»Is the USA losing the separation between church and state?«
|
|||
 marl64: Or so it is written - by the Invading force. Yes, the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria were heavily armored battleships. marl64: Guns and Bibles - very civilised. Guns: better technology than their bows and arrows. Bibles: a rational alternative to their their most likely pantheistic religion. Which one do you have a problem with, exactly? marl64: Please tell us how the Dominant Religion is supressed? Nativity scenes are being forced out of public parks. State seals which have crosses in them are called into question. A kid who prays at school before lunch is sent to the principle's office. And it's all because of this "separation of Church and State" garbage. Need any more examples? marl64: Now look at what you just said in the context of what you think of Athiests - Pompous, Default Religion and all that I just did. My points still stand. Atheism does consider itself to be the "default" religion. And, if there must be such a religion, Christianity over Atheism any day of the week, except on Sunday (the Sabbath).  marl64: So your no better that the Athiests you despise. You mean besides the fact that I promote a rational religion? marl64: And how is this is different from the Christian education you prescribe? Being brought up in a philosophy which promotes rational morality is necessary, if the child is to have any real choice. Otherwise, immorality is practically chosen for him. "he is like a plant which, having proper nurture, must necessarily grow and mature into all virtue, but, if sown and planted in an alien soil, becomes the most noxious of all weeds, unless he be preserved by some divine power" -Socrates marl64: Perhaps part of the desire to make the seperation is not to persecute christianity, but to prevent more travesties such as invading non-christian countries "in the name of God". Though that is often used as a justification for hatred of Christianity, it is hardly ever the reason for it. marl64: But what good is seperating religion from state You don't understand. The point is not to separate the two. The state should not legislate anything regarding religion. This includes legislation designed to remove religion from the state. marl64: if all the kids which grow up to be politicians are educated in a biased religious environment? I see no problem with a kind of government system in which the political leaders share the same philosophy as the people they govern. In fact, that would be quite democratic. What exactly is your problem with it? Is it bad if a Jewish country elects Jewish leaders? Or should only atheists, with their "non-religion" be allowed to rule? posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
| in-my-opinion.orgPoliticsBush, Kerry, IraqIs the USA losing the separation between church and state? |
|
|||
 I'm waiting for you to explain why I shouldn't be executed, Stinkz. Morality is a system used by many people for their own purposes. It does not aid human freedom or produce any benefit to society if the education system reveals only Christian ideas and ignores all other religious viewpoints. Morality could be anything I chose IF it was only me choosing it. However, morality is not based on me. It is based on human reasoning. A theory works best when it corresponds with known facts. The state should keep a non-religious/secular perspective, because otherwise it risks alienating those who do not share in the religion it promotes. When Christian prayers are said at the president's inaugeration, what message does this send to the muslims in the country. It tells them that they have no American identity. They are not part of this inaugeration ceremony. What you want, Stinkz, is to remove the multi-cultural aspects of your nation. When do you plan to have all the non-Christians deported? posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: Where do you come up with this stuff? Who told you that? Belief that Christianity is true, to the exclusion of all other religions, does not conjure automatic violence. That is absurd. No, I think that follows automatically if you don't have internal measures to suppress "anti-other-religion" movements and brutality. You cannot have a religion (a religion! = something where people usually have no objective proof for anything) AND keep the members peaceful. Except if you KNOW how to keep members peaceful OR if it's a religion of peace anyway. But there is no single measure in Christianity that keeps members under control, nor is it a religion of peace. How could it be if their own god is a mass murderer? Christian history is the proof. Religion X claims "Only we know" ---> Brutality against others after a while. You know, it's like with communism: On the paper it works. But it forgets to consider things as "greed", "giving religious reasons for one's own doing", "hate" and "stupidity". In other words: It is immensly important that Christianity doesn't rule any country. posted by knn |
|||
|
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: if the education system reveals only Christian ideas and ignores all other religious viewpoints. I have never said that it should ignore other religious viewpoints. I am merely talking about the underlying bias, which you believe should be Atheism. Even some kind of Pagan religion would be better than Atheism. fatpie42: It is based on human reasoning. Finally, something I can agree with. However, this contradicts the whole notion that morality is not "fixed." Things which have a solid foundation in Reason, are most certainly fixed. And, calling them "stagnant" because of that, is pointless. fatpie42: The state should keep a non-religious/secular perspective If it does, moral decline will continue to increase, until human values have no value at all. Kids today are already having rampant, meaningless underage sex. The words "I love you" are often confused with "I want to have sex with you." This type of garbage should be offensive, especially to women. And this is only one of many values which are degraded in our society. fatpie42: When do you plan to have all the non-Christians deported? Does it not bother you that you say illogical things, non-stop? knn: a religion! = something where people usually have no objective proof for anything Good boy. The secularists have taught you well. Have you ever questioned this belief, wondering where it came from? Come on people. I understand that the teachings of the Sophists are appealing. It's because they are spoon-feeding you what you want to hear. They know well the opinion of the masses, and can spew it back to them in order to gain followers. Let us not be satisfied with their teachings, and instead look for Truth. knn: You cannot have a religion AND keep the members peaceful. Check out the Apostolic Church. It's members were peaceful despite the persecution they recieved in Rome. knn: Christian history is the proof. Alright. It has gotten to the point where I must dismantle some of the pervading, false ideas about Church history. People. Rome was known for it's religious persecution. Before the "reign" of Christianity, Christianity was the targeted, persecuted religion. However, Christianity fared far better under these conditions, than when it was made the State Religion. When it became a requirement to be baptized, everyone was then considered "Christian" and Christianity was moved from the realm of belief into the realm of politics. Instead of becoming Christian based on learning, and understanding of truth, a person became Christian because of political advancement. Eventually, due to apathy towards real Scriptural teaching, the Bible was taken out of the hands of the citizens, and kept by the clergy, who were able to interpret it in whatever way benefited them politically. So, a more rational outlook would not see "Chrianity takes over Rome --> Religious persecution" but instead "Rome takes over Christianity --> Religious persecution." According to history, we should be worried about having political tests for being administered into public office. This way, the religion won't become "politicized," which is the real danger. This petty nonsense about removing "In God We Trust" and prayers during inauguration is mindless, liberal, anti-Christian propaganda. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
You're boring me now. You said that you should not teach other religions in school because that would be practically choosing atheism for them. If you have changed your mind on this point then that's fine. Telling me that you never made this point in the first place is irritating. Trying to avoid the issue by claiming that I said there should be bias towards atheism in religious education is completely stupid. I never said what the bias should be. I think a bias should be avoided. What I said was that people should be educated about the traditions and beliefs of other religions far earlier than university. posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 stinkz: It's as if Atheism is the only religion people can believe whole-heartedly, these days, and not get slammed for it. No wonder people believe it. It's easy, you don't need to worry about a strict moral code, and best of all, you don't have to think! You honestly believe that an aspect of atheism is the absence of thinking/questioning/etc.? stinkz: One can respect a culture, despite the fact that he doesn't agree with it's teachings. So do you personally have respect for another religion/culture even though their religious beliefs are wrong according to you? stinkz: It's as if Atheism is the only religion... stinkz: There's no such thing as a non-religious stance. You are either going to be teaching them a religion which upholds universal morality (Christianity) or one which undermines it (Atheism). Why do you call atheism a religion? Atheism, by definition, is the absence of theism. If a person not believing in God is a faith, then you not believing in other Gods is also a faith. stinkz: I understand that the teachings of the Sophists are appealing. It's because they are spoon-feeding you what you want to hear. They know well the opinion of the masses, and can spew it back to them in order to gain followers. Let us not be satisfied with their teachings, and instead look for Truth. Xianity knows a thing or two about controlling the masses as well. stinkz: knn: You cannot have a religion AND keep the members peaceful. Check out the Apostolic Church. It's members were peaceful despite the persecution they recieved in Rome. And what about the rest of xianity? What denomination of xianity are you promoting/defending in these debates? posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: You said that you should not teach other religions in school because that would be practically choosing atheism for them. If I have confused you, I'm sorry. I didn't mean that we shouldn't teach them about different religions. I meant that we shouldn't teach them thousands of irrational religions as if they were all equally valid. Now, about contradicting oneself... fatpie42: Trying to avoid the issue by claiming that I said there should be bias towards atheism fatpie42: The state should keep a non-religious/secular perspective Which one didn't you mean? volunteshiva: You honestly believe that an aspect of atheism is the absence of thinking/questioning/etc.? Yes! Very much so. I know how much Atheists love to call themselves "freethinkers" and what-not. But saying it doesn't make it so. volunteshiva: Why do you call atheism a religion? Atheism is a religion which believes the doctrine that there are no deities. My religion says there is one, all-powerful deity. Another religion might say there are multiple deities. These are all religions. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: volunteshiva: You honestly believe that an aspect of atheism is the absence of thinking/questioning/etc.? Yes! Very much so. I know how much Atheists love to call themselves "freethinkers" and what-not. But saying it doesn't make it so. So therefore you must be religious in order to be a thinking human being? That is fairly ridiculous. Perhaps if you better explain/expand your definition of thinking, it would lower the absurdity. stinkz: volunteshiva: Why do you call atheism a religion? Atheism is a religion which believes the doctrine that there are no deities. My religion says there is one, all-powerful deity. Another religion might say there are multiple deities. These are all religions. Atheism may be a belief-system but it really doesn't fit into standards that make up/define a religion. posted by volonteshiva |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
stinkz: Now, about contradicting oneself... fatpie42: Trying to avoid the issue by claiming that I said there should be bias towards atheism fatpie42: The state should keep a non-religious/secular perspective No contradiction. A non-religious perspective means that 'personal religious beliefs' should be irrelevant to the discussion. For example if a Hindu and a Muslim are discussing state politics they would be best off not bringing their religious views into the debate. A non-religious view is not atheism. Atheists don't simply consider religions to be irrelevant. They consider religions to be 'false'. This is just the same as you would consider Hinduism or Islam to be false - or even atheism for that matter. A religious education lesson should 'empathise' with other religions. However, it shouldn't make judgments on their truth. In a story one might expect to empathise with a theif or a drug addict, but this does not mean that by doing so you will instantly agree with their choices concerning the issues of "property" or "drug-taking". posted by fatpie42 |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 fatpie42: A non-religious perspective means that 'personal religious beliefs' should be irrelevant to the discussion. For example if a Hindu and a Muslim are discussing state politics they would be best off not bringing their religious views into the debate. how can those perspectives in which you speak ever be irrelevant? logically their views on state politics will be closely related to their religous point of view correct? posted by The ONEder Man |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
fatpie42: A non-religious perspective means that 'personal religious beliefs' should be irrelevant to the discussion. Religion cannot and should not be irrelevant. I believe that all humans are eternal beings. An atheist may, and a naturalist certainly believes that we are not. For this reason, I might vote one way because I consider the good of the individual to be of infinitely greater importance than the good of the worldly system. The naturalist may vote the opposite way, because, to him, the good of the state is of greater importance than that of a particular individual. Please tell me, how could you make "personal religious beliefs" irrelevant, in this instance? How you could tell us to debate from a "non-religious/secular" perspective, without simply promoting an atheist bias. posted by stinkz |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 There seems to be two points of contention in this debate. Absence of Bias Fatpie : All religions should be taught without any bias. Teaching all religions as if they are equally valid or invalid is the way to teach without bias. Stinkz : Teaching all religions as if they are equally valid/invalid is the same thing as an atheistic bias. Knn : Christians killed many people. Bush started the war. Therefore something. Non-religiousness Fatpie : Politicans should be non-religious in their actions, as using christianity to guide their actions is biased. Stinkz : Not being guided by any religion is the same thing as being atheistic, which is also a bias. Knn : Christians started many wars Now which of these viewpoints is correct? Instead of stating these things over and over again maybe you should start giving reasons. It was also stated that in a democratic country there is nothing wrong with the leader being from the majority community and his being guided by the majority religion. The riposte was that this would alienate minorities. What should be decided now is whether it is possible to be guided in politics by christian teachings and not alienate/disregard people of minority religions. There's also a debate going on about whether morality needs a religious basis. Stinkz argument is that morality has to be unchanging and christianity is the only way that is possible, but fatpie says morality can change, and that christian morality also changes(he has provided example/challenge) but stinkz refuses to address that. I would like to see you people take this debate forward. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
 ralph_angelus: There seems to be two points of contention in this debate. Please don't forget in what topic we are. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
ralph_angelus: Absence of Bias
Fatpie : All religions should be taught without any bias. Teaching all religions as if they are equally valid or invalid is the way to teach without bias. Stinkz : Teaching all religions as if they are equally valid/invalid is the same thing as an atheistic bias. Knn : Christians killed many people. Bush started the war. Therefore something. Non-religiousness Fatpie : Politicans should be non-religious in their actions, as using christianity to guide their actions is biased. Stinkz : Not being guided by any religion is the same thing as being atheistic, which is also a bias. Knn : Christians started many wars 
Seriously: We are in a "Separation between Church and State" thread. Thus MY interjection "Christians, for example Bush, started many wars, thus if you elect an orthodox Chrtian you will get war" is highly ontopic while the others are less. posted by knn |
|||
|
|||
|
|||
|
knn: Thus MY interjection "Christians, for example Bush, started many wars, thus if you elect an orthodox Chrtian you will get war" is highly ontopic while the others are less. Sure, just poking fun. But this is a good debate. It's hard to seperate it from the main topic, or you could've moved it into another thread. posted by ralph_angelus |
|||
|
|||
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
Goto page Previous
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 Next
 Register Log in |
The time now is 9 January 2009, 21:13 php B.B. |