The separation of church and state.

[oktalist]

Unfortunately you can't block people from standing for election on the grounds of religious belief. If you don't like them, don't vote for them; there's not a whole lot more you can do

 

[cuddly_tomato]

Unfortunately you can't block people from standing for election on the grounds of religious belief. If you don't like them, don't vote for them; there's not a whole lot more you can do

Why on earth is that unfortunate?

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

Why hasn't it happened yet?

The past eight years (been hearing that a lot, lately) have been the home of legislature that barred the government from funding fetal stem-cell research, but nobody took an active stance against this. Was fetal stem-cell research a horrible, monstrous thing? No. It is an ongoing scientific endeavor to further the medical capabilities of human kind. So why was it so ostracized? People in positions of power that fail to view the world objectively, choosing instead to view issues through their mind-filter known as religion.

I know that as a democracy, the church will find its way into the system through the voters, but shouldn't the people we elect to office have to pass some sort of prerequisite test for objectivity?


(Note: no flaming.)

First of all stem cell research is not necessary anymore because they have found that skin cells can be used instead. Also no is against adult stem cell research, it is embryonic stem cells that are controversial and adult stem cells do show promise. Also how about this,the Obama administration wants to force religious organizations to perform abortions and has already made taxpayer money go to abortions oversea. This is a violation of church and state as it is the state forcing the church to do something they are against.

It will never completely happen. Especially with the rise of the evangelical movement.

What do you mean? If anything evangelicals are losing power, just look at how the churches are shrinking.

The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.

Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.

I agree with the states rights aspect. However I don't believe for example that any state should legalize murder.

The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.

Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.

If we did this we wouldn't be the UNITED States, we would be a loose confederacy, as much as it sometimes sucks national laws and legislature are necessary. If you don't like the people in office vote for someone else. It's the beauty of a democracy.

That is how the United States was originally founded, the states had the ability to leave anytime, until the civil war where the Union decided they wanted to force states to stay.

The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.

Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.

Ever heard of the Articles of Confederation? Or the American Civil War, for that matter? We tried letting the states do what they wanted. It didn't work.

That is only because the Federal Government forced it's way on the states.

You don't really have to be religious to believe that unborn fetuses have rights. Also, the majority of the population are Christians so if Christianity had no representation it wouldn't be much of a representative government. Even politicians have to make decisions based on what they are familiar with and if they are familiar with a religion, it will be a factor in some of their decisions.

Exactly. There are a ton of secular arguments to fetus rights. Also, yes it is not fair to not represent the majority as long as we are not lead by mob rule.

 

[PatientGrasshopper]

Why hasn't it happened yet?

The past eight years (been hearing that a lot, lately) have been the home of legislature that barred the government from funding fetal stem-cell research, but nobody took an active stance against this. Was fetal stem-cell research a horrible, monstrous thing? No. It is an ongoing scientific endeavor to further the medical capabilities of human kind. So why was it so ostracized? People in positions of power that fail to view the world objectively, choosing instead to view issues through their mind-filter known as religion.

I know that as a democracy, the church will find its way into the system through the voters, but shouldn't the people we elect to office have to pass some sort of prerequisite test for objectivity?


(Note: no flaming.)

First of all stem cell research is not necessary anymore because they have found that skin cells can be used instead. Also no is against adult stem cell research, it is embryonic stem cells that are controversial and adult stem cells do show promise. Also how about this,the Obama administration wants to force religious organizations to perform abortions and has already made taxpayer money go to abortions oversea. This is a violation of church and state as it is the state forcing the church to do something they are against.

It will never completely happen. Especially with the rise of the evangelical movement.

What do you mean? If anything evangelicals are losing power, just look at how the churches are shrinking.

The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.

Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.

I agree with the states rights aspect. However I don't believe for example that any state should legalize murder.

The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.

Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.

If we did this we wouldn't be the UNITED States, we would be a loose confederacy, as much as it sometimes sucks national laws and legislature are necessary. If you don't like the people in office vote for someone else. It's the beauty of a democracy.

That is how the United States was originally founded, the states had the ability to leave anytime, until the civil war where the Union decided they wanted to force states to stay.

EDIT: Oops sorry for the double post but it was giving me a hard time.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Another wall of text.

The circular logic behind this reasoning astounds me.

Look, I don't have the patience or the energy to run a Q&A; continue to discuss this amongst yourselves if you desire to do so, but I'm not carrying this thread any further.

 

[Wyatt]

Another wall of text.

The circular logic behind this reasoning astounds me.

Look, I don't have the patience or the energy to run a Q&A; continue to discuss this amongst yourselves if you desire to do so, but I'm not carrying this thread any further.

there was no wall of text, and there was no circular logic in my last reply (or any of my replys for that matter) nor was there anything even close to a need for a Q&A. im not asking you questions, nor are you asking me ones, we are simply pointing out opinions. if you dont want to respond thats ok by me, but really, im not sure just what it was that you DID want by your original post.

even still you HAVE seemed to spawn a somewhat interesting thread though. you get points for that atleast if nothing else.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

Another wall of text.

The circular logic behind this reasoning astounds me.

Look, I don't have the patience or the energy to run a Q&A; continue to discuss this amongst yourselves if you desire to do so, but I'm not carrying this thread any further.

there was no wall of text, and there was no circular logic in my last reply (or any of my replys for that matter) nor was there anything even close to a need for a Q&A. im not asking you questions, nor are you asking me ones, we are simply pointing out opinions. if you dont want to respond thats ok by me, but really, im not sure just what it was that you DID want by your original post.

even still you HAVE seemed to spawn a somewhat interesting thread though. you get points for that atleast if nothing else.

Honestly? Just trying to start a decent thread for once, and get some interesting arguments.
All my other ones were purely insipid.


I thank you for your time, good sir.




EDIT: Sorry if any of this came across as poorly thought-out, I usually only log on when my mind's getting that tingly feeling of "time to shut down".

 

[Ridergurl10]

The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.

Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.

If we did this we wouldn't be the UNITED States, we would be a loose confederacy, as much as it sometimes sucks national laws and legislature are necessary. If you don't like the people in office vote for someone else. It's the beauty of a democracy.

That is how the United States was originally founded, the states had the ability to leave anytime, until the civil war where the Union decided they wanted to force states to stay.

EDIT: Oops sorry for the double post but it was giving me a hard time.

I know that's how the US was founded, but obviously it didn't stay that way. The US wouldn't be the world power it is today if it was still a loose confederacy. We gain our power from being a united country, allowing states to make all their own laws would take away power from the country as a whole.

 

[garfoldsomeoneelse]

The trick is to decentralize the federal government, and leave the states to deal with their own problems. An evangelical president should not be able to get in and ramrod a whole bunch of religion down everyone's throat, just like a bunch of secular progressives should not be able to do the opposite. If we let the states make the laws, like the consititution says, the net effect of the crazies is diminished. Plus, if you only have to get elected to the state government, its easier to drive change in your local community than it is to become president and push a nationwide agenda.

Let the fruits and nuts do what they want to do, and let the crazy jesus bangers do what they want to do... but don't let them tell eachother what to do.

If we did this we wouldn't be the UNITED States, we would be a loose confederacy, as much as it sometimes sucks national laws and legislature are necessary. If you don't like the people in office vote for someone else. It's the beauty of a democracy.

That is how the United States was originally founded, the states had the ability to leave anytime, until the civil war where the Union decided they wanted to force states to stay.

EDIT: Oops sorry for the double post but it was giving me a hard time.

I know that's how the US was founded, but obviously it didn't stay that way. The US wouldn't be the world power it is today if it was still a loose confederacy. We gain our power from being a united country, allowing states to make all their own laws would take away power from the country as a whole.

It seems to me that it's all too human to try to compete with those closest to us. I can't help but feel like if we were still a loose confederacy, we'd be too busy having pissing contests between states to really be part of most world affairs.

EDIT: I know I said I wasn't going to carry this thread any further, and I'm not; I'm just commenting.

 

[McClaud]

Here's a fun fact: the Texas Board of Education is pushing to make young-earth creationism taught exclusively over evolution. They're also attempting to make Abstinence the only form of birth control taught in schools (see how well that worked for Bristol Palin? Flawlessly, am I right?) These are both based on people with fierce religious beliefs in government positions trying to force their religious doctrine on others. (Oh, but it's a-okay by the First Amendment, because it's not technically a law. La-dee-fucking-dah.)

It's Texas. One day it will be a law, and then when they can't get anyone to come play football at their colleges because their education laws stink, they'll change it back to the way the majority of the country teaches (that YEC is not valid and evolution is).

The only things more powerful than God in Texas are the Longhorns and the Cowboys.

(BTW Kansas tried this a few years ago, and since their kids weren't getting into universities because they couldn't explain evolution, Kansas realized how fucking retarded they were and went back to teaching evolution. Pissed off Senator Brownback something fierce, but them's the breaks)

So, here's the question:

What do you do about the kids whose lives and futures are ruined in the meantime? If we let the states decide, there are lots of people who lose out before the state corrects itself. If we have a national system, we can stop this bulls*** in Kansas and Texas, and force them to teach evolution. Yes, they eventually self-corrected, but we're talking about many graduating students who lose out on the opportunity to go to college because we decided that Kansas (much less Texas) was going to make good decisions about teaching the children of their state.

What do we do about parents not raising their children correctly?

Honestly the reality of education is that parents already have control over a majority of a child's upbringing, including education. If they don't like how their kids are educated, they can easily remove their kid from the system and teach them at home, or send them to private school. Or they can counter-act certain portions of education by doing things to nullify it - say, by constantly reminding the kid that evolution taught in school is just a state-sponsored myth.

Since the taxpayers of Texas are paying for public education, if a large majority of them want to change the education system, that's their prerogative. Those who don't like it have the same options that people who don't like evolution taught to their children at school do - including teaching the theory they think is RIGHT to their kids. It's not hard - make them read a book and talk to them about it.

But the fault lies strictly in the people of Texas or Kansas or whoever votes to teach something as scientifically unsound as YEC. Not the entire country. And it's not the entire country's - i.e. the federal government's - job to do anything other than enforce standards of education to a degree. If the Fed is upset at it, then withhold federal funding.

I know it sounds callous, but what can we really do? Nothing. You have to let these states learn about this crap on their own, and the only people who are responsible are the morons who voted in favor of it.

 

[SaintWaldo]

Why hasn't it happened yet?

Well, some scholars say it already HAS [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli#Article_11]. If anyone tells you the United States is anything but a government founded on secular, non-religious principles, they are probably also selling a Bible.

 

[Wyatt]

Why hasn't it happened yet?

Well, some scholars say it already HAS [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_tripoli#Article_11]. If anyone tells you the United States is anything but a government founded on secular, non-religious principles, they are probably also selling a Bible.

ya know , as i said im a 'religous' person. that means i watch and listen too alot of 'religous' media. two of these orginazations are http://www.aclj.org/ and http://www.coralridge.org/default.aspx

i choose these two because they are BOTH obsessed with the idea that the United States is a 'religous' nation and most of their shows are about this very topic. but while i enjoy alot of the religous media i allways cringe when i here their 'preaching' on the topic because i wonder how many people who arent capable of understanding history are taken in by their seemingly logical sounding arguments.

America WAS founded by religious people. and some of our laws and basic ideals are also religous. but the ONE thing you never hear either of those two orginizations make note of is that the founders KNEW that their religous beliefs would .... shade let us say, their views on what a proper Government should look like in reguards to freedom, and that it was FREEDOM that was the cornerstone to their thinking MUCH more so than religion. they wanted religious freedom sure, but it didnt just stop there they wanted people to be FREE to make their own choices (even bad choices) about pretty much everything.

the best example of waht im talking about would be something like this. im an American, suppose i set out tommorow to designe a WORLD government. by the very nature of me BEING an American most of my language would be American slang, and most of my examples and writings would have a very american flavor, but my GOAL would be to designe a WORLD government that WASNT American. now 200 years from now people can look back, see my writings full of American slang, and my examples of things being based around my American experiance and conclude that the WORLD government was 'supposed' too be founded on American ideals simply because i referanced McDonalds, or talked about our constitution.

now take that example and apply it too our founding fathers, they WERE religous people, they talked about the Bible, they referanced it from time to time, they even made laws based on the 10 commandments, but what is getting lost by the 'religious right' is that they didnt for one SECOND intend that THEIR beliefs about religon should govern our SECULAR nation they set out with the express intent to make. when they referanced the bible it was simply because that was who THEY were and what they and their fellow citizens knew and understood most about at the time. plunk those same fouding fathers down today and have them write the consitution and it would be full of referances to evolution, cable TV, and fast food.

thats my view on this topic anyhow. its moer than obvious to me that most of those that try and make hay about how the founding fathers wanted religion in government beyond very specific instiances are talking out their hat. im sure some of them are true believers and have been taken in by a simple lack of information or education, but it doesnt change the fact that the founding fathers, while religous THEMSELVES, didnt intend for the government they were establishing to be.

just look at the very first line that starts "We the people" not something like "God in his infinite wisdom"