its never going to happen, stupid instiutions such as the contemperary churches of today, along with the stupid masses have the final say in our stupid government
The separation of church and state.
- Thread starter garfoldsomeoneelse
- Start date
this isnt really a gray area though. abortion is killing, the only REAL argument is why certian people seem to think that abortion is bad and in most cases seem to think taht droping bombs on schools because we are in a war is ok, the same 'christian right' that gives us epic fights over a womans right to choose also thinks its a great idea to go too the other side of the world and just start blowing shit up. its not gray areas its flat out hypocracy.SODAssault said:
the other side of the coin is the the idiots that want to bend and twist common sense under the guise of 'science' and put for totaly ignorant claims that just because a baby cant live outside of a womb its not alive. well an astronaut cant live in the vacume of space without a suit either does that mean THEY arent alive when they cross into space? a crew of any sub cant live in the ocean without their boat around them does that mean THEY arent alive when they dive? its bullshit all hands around. and its not a gray area its stubborn idiotic humanity at its best.
thing is though im still not getting why you think that removing all religion from government is a part of this. that in itself is a stupid idea since the 'government' IS the people. religion has as much place in government as science does, or as strippers do, or drug users, or little old cat ladys, or wall street fucktards, or the Jones's with their 2.3 kids and white picket fences, or anyone else that makes up our population.
why should we REMOVE religion and KEEP science? why cant we have both? after all, the people that our government is built to govern are made up of both isnt it? hell some individual people ARE both. im a BIG believer in science but i also belive in God. its not an either/or situation and the answer isnt to remove religion any more than the "christin right's" idea that removing science is a good one.
want the truth about abortion? ill give it too you, and i think that most people way down deep in their hearts would admit this if only too themselves, Abortion is murder, but we are comfortable doing it anyway. we ARE killers after all, i say just admit it and move on. on BOTH sides. dont make up shit and try and twist what common sense tells everyone that a unborn baby isnt alive, just say yup its alive and we are willing to kill it anyhow. on the other side dont make such a huge fuss over killing babys and then DEMAND that our government goes off to fight wars, ANY wars. either life is 'sacred' and that means we dont kill anything ever, for any reason, or its not. the only 'gray areas' are just made up shit we try and use to cover up the fact that we are killers at heart, all of us, on BOTH sides of the issue.
Wyatt said:
The analogy comparing fetuses to astronauts and submariners is actually not very good, at all. No human is able to live under the sea or in the vacuum of space, but we can live in the environment native to us. All humans can live in their native environment, so to argue that a fetus is a human life by using that analogy is a contradiction.
While I agree that all humans are brutal killers at heart (some latent, some... not so much), and am not bothered at all by the prospect of murder in its many forms, I still contend that abortion is not murder. I don't need to justify it to myself or anybody else in order to make me feel better about it; it simply cannot be accurately stated with any measure of certainty whether or not life begins at conception.
There's a word to describe people that state, with certainty, something that they can't be bothered to provide physical evidence and reasoned logic to prove; that word is "arrogant".
If you've got the end-all argument to prove that abortion is murder, then at the very least, make your own thread; at best, show it to everybody in Washington so they can finally shut the hell up about the issue. Provide me with incontrovertible evidence, and I will gracefully concede the point.
Until then, keep this close in mind: this isn't a pro-life vs. pro-choice thread.
And I certainly don't want to leave important decisions in the hands of people that choose to believe in Bronze-age superstitions and self-contradictory tales.
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).SODAssault said:
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)
They can clone stem cells from umbilical cord blood. Thousands of people are donating their cord blood to research, and that only adds to the reserve. Only problem was until 2006, cord blood fell under the specific embryonic stem cell wording of the stupid ban.MoganFreeman said:
To the first point about the decentralization of the federal government:Nimbus said:
We tried that, it didn't work. Ignoring your statement that the "constitution" states that it should be the individual states to decide how things are run (more on that in a second), it simply doesn't work. The articles of confederacy didn't work. Allowing the states to deal with slavery on their own (with no national policy) didn't work. Rights cannot be negotiable, nor determined by what the state you happen to live in wants to do. Florida didn't fight the Nazis in World War II, or establish Civil rights. Nor did South Carolina create the highways, or make dams and bridges. You want the states to do the governing wall to wall. That makes sense, but how do you reconcile this with the fact that my basic rights should not be predicated on where in America I happen to be born? I am an American citizen whether I'm born in Colorado or California or New York, and basic rights should be protected. Now, you can say "well, if you don't like the policies of one state, you can move, it's the free market in action", but that means either those people who can't move (are too poor, or have family) get screwed, or we become completely polarized. The religious move to the south and midwest, while the secular move to the coasts. That doesn't seem like a good plan.
By the way, the constitution not only doesn't say that the states *should* be making all of the rules, in some cases it specifically states that they shouldn't. You're referring to the 10th Amendment, which grants all powers not given to congress to the states. That's fine, but congress has a lot of power granted to it in the constitution. The power to protect the rights of the disabled, minorities, and women from state interference (substantive due process plus the 14th amendment), for instance. I'm not sure what powers you'd like to transfer "back" to the states. Healthcare? That's all statewide (excluding medicare). Education? Specific policy is still almost all at the local level. Abortion? Why should a woman in New York be able to have an abortion when one in Georgia can't? Ignoring that women will cross state lines to do it, the basic rights (guaranteed by the constitution, as declared by the Supreme Court) of American citizens are owed no matter where he or she lives within it.
On the question about what happens if you don't like any of the choices for elected officials:
That's the issue with any form of representation (we're a republic more than a democracy). But, if you're looking for an interesting read, go look up Schattschneider's "Party Politics". He makes the argument (in a compelling way) that it is because of the party system that women and minorities have the right to vote. The expansion of rights is due to the two-party system we have.
So, here's the question:McClaud said:
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.
This is true.Ridergurl10 said:
Secularity guarantees freedom of religion. It doesn't attempt to suppress it at any level, it just doesn't force religious views on people through the system of justice, schools, government etc. What the OP is talking about is state atheism [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_atheism], which has aways worked out very badly.
Separation of church and state means that government will not give benefits to any religion's members and will not enforce a religion's laws that do not have any other rational justification for being law other than religious belief.
Opposition to stem cell research is NOT a part of Christianity. The bible does not say "Thou shalt not perform stem cell research." Those people DO TEND to share the belief that stem cell research is wrong b/c of their similar beliefs about the origins of life, but it's still not an actual part of the religion. A law against stem cell research is not a religious law any more than "Do not commit murder" is a religious law simply because Christianity accepts it.
You can be one and not the other. I consider myself a Christian and I am 100% in favor of stem cell research.
Opposition to stem cell research is NOT a part of Christianity. The bible does not say "Thou shalt not perform stem cell research." Those people DO TEND to share the belief that stem cell research is wrong b/c of their similar beliefs about the origins of life, but it's still not an actual part of the religion. A law against stem cell research is not a religious law any more than "Do not commit murder" is a religious law simply because Christianity accepts it.
You can be one and not the other. I consider myself a Christian and I am 100% in favor of stem cell research.
I disagree with you here to some extent. The separation of church and state means that the government may not promote or enforce religion on anyone, but it guarantees religious freedom. I would suggest that this means there have to be certain laws protecting religion. For instance laws against dismissing workers based upon their religious beliefs, or writing into law that employers can't compell Christian employees to work during Easter Sunday or Christmas day. While such laws may not acknowledge religion directly, they do acknowledge religious belief among the population.Knonsense said:
I am in complete agreement with this:-
Knonsense said:
The separation will never happen for the simple fact that religious politicians cant help but try and force their dogma into the goverment policy ect
the fact that the church has been a dominative force in politics since the olden times (though its wanning quite a bit they dont have the power they once had)
and many other factors, means that this is impossible unless you have an athiest goverment, with an athiest majority of population (agnostic works too) and even then the religious will scream of at the tops of thier lungs at the heretic state and how it should be burned to the ground because of the unjustice of it all
for separation of governments you need
A/ athiest/agnostic/logical or at least reasonable religious, people in power
B/ athiest majority, since the masses of religious will certainly oppose the separation of state and religon
and probably some other factors but i am tired, in short, Separation will never happen, at least not yet,maybe in some european countries since after reading what i think is about a year old, report, athiesm is on the rise in europe
the fact that the church has been a dominative force in politics since the olden times (though its wanning quite a bit they dont have the power they once had)
and many other factors, means that this is impossible unless you have an athiest goverment, with an athiest majority of population (agnostic works too) and even then the religious will scream of at the tops of thier lungs at the heretic state and how it should be burned to the ground because of the unjustice of it all
for separation of governments you need
A/ athiest/agnostic/logical or at least reasonable religious, people in power
B/ athiest majority, since the masses of religious will certainly oppose the separation of state and religon
and probably some other factors but i am tired, in short, Separation will never happen, at least not yet,maybe in some european countries since after reading what i think is about a year old, report, athiesm is on the rise in europe
a human fetus's native enviroment is the womb. in no way does a native enviroment determin the validity of life. id say my point is 100% accurate and relivent.SODAssault said:
in my opinion life BEGAN when God created it, ill also allow for the other opinion that life began in some slime pool a billion years ago just for the sake of making a point. that point is that when sperm meets egg its a simple continuation of that original creation of life. the 'circle of life' isnt a process of stops and starts. its an ongoing thing, life is passed on by the life before it and will in its turn usualy pass on life of its own. it might be arrogent to say that sperm/egg = life, but isnt it just flat out stupid to say it doesnt?
im fully aware this isnt a choice/life thread. im not shure mind you what the thread actualy IS, but since pro choice/pro life is the basis for stem cell research regulations and since you brought up that topic as an example of why we should 'remove' religion from the Government, id say its topical if nothing else.
as to incontrovertible evidence of my stance, see my reply to paragraph one and two
whos being arrogent now? seems to me that its kinda funny that after 4000 years, pretty much all of western civilization including every civilization FROM that bronze age to our 'ultra modern' one have tryed to DISPROVE God and havent be able too at every turn. id be awful carefull about flat out saying something is a myth or wrong, when all of human history and 'science' has been unable too prove that as fact.
im not saying this to argue either, im just pointing it out because your obviously one of those people that treat 'science' as the new age religion and place all your faith in it.
there is more too the Universe than can be explaned by religion OR science ....... yet. and to pick a random spot on the entire timeline of the life of the universe, like our OWN location and think that we have all the answers to age old questions is beyond stupid.
whos going 'off topic' now?
ohh and i agree with the ignorance of this issue. i dont agree with this idea that evolution is right and creation is WRONG mind you. untill you can show me a horse fly that has evolved into a horse, or you can show why ALL monkeys didnt evolve into human ill give the creation/evolution debate its proper place of being two compeating theorys. i dont take issue with evolution, it makes some sense in most ways, but its not the hard core be all end all bedrock FACT that most pro science nuts try and make it out to be either. its got a place as part of a whole spectum of theorys about the origin of life, but its not proven to be THEE origin and should be taught that way.
Abstinence only, is ignorance only in my opinion. yes its one of the only SURE way to avoid pregnancy and disease, but death is a sure way to avoid both those things too and we dont teach THAT as the only proper method either do we?
great point. i also find myself in 100% agreement with you. i tryed to make this point in my overblown way when i spoke of morality and religion going hand in hand but as usual i got too windy for my own good and didnt quite nail it down like you did.kawligia said:
Well since atheist states have fared just as badly as full on theocracies it is difficult to really make this case credible. The best route, as always, is freedom. Allow people to choose for themselves. In this regard, the USA is a secular state. That people are religious living the USA doesn't make it a religious state at all.Pandalisk said:
A/ Happened in the USA before (Abe Lincoln was an atheist).
B/ Not true at all.
A site, with religious people, supporting seperation of church and state:-
http://www.firstfreedomfirst.org/
And another...
http://www.aclu.org/about/
And there are more...
http://www.theocracywatch.org/
http://interfaithalliance.org/about
Its not about the effectiveness of the state were talking about, its the separation of it that matters, now maybe i was being a bit extreme in my words i give you that, but we still need a state separated from religious ideology because nothing but trouble can be caused by it, now i have nothing but respect for those who leave their religion at the doors of congress etc and pick it up again when they leave, but those extremist that attempt to pass religious dogma and pass religious laws on those who do not follow that faith. you are going to cause a nightmare! i have nothing against religious people in power its when they use their power to force their opinions onto others that i hate with a passion, its a massive threat to that American constitution of yours toocuddly_tomato said:
an example? lets learn a little history shall we? THE GODDAMN PROHIBITION
Back in 1919 protestant nut groups decided the government should force their god given right to hate drink, so to deliver us all from their temptation they muscled through a constitutional amendment forbidding the manufacturing sale or transportation of alcohol for beverage purposes, but people wanted their hooch and a whole underworld of bootleggers, a violent gangmen and lowlife stepped up to supply the demand, alot of people were fucked up by improperly made alchohol and alot of people killed over prohibition disputes, it was a big fuck up and it proves my point perfectly why religion should be separated from state.the freedom to get blind fucking drunk is every americans right providing they dont hurt anyone while doing it and thats the way it should be, the religious Set Fire to your rights for gods sake.
and also i'm rather confused that you think people are that accepting of one another, thinking that people wont cry at in uproar if someone in power is a different religion than them, or people in power wont persecute those of different religions to him/her under their government. I can tell you my friend, have never lived in Good O'l ireland huh?
i have nothing but respect for religious people in power, as long as they leave their religion at the door. and pick it up when they leave government buildings
Now that, I can (almost) completely agree with. A few little points I do disagree with though.Pandalisk said:
Firstly there are multitudes of religious people in the USA who voted for those politicans. It is their duty to put some religious matters on the agenda for those who provided it does not betray constitutional secularity. So for example, if a person was a Christian, and was in danger of getting dismissed from his job because he wanted to take Easter Sunday off to go to church, he should be allowed to do so without fear of being fired. The politicans should defend that. Similarly, if a particular school wants to hold a Pagan feast on the Summer Solstice for Pagan kids, but the local Christian zealots try to stop that, then the law should interceed and allow it to happen.
Secondly, it is perfectly possible for atheists to force their opinions on others and try to make the population fall in line with their own ideology. Being religious does not make one any more (or less) likely to behave in this way.
Governments represent people. And some of those people are religious. Therefore, to some extent, the government has to acknowledge religion.
Yes, but you can easily find examples from secular states and atheist states which do more or less the same thing. Idiotic people make those decisions, and they make those decisions because they are idiots. That they happen to be religious doesn't really make a big difference, religion doesn't make one an idiot.Pandalisk said:
Once more, that is different. Rather than address it here, I will just link this short column from the Independant [http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/mark-steel/mark-steel-atheists-and-believers-have-got-religion-wrong-461594.html]. It makes a case the circumstances drive those wedges inbetween people, rather than what they actually believe.Pandalisk said:
In summary, secularity is the best way forward. In fact it is the only way forward that anyone with a shred of compassion and impartiality can support. However it has to be true secularity. That isn't instituted atheism, or pretending that religion doesn't exist. Let me make a list, and see if you and I can agree on a way of accomplishing both goals - protection of religion from the people who hate it and the protection of people who do not wish to have religion forced upon them.
1: Religion is not taught in schools as fact.
Religion may be taught in schools in the context of "this is the belief system the Christians have, this is the belief system ancient Greeks had, this is what Atheists belief". In other words, educationally. School curricula should be set by teachers and other qualified individuals, not theologians with an agenda, nor anti-theists who don't want kids exposed to any form of faith.
2: The state may not promote a particular religion.
Pretty obvious what this means. No theocratic speeches or political leaders stating that they are doing something involving government because god told them too. The next point should further clarify...
3: The rights of people to aggressively promote their own religion should be restricted.
In other words, lobbyists. Bible weilding fundies should not be allowed to use religion as a reason to close a strip club in their town. Say it is encouraging bad types, that it is creating noise polution, that it is lowering the tone of the operahouse next door, but "God doesn't like pole dancers" is not an excuse that should be allowed to be considered by the local officials.
4: All religious practices that cause permanent or temporary physical harm are prohibited from being done on anyone under 18, anyone over 18 it is their call.
So if a group of Satanists want to get together and do some kind of blood-letting ritual, they should be allowed too as long each one of them is over 18 and is consenting. Likewise, female circumcision (spelling?) and parents refusing their kids to undergo surgery, abortions or blood transfusions should be prohibited.