Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
Spam

Journal Em Emalb's Journal: Poll (let the flame fest begin) Seperation of Church & State 87

Journal by Em Emalb

Politics and religion:

A) go together like pie and ice cream.

B) go together like a turd and a punch bowl.

C) is something we will have to always deal with.

D) should be seperate. Damn the infidels!!

E) the religious folks got us into this mess, they can get us out.

F) I'm a "right-thinking" individual. As long as the good of the whole is taken into the equation, it's all good.

G) Red5 still sucks, since he hasn't acknowledged his suckiness in the last poll JE.

H) Bethanie *AND* SomeWoman suck*

*couldn't resist, sorry ladies.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Poll (let the flame fest begin) Seperation of Church & State More

Poll (let the flame fest begin) Seperation of Church & State

Comments Filter:

  • B &D (Score:2)

    by Surak ( 18578 ) *
    Actually, B, D and I'm seriously hoping that H is true as well. :-P

    • About H, that is ;)
      • Hey guys! How's it goin'?

        SW -- we're pioneers for women's rights! We're the Neil Armstrongs of Em's polls! Don't you feel like you've ACCOMPLISHED something here?!?! :-)

        I can't speak for SW -- but I suck and I'm PROUD of it!

        ....Bethanie....
        • You bring a tear of joy to my eye. If only we could have more of you.
          • If only we could have more of you.

            I've got a daughter... But you're gonna have to wait another 16 years till she's ripe. ;-)

            ....Bethanie....
            • dare to dream... ;)

              (wait, is that funny? Or gross in a dirty-old-man kind of way? We need to end this thread, I'm starting to creep myself out.
              • wait, is that funny? Or gross in a dirty-old-man kind of way?

                We'll have to ask MonTemplar. Apparently, the authorities think he knows [slashdot.org] about that kind of thing.

                And if *I* can make jokes about it, why shouldn't *you*?!? Don't be a scared white heterosexual male!! Stand up for what you believe in and exercise your right to perverse humor!! (Just do yourself a favor and don't call me as a character witness!!) That goes for ALL of you! :-)

                ....Bethanie....

                Sincere aside: MonTemplar -- I sure hope I worded
            • But you're gonna have to wait another 16 years till she's ripe
              Isn't the age of consent something like TWEVELE in West Virginia...? :)

              Not that I'm suggesting picking the fruit early. Then it is all green and hurts your teeth when you bite into it.

              Uh... what was the question?

        • Well, I'm the Buzz Aldrin. No, wait. You're Buzz Aldrin and I'm Neil Armstrong. And not just for my bulging triceps. You were technically the first. But once you're on the moon, does it really matter who takes the first step? Same with sucking. It's all good.
    • Well, ditto to the B & D part.

      Sorry chicas, but I really don't care if you suck or not. I'll leave that for the boys...

      :)

  • Let them be shown the instruments, I say... :-)

  • A & H (Score:3, Interesting)

    by FortKnox ( 169099 ) on Friday June 20, 2003 @12:19PM (#6254729) Homepage Journal
    A.)
    The country was founded on Christianity. It was also founded that you can worship who/whatever the hell you want. The whole idea of seperation of church and state was just some persons interpretation of the first amendment.

    If the government is a Christian government, does this mean that you need to be? No.
    Does it mean a member of the government does? No.
    Does it mean you need to even KNOW about Christianity? No.

    I'm fully willing to argue with the point down till we agree to disagree with someone.

    H.)
    I sure hope they do (and I think SW's "open curtain" issue may be proof) ;-)
    • A.)
      The country was founded on Christianity. It was also founded that you can worship who/whatever the hell you want. The whole idea of seperation of church and state was just some persons interpretation of the first amendment.

      No, that's not really true at all. Jefferson, Franklin, Washington, probably a few others I can't think of right now were all actually not Christian, they were Deists and firmly believed in the separation of church and state. A few choice quotes:

      Adams signed the Treaty of Tripol
      • Argh. Meant to hit the preview button. One more:

        From Jeffersonâ(TM)s biography:
        âoe...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, âJesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,â(TM) which was rejected âBy a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.â(TM)â

        • I've engaged in the famous "Quote Wars" regarding the founding of our country too many times. It's impossible to settle the question with us each quoting select passages from various Founding Fathers. For each quote you have backing your point, I'd have one backing Fort Knox's point.

          Ultimately, as a Christian, I think it is impossible to have a real "Christian Nation". One would require everyone to be a Christian!

          However, to state that Christianity was not a major input and influence over the foundin

          • There is little doubt since a majority of people in this land upon the founding of this country were indeed Christian that their shared values and beliefs and had a major input and influence into founding the country.

            However, in examining the documents that they left behind -- the Constitution and the Declaration of Indepence, it's clear that their intentions to deliberately NOT found a country based on Christian or any other religious principles.

            The Constitution -- the highest law of our land -- and the

            • I've had these debates far too many times to do it again. Any quotes or evidence I could come up to show that many of the Founding Father's were Christians, and not Deists, are simply met with the argument that they simply spoke like that to fit in and weren't genuine. And if I trace the idea of natural law back to the Reformation, it still won't make a difference to the argument. And if I talk about how a Republican form of government stems out of the idea that man is fallen, it also won't matter. I've

              • Read the Declaration of Independence carefully. Then read a well-written definition of Deism. If you don't think that Jefferson (who wrote the Declaration) was a Deist after that, then I'm afraid you've reached a point of logical vulnerability. And I know better to argue anything with someone who has reached that. So maybe we SHOULD just agree to disagree. :)

                • First of all, I never argued that every one of the Founding Father's was a Christian. I would completely concede that Jefferson was not a Christian, and was most definately a deist. Second, the indivdual religious leanings of each individual Founding Father is not the issue. The point I was making was that the founding of this country and the influences into the creation of it, and the Republican form of government that the Father's settled on, was heavily influenced by Protestant Christian thought. Tha

                  • If Jefferson was a Deist, why is it so hard to concede that Washington, Adams, and Franklin were Deists as well?

                    It doesn't hurt your argument one way or the other, as you point out now, but you seemed to imply earlier that it mattered.

                    It still doesn't change the fact that Adams clearly stated in the Tripoli treaty in 1797 that the government of the United States is no way founded on Christian principles. This guy was *there* when the country was founded. He was in the room when these documents were draf

                    • If Jefferson was a Deist, why is it so hard to concede that Washington, Adams, and Franklin were Deists as well?

                      I didn't mean to imply earlier that it was important. I don't think the argument relies on the individual beliefs of each of the FF's. But regardless, from what I have read of Franklin, I would also say he was most likely a deist, but I have read some of the writings of Washington and Adams and don't believe they were. They spoke too much of the Almighty and his hand in the affairs of men.

                    • Well, as far as Washington and Adams go, as RandomPeon points out [slashdot.org], Washington and Adams, while speaking of "the Almighty" rarely, if ever, used words directly referring to Jesus Christ. Remember that most people were Christian, and these guys were politicians who had to spin things in their public speeches to at least make them sound Christian. In fact, it was Thomas Paine and Washington who were kicking around the idea of phasing Christianity out for Deism by using the many of the same techniques that th
    • i sorta agree. i think policy should not be religious, but i don't think people should freak out like the parents of south park if there is mention of christmas in school. some of the "religious" stuff people object to is enough of a cultural phenomenon that it needn't necessarily be advocating it to mention it. it shouldn't be made a big enough deal to make anyone feel left out or freakish if it's not part of their belief system.

      as for habits of the mentioned /. women, i don't really care because i'm s
      • I second that. As a non-religous person myself, I find no offense by my fellow citizens participating in pseudo-religous holidays. I still follow the practices of the Christmas "spirit", because even without religion, it still holds applicable.

        In that sense, I think that much of the religious morals people believe in are in actuality social morals which have been transcribed into the religion practiced by those peoples. I don't give presents because Jesus told me to. I give them because I wish to show
        • I second that. As a non-religous person myself, I find no offense by my fellow citizens participating in pseudo-religous holidays. I still follow the practices of the Christmas "spirit", because even without religion, it still holds applicable.

          I tend to agree with that.

          In that sense, I think that much of the religious morals people believe in are in actuality social morals which have been transcribed into the religion practiced by those peoples. I don't give presents because Jesus told me to. I give the
          • Again, I tend to agree. But I'll point out that Jesus had nothing to do with giving presents on Christmas. The practice harkens back to before Christianity and is actually old pagan winter solstice customs. Note the proximity of Christmas to the Winter Solstice. (on or about December 21.)

            I'm familiar with the pagan winter solstice customs. :) I actually learned about that during my 4 your stint in Catholic high school, from our required religion class. Yes, our teacher thought it appropriate to explain t
    • first off:

      A) The country was founded on basic Christian morals. Regardless of one's belief, the majority of these morals are simply a good basis for a free society. It must be recognized that the phrasing in the first amendment does not protect atheism. Note the phrasing:

      Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

      These words do not protect atheism in any sense. They simply state that the government may not create laws regarding what o

      • The country was founded on basic Christian morals.

        Morality, yes. Institutionalized religion, no. I would argue that morality is much more of a cultural issue than a religious issue. But you're definitely right -- I think that the moral foundation of this country is a very sound basis for a free society.

        These words do not protect atheism in any sense. They simply state that the government may not create laws regarding what one must believe, and that the government may not prohibit your worship. ...unl

        • I can't help but think that to a certain extent it's not incorrect to base the nation's law upon the Christian faith as long as it is kept to the broader sense.

          As convoluted as this statement is (you need to proofread next time, silly!!), I agree with you. Our laws are "based on" the Christian faith -- the dominant moral force of the land -- but they are broad enough to encompass [most] all beliefs.

          You're going to let him off on the basis that laws such as theft and murder are based on Christian pr
        • Morality, yes. Institutionalized religion, no. I would argue that morality is much more of a cultural issue than a religious issue.

          That's true. The key here is institutionalized. Religious oligarchy can't really develop very well out of a moral and belief base that is already divided by differing interpretation, but a government could be built upon the basic principles they all agreed upon to found what has become this society with this particular set of morals.

          As to the swearing upon a bible in court
      • Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

        These words do not protect atheism in any sense.

        Sure they do. DISCLAIMER: I am not an atheist. Atheism is a religion as much as anything else.

        "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion" and there you have it. Congress will not establish a national religion. The government may not *prohibit* your worship, no, but the government has an obligation to keep religion out of go
        • "Congress shall make no law respecting establishment of religion"

          Also worth noting- I've heard people interpret this as a present day meaning of "respect"- that is, an Aretha Franklin kind of interpretation. This clause does not mean that congress may make no law saying that a religion is good. It's more of a "with respect to" or "having to do with" sort of usage.
        • it still doesn't endorse a particular religion, it just has strong leanings towards monotheism. Last time I checked, monotheism is the most popular form of religion today.
          • Because of course the most popular matters, right? After all this is a democracy, right? The will of the majority?

            This isn't a democracy. It's a constitutionally limited republic. In a democracy, 90% of the people are cannibals and vote to eat you, hey, will of the majority. Sorry, you're coming to dinner -- and you're the main course. However, our government recognizes the natural rights of people, and among those rights is the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. So just because 90%
            • still, it's not a law. putting "in god we trust" on money isn't law, it's simple tradition. Nobody in this nation is legally protected by the constitution from being offended.
              • "Law" is used to mean any action taken by the legislative branch of our government.

                "In God We Trust" was added to our currency by Calendar No. 642, H.R. 619 [aclj.org], introduced by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1955. Tradition or not, it is a mandate.
                • I still don't see where it prevents anyone from believing what they wish
                  • It's that ever-popular slippery slope. It's like when geeks complain about some censorship laws. Sure it may not directly affect them -- right now. But it may affect them later down the road when more and more laws are passed about censorship. The more laws passed about censorship now means more laws in the future.

                    No, it doesn't prevent anyone from believing what they wish. But it *does* promote a religion based on monotheism at the very least. Just like laws banning hate speech don't prevent you fro
                    • umm...the same goes for having laws in general. as long as you've got to have some, you must base them on something.
                    • Not every law has the slippery slope problem. In fact, if you base your laws on the ideas of the Constitution -- that everyone has inalienable rights that can never be taken away and that neither the state nor corporations nor individual people should interfere with those rights, then you avoid this problem altogether.

                      But if your laws are based on taking away rights -- then the problem becomes obvious.

                      People sometimes don't give the Framers of the Constitution enough credit. They knew what they were doin
                    • well your statement sort of leads into the next reasonable section, which are of course:

                      1) are we granted the rights which are not specifically discussed by the constutition itself

                      and

                      2) at what point do one's rights end and another's begin?

                      in order to have a consistent base for the land as far as the answer to #2, you must of course answer 2. Unfortunately, modern lawmakers become more and more inept at answering that as the years go on and as special interest pockets get deeper (yes, the ??AAs are spe
                    • First question: I would have to say "yes." The reason I'm saying yes is simple. What some people might not know is that Thomas Jefferson specifically disputed and disagreed with the Bill of Rights because he felt that it was self-limiting. That future generations would take as an enumeration of each citizens rights -- that these are the only rights you have, and that you don't have others.

                      Jefferson felt that the government's powers were specifically spelled out in the Constitution and that they could g
                    • yep...basically the same answers I had. The biggest problem with the bill of rights is that it reduces problems to semantics that cannot really be universally defined in ways that will make sense from one century to the next, or from average citizen to the next.
                    • True, but in some sense I think the Founding Fathers had some hope that future generations would look more at the intent of the Bill of Rights and apply it appropriately.

                      For instance, there is the language in the second amendment "a well-regulated militia being necessary." The intent, and it's clear if you read any of the quotes from people who were there at the time ;), that the purpose of the second amendment was to allow the people to form militias for the purpose of overthrowing a tyrannical governme
                    • well, the reason the second amendment is so unclear is that the national guard exists. I think that's likely due to the Civil War, actually. The civil war is the only example of significant insurrection we've had here in the US, and it turned it from a tyranny angle in the public eye to a state-based disagreement, which the Union clearly won against in a military sense (though not necessarily a political one...the confederacy still seems to still breathe in the south to some degree).

                      Thus, the vast majori
                    • I can see what you're saying. Definitely. I still don't understand where "Congress shall make no law" leaves room for loopholes or different interpretations, but people call me invariably either a right-wing wacko (totally incorrect, I'm completely anti-censorship, anti-death penalty, pro-life, etc.) or a Libertarian nut (close, but I don't follow LP-party line on every issue). The closest thing you could call me is a Jeffersonian liberal. Which since modern-day socialists have snatched the term 'libera
                    • i agree with you, that there is no room for loopholes in that. and I certainly agree with you on the anti-censorship, pro-life, and hard leanings towards libertarian views without being on the partyline. Jeffersonian Liberal also would primarily describe my views pretty well as well for the most part, though I find it difficult at times to picture how he'd manage with today's government, particularly in respect to economics.
                    • You don't agree with me about being pro-choice? Oh wait... goes back and checks message. I said pro-life? Huh? No, scratch that. [flamebait] Fsck those anti-abortion wackos. [/flamebait] I'm pro-choice. I should use the preview button more. Nahh... :)

                      Economics? We wouldn't have the economics issues if we hadn't created an essentially socialist state thanks mostly to FDR and his New Deal, and furthered by LBJ and his Great Society. Ever notice how the biggest American socialists are known by their th
                    • this is strue, but if he were alive today, I still have to wonder how Jefferson would take care of the economic issues we have today, as well as the fact that despite having the apparent rights of individuals, corporations are behaving like petty despotic governments against which the people have no means of revolution.
                    • It's called the Sherman Antitrust act. This is one place I differ from the Libertarian party. I think you need some limited control by the government to insure that markets really are free markets.

                      The biggest offenders of peple's rights are MPAA, RIAA and Microsoft. These companies (and let's not confuse the issue -- MPAA and RIAA *are* companies, specifically they are trusts).

                      But because these companies line the politician's pockets, the politicians represent THEIR interests rather than their constitue
                    • I agree wholeheartedly. Part of the problem came up when the government gave them status as individuals, with the same rights and restrictions of a human. However, last time I checked, Microsoft itself could not be put in prison for fraud...often, in fact, it is more profittable to a corporation to knowingly break the law and pay a fine later where a normal man would be serving time.

                      But the soft money issue is certainly their biggest crime, and I agree that the politicians benefit from it too much to out
                • It is indeed the law but it is also unconstitutional [msn.com] as well. But as Oliver North and friends showed, plenty of things are done by our government that violate our founding documents.

                  Rustin
                  • Until I googled for the proof that "In God We trust" on our currency is a law by any sane definition, I never realized that it replaced our national motto. I thought our motto was still "E Pluribus Unum." Frightening the lengths that people will go to in order to allay their fear. At what "enemy scariness coefficient" are we allowed to disregard the Constitution?

              • Sure it is. It's public policy. Ask any lawyer -- public policy is a source of law.
    • Surak covers a lot of this, but I'm convinced double-teaming is a good idea lately :)

      The country was founded on Christianity.

      Very few educated American men were Christians at the time of the Revolution. Deism was an elite religion. It's pretty clear from the writings of deist thinkers like Voltaire that they hoped in time the masses would be ready to accept the "natural religion" and get rid of what they say as the superstittions that accompany Christianity. So when you see public statements from Wa

  • H. (Score:2)

    by Xerithane ( 13482 )
    And it's just to be sexist...

    I'm not a member of any religion, but America is founded on religious beliefs.

    That whole "Under God" bit is fine. It doesn't say which God, mind you. Nobody forces me to be Christian, and the only flak I get from not being Christian is from my mother.

    I think it's just fine the way it is.
    • I feel the need to comment on this. The "under God" wasn't added until 1954, and under the protest of the author's granddaughter. Here's a quick site with a brief history of the pledge of allegiance. [probush.com] There is probably a better one, but this was the first I found. Funny it's on a pro-Bush site. I for one support the removal of the "under God" phrase as would Francis Bellamy, the original writer of the pledge. Did I also mention he was a minister?
  • Though I may as well say A, because I am a strong believer in maintaining the integrity of pie. Ice Cream on Pie does a disservice to them both.

    And Red5 sucks. A lot. (Or at least that's what the rumor mill says...)
  • Religons should be treated by the government like any other political or social organization. If the Catholics want to register the "American Catholic Political Party", and require as an element of beloning to their church that all must join the party, then that should be fine and dandy with the gov't.

    We can't stop religion from interfering with government--and attempting to do so merely exagerates the influence of minority religions, and undermines the spiritual authority of the majority.

  • People should acknowledge spirituality (even if it's just personal reflection, it does not have to be religious).
    At the same time, we should be wary of too heavy an incorporation.
    Allowing kids to pray in school is fine. Telling them that they must is bad.
    As for the ladies well, *Ralph Furley sniff*, you never know.
    • Comment removed based on user account deletion
      • I don't like "under God" with my pledge

        Oddly enough, the original pledge didn't have it. It was added in 1954 (under Eisenhower) The pledge itself has been around since the late 1800s -- the "under God" part has only been around for 50 years.

        Personally, I wish California had gone balls to the wall to take it out. No reason to ask people to be loyal to country and mono-theistic-but-awful-Christian-like religion at the same time.

  • As long as religion is not mandated, implicitly or explicitly, on someone then there's no problem with it. I think FortKnox is right when he said that religion has been the guiding light of many (but not all) Americans. To thrash that for fear of hurting someone's feelings is just as ludicrous as forcing five times daily prayer to Mecca.
  • My real answer would be B. This country was founded on the ideal of the *separation* of church and state. That means that I have the right NOT to have a religion or to claim one when I pledge allegiance to my country. As someone who wishes to keep my religious practices on a personal and private level, I have a problem with governmental language that professes a belief in one specific deity (and thereby implies that I am complicit with these beliefs as a citizen and patriot). It doesn't belong there. The Bi
    • Right on, Bethanie. Although, I don't decry someone who *wants* to say "Under God" when they say the pledge of allegiance. Go for it! It's your constitutional right. But it's *my* constitutional right to leave it out.

      That being said, I'm not going to make a big stink about it. If the majority feel they want "Under God" kept in the official pledge of allegiance, okay, but don't criticize me when I leave it out, either.

  • Separation of Church and State does not mean separation of politics and religion. Politics and religion are (two of the) aspects of every decision, present in every relationship, etc.

    Separation of church and state means that each of these institutions has juristiction over different decisions. The church doesn't issue speeding tickets, determine foreign policy, or demand taxes. And the state doesn't rule on the the doctrine of the Trinity, the administration of sacraments, or the means of salvation.

    It doe

    • best. explaination. evar.
    • It also means (and quite clearly says) the state will not declare an official state religion. Remember how many people were under the thumb of either the catholics or the COE when they came from England?
    • You have a perfect explanation.

      It really is all about legal rights & administration. You examples clarify this perfectly.

      To say that politics & religion can't influence each other is like saying that politics & economics can't influence each other. The whole point of running for government is to do it your way. No matter who gets there, they are supposed to make a choice, & then some kind of religious influence & economic influence will have to factor in--no matter what.

      It would sound
  • It's not important. Do whatever you please.
  • And for h)other, Em sucks.

  • Phew, I stumbled right into a good flamewar. Sorry I'm late. :-)

    Honestly, I dislike the term "seperation of Church and State". It's like saying the free press clause in the First Amendment creates a "seperation of Press and State". Yes, I believe the government has no right to establish a national religion or church. It has no right to force anyone into certain religious beliefs. But the First Amendment should never have created a two-way, all encompassing wall between religion and government.

    Too

  • B & C. The two are best kept as far apart as possible. I've never yet seen a single religiously influenced political move that wasn't a bad idea. But, the fact is that too few people seem to have the ability to separate the two, so I suspect that religion will play a part in politics for the foreseeable future.

    As for Bethanie and SW, well, the chances of any of us finding out for sure are pretty slim, so we'll just have to give them the benefit of the doubt :-)...


    • I've never yet seen a single religiously influenced political move that wasn't a bad idea.

      See my post above regarding Martin Luther King Jr. I can find other examples if you like.

  • B) go together like a turd and a punch bowl.

    Good poll options this time around, BTW.

Slashdot Top Deals

"Though a program be but three lines long, someday it will have to be maintained." -- The Tao of Programming

Close