws for the benefit of a religious group is at the very least, RESPECTFUL.

An opinion based on religious conviction is no less valid than one based purely on secular thinking. Religious people have every right to have their morals and beliefs influence their politics and politicians.

Religious people have every right to have the freedom to practice their own morals and beliefs, but they do not have the right to use the law to force others to practice their morals and beliefs. This amendment is intended to protect individuals and minorities from the "tyranny of the majority" concerning matters of conscience.

 

[Guy Incognito]

No, they do not. Congress is forbidden to make any law RESPECTING an establishment of religion. Passing laws for the benefit of a religious group is at the very least, RESPECTFUL.

The word "respecting," as used in the First Amendment, simply means "in respect to" or "regarding," not "respectful" or "holding in high esteem."

 

[Panache]

no... they may think it immoral but it is not morality that is being legislated in antidiscrimination laws but the liberty of citizens to in obligiing public access to public places and equal protection under the law.... that irritating old 14th amendment. but you have options.... make your restaraunt private, members only, disallow black folk and yer problem is solved. of course, you limit your customer base that way, but would be worth it to maintain your ideological purity.

Just like anti-abortion laws protect the unborn's supposed right to life, and anti-gay legislation protects the supposed sanctity of marriage, and anti-prostitution laws protect society from the vices of lustful indulgence etc... Everything is meant to protect someone from something. In a democracy, that generally means protecting the majority from the minority.

The 14th amendment (along with the others) is not a democratic law. It is there to prevent the majority from walking all over the minority. The sole reason for its existence is that Democracy sucks, and needs controls in place to keep it from getting out of hand.

usually, not always. antidiscrimination laws in the 60's were opposed by more than not. the laws were not based on popular opinion but the 14th amendment... remember, Brown vs BoE?

Right. Because, as I mentioned, democracy sucks. The constitutional rights are what make the US a republic instead of a democracy. If we limited the goverment's function to upholding those rights, and protecting its citizens, it would save a lot of trouble and money. The more government is allowed to stick its nose in people's business, the more the majority moral zeitgeist will rear its ugly head.

If you want government to stop employers from taking advantage of employees because you think its wrong, you don't have much room to complain about the government enforcing religious morals when someone else wants to keep prostitution illegal because they think its wrong, or when someone else wants to keep gay folks from getting married, because they think its wrong.

and you do not like that? if it were some other reason... perhaps that prostitution, while certainly a woman's right, is, in actuality, a version of economic servitude. and we don't like that so we make it illegal. is THAT not ok? is it not ok simply because the majority do not like it, the majority is religious or that the majority thinks differently than you (and i, for that matter).

Your sentence structure is confusing. Could you rephrase?

 

[Guy Incognito]

The constitutional rights are what make the US a republic instead of a democracy.

Actually, what makes the US a republic is the fact that the people elect representatives to make laws. In a democracy, the people themselves directly vote on the laws.

 

[ThePlayDrive]

The United States claims separation of the church and state right? But then why is it that religion plays such a huge role in politics? Its influences can be subtle, but they are certainly present. The illegalization of abortion and gambling and prostitution and gay marriage all have their religious influences right? And the ban of the sale of alcohol on sundays in some areas?? It's not really a separation. I'm not against people believing in what they want to believe, that's completely cool with me. I just want it to be separate from politics because it ruins peoples' fun and hurts the economy. By banning the sale and the participating of activities that do not cause violence or include a victim, it hurts the US market. And it interferes with peoples' lifestyle choices that they have a right to make.

So what do you think?

It will all be over soon enough.

 

[ADG]

This is not accurate. There are two religion clauses contained in the First Amendment, the freedom to exercise one's religion, and the freedom from government establishment of religion. There is no reference to a separation of church and state, and a government interaction with religion that does not constitute an endorsement of a particular religion is perfectly legal.

You are correct, sir. I must add that while the Constitution does not contain any reference to the "seperation of the Church and State", SCOTUS rulings have created this "wall of seperation" through various decisions. Most notably Everson v. BOE in 1949, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and Lee v. Weismann.

 

[Geo Patric]

Just like anti-abortion laws protect...

you are perverting the argument. WHY this or that law is in place will have differing ratioanales. the rationale i presented was perfecly legitimate concerning antidiscrimination laws. if it does not apply to ALL restrictive laws that does not negate it. why i am not allowed to smoke in restaraunts is different from why i cannot park at the curb on streetsweeping days... but neither disqualifies the other.

In a democracy, that generally means protecting the majority from the minority.

if you like. personally i think democracy protects everyone. you have a choice WE decide or ONE decides. yeah... i know all about your notion of 'liberty' - "leave me alone and I will leave you alone". trouble is, history has shown that they WILL NOT LEAVE YOU ALONE. if we do away with the protections we provide each other we depend on someone else to protect us from the big guys with sticks. the only thing that is gonna keep the big guy from shoving a stick up you ass until you agree to serve HIM is if YOU are the one shoving the stick.

you can keep that. you can keep your rejection of the amendment that stopped the subjugation of a race of people, too.

social groups depend on social order. no one individual is better gifted to determine for me what is right than I am. nor am i better able to decide for you. nonetheless, our freedoms WILL impinge one upon the other if we have no means of mitigating our wants. we have essentially two options - we get together and agree (democratically) or we let someone(s) decide for use. now, if you prefer to live in an autocracy, you are in luck... there is still no shortage of those. take yer pick. if, as i suspect, you want to BE the autocrat that decides things for everyone else... well, too bad. you don't get to.

i appreciate you arguments, however... YOU are a Libertarian - YOU speak libertarian truth. you have been letting ill-informed rightwing manipulators pour bull**** in your ears and gleefully proslelyze their self serving gospel.

we are a a nation of republics governed by democratic means. and although it is the constitution that so defines us, it is not our "rights" that do so... our rights LIMIT the role of government however you wish to see it.

you bitch about morals, religious morals. morals are just a fancy word for what we think is good and right. religious peole have preachers telling them what is good and right. YOU have rightwing nut jobs telling you what is good and right. i think you are both wrong because I know what is REALLY good and right.

Your sentence structure is confusing. Could you rephrase?

i can try. it bothers you that christianity is the predominant moral construct that drives american thinking and results in things being illegal that you do not think should be illegal.

so, lets change the reason. prostitution is a form of slavery forced on women who can make a living no other way so it should be illegal because it is depraved and denigrating. is that ok with you? the result is the same. selling what is essentially her only real property, her body, is certainly a woman's right. but it is still considered by many nonreligious people to be an ugly and undesirable activiity. unless regulated, it spreads illness. it is often associated with other less than desireable activities, drug usage, for instance. if good rational nonreligious people do not want those activities as part of their culture for THOSE reasons, is that ok?

no? because it is a moral question and because what we think is good and right have no place is civil society? are you insane?

sorry. aboslute freedom is for absolute idiots. you cannot get everything you want. too bad.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

You are correct, sir. I must add that while the Constitution does not contain any reference to the "seperation of the Church and State", SCOTUS rulings have created this "wall of seperation" through various decisions. Most notably Everson v. BOE in 1949, Lemon v. Kurtzman, and Lee v. Weismann.

the Bill OF Rights is not the origin of the phrase. Jefferson said it and it was Jefferson who was most responsible for the amendment's being included (it was actually written by Madison).

geo.

 

[Panache]

i can try. it bothers you that christianity is the predominant moral construct that drives american thinking and results in things being illegal that you do not think should be illegal.

It bothers the OP that Christianity is the predominant moral construct that drives american thinking and results in things being illegal that he does not think should be illegal. That was the topic of the thread. I was pointing out that religion isn't the only source of people imposing their morals on others.

so, lets change the reason. prostitution is a form of slavery forced on women who can make a living no other way so it should be illegal because it is depraved and denigrating. is that ok with you?

Sounds like people imposing their morality on others to me. Doesn't matter to me whether it is the Christians or the Humanists doing the imposing.

the result is the same. selling what is essentially her only real property, her body, is certainly a woman's right. but it is still considered by many nonreligious people to be an ugly and undesirable activiity. unless regulated, it spreads illness. it is often associated with other less than desireable activities, drug usage, for instance. if good rational nonreligious people do not want those activities as part of their culture for THOSE reasons, is that ok?

It is no more or less ok for humanists to let the Church o humanism influence their poliics than it is for Christians to let the church of Christianity influence theirs.

 

[spud_meister]

Actually, what makes the US a republic is the fact that the people elect representatives to make laws. In a democracy, the people themselves directly vote on the laws.

Actually, what makes the US a republic is that it doesn't have a monarch as a head of state. But it is a representative democracy, which is still a democracy, as a democracy is any system where people vote in relation to their governance, whether representative or direct.

 

[Guy Incognito]

Actually, what makes the US a republic is that it doesn't have a monarch as a head of state. But it is a representative democracy, which is still a democracy, as a democracy is any system where people vote in relation to their governance, whether representative or direct.

I think we're talking past each other. Is that the definition of "republic" in the Commonwealth? Non-monarchy? Weird. I hadn't heard that before.

Here's a good summary of the definition of the word Republic as we use it in the USA. I was wrong to imply that they are mutually exclusive.

 

[spud_meister]

I think we're talking past each other. Is that the definition of "republic" in the Commonwealth? Non-monarchy? Weird.

Here's a good summary of the definition of the word Republic as we use it in the USA.

By that definition, Australia is a Republic, but China isn't a republic, which isn't true, what that definition is referring to is a Constitutional Republic, but that's not the only type. That's why the USSR was a republic, why Iran is a Islamic Republic, and why the movement for abolition of the Queen as head of state in Australia is referred to as Republicanism, because a Republic is a system if government with a non-monarchical head of state. And democracy is any system where leaders are elected, be it direct or representational.

 

[Geo Patric]

. I was pointing out that religion isn't the only source of people imposing their morals on others.

that's a fact.

Sounds like people imposing their morality on others to me. Doesn't matter to me whether it is the Christians or the Humanists doing the imposing. . . . It is no more or less ok for humanists to let the Church o humanism influence their poliics than it is for Christians to let the church of Christianity influence theirs.

i would say that is a matter of perspeptive. I consider myself a humanist, to be sure, and I also consider humanism to be a moral structure. I bring my humanist morality to the voting booth. if that means that I am attempting to impose my morality on others, then i would say that that is a property of democracy just as you say. and i would say that is a good thing, too.

but humnism is no church. and, your telling me that employing my moral values in making political decisions is itself a moral statement. your suggesting that i should not do so because it is wrong to do so is an attempt on your part to impose your moral values on me.

the difference between us is merely that i recognize that we are both doing the same thing. i also think that taking a moral stance and insisiting that it is the good and right thing to do is the good and right thing to do.

geo.

 

[Geo Patric]

Is that the definition of "republic" in the Commonwealth? Non-monarchy? Weird. I hadn't heard that before.

a generally accepted defintition of republic might be:

A political order where -

a) the head of state does not hold supreme or unquestioned power (as a monarch)

b) supreme power lies in a body of citizens who are entitled to vote for officers and representatives responsible to them.

c) where justice is a cetral pursuit and in that pursuit, Law is objective and written (ie: a nation of laws and constitutions).

Plato had Socrates (from whom we get the word and the notion) attempting in his definition (of a 'thing of the public', or 'government of the people') to balance justice and happiness (or well being), and stepped lightly over the very arguable position that a just state always results in the benefit of its citizens. I think we are still arguing the same point. If we insist on an objective Justice, such justice will continuously (at any rate, has historically) conflict with the 'common weal'.

i would suggest (and it think it a premise of liberalism) that the common weal IS the definitition of just.

geo.

 

[Panache]

that's a fact.

i would say that is a matter of perspeptive. I consider myself a humanist, to be sure, and I also consider humanism to be a moral structure. I bring my humanist morality to the voting booth. if that means that I am attempting to impose my morality on others, then i would say that that is a property of democracy just as you say. and i would say that is a good thing, too.

Of course it's a property of democracy just as I say. The right wing demons whispering in my ear are never wrong about this sort of thing.

but humnism is no church. and, your telling me that employing my moral values in making political decisions is itself a moral statement. your suggesting that i should not do so because it is wrong to do so is an attempt on your part to impose your moral values on me.

First of all, where did I say it was wrong? I don't think I said it was wrong, I think I said it was equivalent to Chrisitans imposing their religious morals. My point was that you can't give power to the majority and then complain about how unfair it is when you suddenly find yourself in the minority on some issue.

the difference between us is merely that i recognize that we are both doing the same thing. i also think that taking a moral stance and insisiting that it is the good and right thing to do is the good and right thing to do.

No, the difference between us is that I recognized it as far back as page one. I even made this response to the OP which pointed out how both sides do the same thing. You tried to insist that the secular left didn't engage in trying to control people's lives the way the religious right did. Glad to see you have come around to my way of thinking.

-Panache