Seperation of Church and State
- 04-01-2006, 04:44 PM
Not sure how i feel about this... When people talk about Religion in american.. it only means "christianity".. all other religions are free to do what ever they wish, when ever.. All aspects of public christianity has been perverted to actually allow all to join... but with that being said.. christianity has always been a religion that would change its views and alter some things to allow people to join. When new people X were taken over by spain.. they worship a sun god with no name... then father joe whomever the hell comes in and said.. "oh! we know the name.. its Jesus.. and those other gods.. nooo they are angels and saints etc etc...
but as for church and state.. it doesn't matter.. all western religions ( jewish faith is not included in my western folder) is so watered down and usless that it will never hold true power.. the liberalization of the church has made it worthless.. therefor.. this topic is a waste of time and band width...
BUT.. with that being said... it is easier to create and control a society and economy if they are woven with religious ideology.... its great for the economy.. its great to keep a class structure... its also needed because human's are born with this feeling of abandonment and thusly religion fills that void....
- 04-01-2006, 05:01 PM
- 04-01-2006, 06:09 PM
04-01-2006, 07:28 PM
Like the Church of England in the 1600's or the Church of England in 1789?Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
04-01-2006, 07:53 PM
Blah, I'm not even going to read the entire thread before making an idiotic 17 year old comment!
Half the laws the founding fathers originally came up with don't really hold much sway in the modern political scene.
If we are free to practice religion, then why would I get in trouble for wearing a five pointed star, having satanic signs tattooed onto my body, and worshipping the devil.
(not that I have or do any of those things, but I know kids who are interpreted as bad for those things. It's just religion, and different beliefs... who can say what is wrong and right? In the long term it doesnt matter at all.)
04-01-2006, 09:07 PM
04-01-2006, 09:20 PM
Good! Equal practice of religion should be tolerated.. IMHO.
However when it starts to get out of control... things such as murder, sacrifice(unless the person volunteers) and violence - this is when the state needs to step in and take a hand in religion.
04-01-2006, 09:22 PM
I`m thinking it`s an ability to freethink not so much intelligence. There are very well educated and/or intelligent people in all movements.Originally Posted by The Experiment
Dogmatic thinking: “Vulgar believers can only operate with slogans and stereotypes within a point of view with which they egocentrically identify…”
04-01-2006, 09:26 PM
The founding fathers came from lands where there was a long history of Church+Politics meant suppresion of one group or another. As such they tried to setup a system to see that this wouldn`t happen again.
04-02-2006, 05:38 PM
What if it is my religious duty to murder or make a human sacrifice or smoke the marijuanna or take the peyote or marry many wives?Originally Posted by Sooty
04-04-2006, 01:03 PM
Does anyone know where I might find the 1853 report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in relation to the expediency of abolishing the office of chaplain in the public service?
04-04-2006, 07:45 PM
Unfortunately, you are just another one of those out of the mainstream, fringe lunatics... I mean fringe elements.. who have little or no meaningful participation in the society, and whose opinions are generally ignored by the majority. It is cool that our political system allows crazies to speak freely. lolOriginally Posted by The Experiment
So, what do you do? You sit around and whine about how the rest of the world is not what you fantasize how it should be. Meanwhile, time, life and the world are passing you by.... lol
P.S. Have you read the news? Us neocon rule! Took us 2 decades in the making, and we are not done yet!! You ain't seen nothing yet!! It is inevitable that new world order is one belongs to the NeoCon. Just look at the progress we make globally. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany.. etc... NeoCon on a warpath to domination. The reason is simple. Our ideology is right. That's it! Plain and simple. Oh yeah.. forgot to mention.. we know how to run things, and not just yepping smart on the internet.
04-04-2006, 07:50 PM
Well, I have an idea. Why don't you check with countries that have an official religion? There are plenty of countries with state sponsored religion. I am sure they can provide you an idea what a "state sponsored religion" is.Originally Posted by FredFlash
Even better, move to live in one of those countries with an official religion or state sponsored religion. You can see for yourself how a state sponsored religion operates. I have lived in one such county for many years. You should try it. Sure beats the hell out of just talking about it online.
04-04-2006, 07:51 PM
Exactly what I said earlier.... But some people prefer their own version of reality.Originally Posted by EEmain
04-04-2006, 08:23 PM
We all have our own version of reality... but that is another thread could get real interesting too.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
04-04-2006, 11:14 PM
In 1787 the Congress passed an act in which special lands were designated "for the sole used of Christian Indians and the Moravian Bretheren missionaries, for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity."
--Margo Diann Abshier
04-04-2006, 11:21 PM
I'd challenge that statistic because I believe there is much dishonesty when it comes to reporting crime.Originally Posted by houseman
In addition to that, criminals "break the law", so banning guns isn't going to deter many people who are commited to breaking the law.
04-04-2006, 11:35 PM
04-05-2006, 12:29 AM
What? You don't believe me?Originally Posted by FredFlash
Malaysia, where the official religion is Islam. Bear in mind that it is one of the most tolerant Islamic countries. The political system is paliarmentary monarchy. Over there, you have constitutionally protected right to religious freedom. The rights of other religions are respected and protected, officially. But the official religion is Islam. Islam is sponsored by the state and supported with taxes. Mosques are built and operated with tax money. Anything related to Islam, is supported with tax money. Over there, you simply don't question the government using YOUR tax money to support Islam. That is a no-no!!
04-05-2006, 09:38 AM
I do not question your honestly. I am interested in the relationship of Religion and State in other nations.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Are taxes collected from the non-Islamic population to support Mosques? How does the Malaysian government sponsor the offical religion without infringing on religious freedom?
04-05-2006, 05:22 PM
The taxes are collected from everyone with income, in theory. But it is like 95% is collected from the ethnic Chinese who are 99% non-muslim. It is a complicated situation that is unique to that country. The Chinese in Malaysia are decendents of Chinese who migrated from China at the turn of the last century. They are considered Malaysia citizen. The Chinese used to dominate the economy and hence have traditionally bore the biggest burden on taxation. These days, state run conglomerates rule the corporate world in Malaysia. These conglomerates are owned, controlled and managed by people connected to the ruling alliance. Shady deals and corruption are the norm. I doubt they pay any taxes at all, considered that they are subsidized with public taxes in the first place.Originally Posted by FredFlash
The taxes are used to pursue anything the government sees fit, with no regards to equality or any concern for not even the appearance of bias or unfair practice. Public money is considered the private purse of the ruling alliance. The rulling alliance has ruled the country single handedly since the independence of the country. They have absolute majority and can ammend the constitution at the whimp of the Prime Minister.
In order to keep a majority of the population happy being subjucated to their rule, the ruling aliance use this official religion as the rallying point. Anything related to Islam is heavily and totally supported with taxes. Islamic scholars and students are on government payroll. It is a gravy train, some sort of social program in reality. The government encourages the Muslim citizen to devote all their energy and attention to the study of Islam.
Thing is, you are NOT allowed to question, let alone criticise anything related Islam. You can criticize the government, but absolutely NOTHING related Islam, the state sponsored religion. They can throw you in jail without trial and keep you there indefinitely. The only excuse they need is that you are a threat to national security. You have no appeal.
04-05-2006, 05:50 PM
04-05-2006, 06:01 PM
Originally Posted by kwyckemynd00
Not to mention firearms and bullets cost money... and in the absense of these a rock, club or machete will be just as good.
04-05-2006, 09:55 PM
Left right around the big Asian Meltdown in the late 90's. After that the government instituted currency control and made it very difficult to repatriate profit/funds out of the country.Originally Posted by FredFlash
I sure hope things turn around in that country. Just as long as you don't butt head with Islam and you don't butt head with the government, and you pay your taxes, then you are pretty much left alone to your own vices. If you question the government then you had better do it humbly and keep it down. You are not allowed to criticise the government instituted policy of setting quotas and preferential treatment for the majority group. Yes, you read it right! Preferential treatment in favour of the majority!! lol
It is a part of the world, where 'who you know' makes all the difference. If you get the right connection, and you actually have talent/skills, you can make the good life of a merchant prince. Money and connection allow you to do things that you cannot do in America.
But I digress. lol The point is, yes there is this thing called state sponsored religion or official religion and it is used as a political tool to keep the people in their place. Islam is at the stage where it is very intrusive into the faithful's life. It dictates what you can or cannot do. Your private life is subjucated to the dictate of Islam. If you are a muslim, your rights are defined by Islam. Islam does not allow you to renounce it. IF you think Islam treats infidels harshly, wait till you see how it treats its apostates. lol Islam governs every aspect of your life. You can't say you would just do as you please. LOL They have this thing called Sharia Court to deal with you. They will arrest you and punish you IF you violate what is expected of you as a muslim. lol Of course, for the rich and powerful, they can still get away with they decadence and corruption. There is this element of 'do as we say but not as we do". lol
So, Islam can be a very powerful tool for the government to control the population. Unfortunately, as we have witnessed, in many situation, Islam takes on a life of its own, and the government has to ride the tiger and try not to get eaten alive.
Islam is presently at the stage where Christianity once was. So it is an evolutionary process. Christianity has evolved to the point it is no longer an oppressive factor in people's daily life. There may be faithful who adhere to everything Vatican says. But most Roman Catholics think nothing of putting on a condom, whatever the Church says notwithstanding.
For Islam to evolve, it has to come from inside. The burden is on the shoulder of the moderate muslims.
04-05-2006, 10:21 PM
04-07-2006, 08:49 PM
I am not. Does that mean I am biased?Originally Posted by FredFlash
I have plenty of muslim friends and colleague. I almost married a muslim.
04-07-2006, 10:55 PM
Everyone is biased. The problem is not to allow it to effect your judgment.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
After your experence in Malaysia perhaps you can understand why James Madison fought so hard for the Separation of Church and State in America, and why people like me oppose even seemingly trivial violations of the pure principle.
There are those who would impose a Union of Church and State here in the U. S. if they could. Their strategy is to convice us to adopt seemingly plausible and reasonable deviations from the principle and then argue that there were not exceptions at all.
Case in point: Congress establishing two Chaplainships in 1789 and charging the expense ($500 per year) to the taxpayers.
The establishment was for Congress only, not the people. There was no assumption of authority over the religious sentiments or the manner of worship of the people. The Chaplains never invited any Congressman to pray during an official daily legislative session because that would imply a duty to do so.
The Chaplain's prayer services were held before the bell rang to reconvene and officially open business for the day. By all accounts, very few Congressmen attended the services. In 1789, the belief that one had a natural right to render homage to Creator according to one's conscience and conviction was universal. However, it was not a universal belief that the duty to contribute to the financial support of religion was a matter of conscience.
Just 22 years later, the advocates of a Church State Union (the Federalists) were arguing in the House of Representatives that regulating the funds of a religious society was within the authority of Congress, as well as the authority to address the the fact that religion had been entirely excluded from the ten square mile area of the District of Columbia.
Mr. WHEATON said he differed widely from his colleague (Mr. PICKMAN) as to the importance of the bill now under consideration. He did not imagine that they were to assume the objections of the President to be valid, and of course to dismiss the bill. They had a duty to perform as well as the President. He had performed his duty in the case presented for consideration. And would gentlemen assume it as a correct position because the bill was objected to by the President that the House ought not to act understandingly?
This was not the correct principle. In his view the objections made by the President to this bill were altogether futile. Mr. W. said he did not consider the bill any infringement of the Constitution. If it was, both branches of the Legislature, since the commencement of the government, had been guilty of such infringement. It could not be said, indeed, that they had been guilty of doing much about religion; but they had at every session appointed Chaplains, to be of different denominations, to interchange weekly between the Houses. Now, if a bill for regulating the funds of a religious society could be an infringement of the Constitution, the two Houses had so far infringed it by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains. For so far it established two different denominations of religion. Mr. W. deemed this question of very great consequence. Were the people of this District never to have any religion? Was it to be entirely excluded from these ten miles square? He should be afraid to come it that were to be the case. The want of time was no sufficient reason against giving this subject mature consideration. What was done ought to be well done. For these reasons he was in favor of the bill lying on the table. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 11th Congress, 3rd Session Pages 983 & 984.
04-08-2006, 07:52 PM
Well, I am glad that you know your history that well.
"...why people like me oppose even seemingly trivial violations of the pure principle. ...."
If it is seemingly trivial, then I think I have better things to do with my time. I don't like to waste my time splitting hair.
04-08-2006, 09:12 PM
A little bit of a Union of Church and State is like a bit of cancer or a little bit of sin. It is corruption that can eventually kill.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
04-09-2006, 04:56 AM
You are being paranoid there. lol Live a little. The sky is not falling. lol The world was here, before us. The world will still be here after we are gone.Originally Posted by FredFlash
A little bit of sin is no big deal, as long as we don't commit some absolute no-no. I try to live my life as a good person and I try to go out of my way to be of service to others, whether it is a fellow human being in need or an animal in need of help. But I am not going to lose any sleep if I fail to be a person w/o sin.
I wouldn't worry about 'a little bit of Union of the State and the Church', if I were you. The burden of the nation is not on your shoulder or my shoulder, alone. While many people would like to see our government reflects the basic goodness enshrined in Christianity, few would want the State to impose an official religion or a US government sponsored Church. There is little doubt that the doctrine of separation of the State and Church is as firmly established in the minds of the American people as that of the right to free speech. So, I think you worry too much there.
Similar Forum Threads
- By mr athlete in forum General ChatReplies: 9Last Post: 03-16-2007, 08:44 PM
- By Jarconis in forum SupplementsReplies: 11Last Post: 03-30-2003, 01:18 PM
- By Dr of Golf in forum Training ForumReplies: 4Last Post: 02-16-2003, 07:13 PM
- By Lifeguard in forum Weight LossReplies: 5Last Post: 02-14-2003, 01:43 AM
- By ironviking in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 13Last Post: 02-03-2003, 06:55 PM