Seperation of Church and State?

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Taualumna
I think no matter how people want to separate chuch and state, people also have to admit that many countries were founded on (Judeo-)Christian principles and it would be difficult to rid that because it is just so ingrained (engrained?) into the culture.

this is like 3 degrees north of the "BUT THE MONEY SAYS IN GOD WE TRUST!!" argument - want to explain how exactly this point is relevant?

[OrigamiTulip]

Originally posted by adduncan
But they were endorsing him......

--add

ETA:
http://www.newsday.com/news/politics...-top-headlines

"The Revs. Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton set aside their rivalry yesterday and appeared jointly at a church to exhort blacks to vote for Democrat John Kerry , who cast his own election as a continuation of the nation's civil rights struggle." (emphasis added)

So the question is, are Democratic supporters as angry at this as they are at Falwell, et al?

No, they weren't. The speakers, Jackson and Sharpton, were giving their endorsements, but that is NOT the same thing as the churches' preachers giving an endorsement. The first is allowed under the IRS code for churches' participation in political activities. The second is not.

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by KSig RC
this is like 3 degrees north of the "BUT THE MONEY SAYS IN GOD WE TRUST!!" argument - want to explain how exactly this point is relevant?

Umm, isn't that exactly what I'm saying? The US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That's why religion will still be relevant even if one does not refer to the "church".

p.s. you don't really like me, do you?

[AlphaXi4983]

well if you wish to get technical, the majority of governments around the world are based on one religion or another (or combinations there of). but there are states in the west that are able to keep religion and state far more separate that the us. it's really kind of sad when politicians have to pull the religion card because they can't formulate a stong enough policy or argument for their policies to base their election campaign on. our country has become so superficial and dummied down that the majority of people are too busy or lazy to critically think about the underlying policies that are in place or are being proposed. i am not going to vote for someone based on their religion. although if they are constantly cramming their religion and religious views down my throat, there's a pretty good chance that i won't be voting for them. and in all honesty if this bombardment of religious propaganda via governmental representatives continues, i may look into extending my student visa down here into a permanent resident visa. the usa has just gotten so rediculous in recent years i can't even put up with it anymore.

[Taualumna]

Question: What should a politician do if his or her political beliefs go against his or her religious faith? Up here in Canada, our Prime Minister, who is Roman Catholic, apparently had a call from a bishop prior to the June elections because Martin is pro-choice. I have heard that Catholic officials in the US have questioned Kerry about the same issue as well.

[AlphaXi4983]

if i were a politician and my personal beliefs were different from my religious beliefs, i would have to put personal before religion. religion should be used as a guide, not the end-all be-all of your life. if you follow your religion but deviate from some views, there's nothing wrong with that. just becuase you're a person of faith (and i mean that to encompass anyone who practices religion, not just the higher-ups), does not mean that you have to take stock in every single word that your religious book tells you. religion should make you think and critically analyze your life and surroundings. too many people are blind followers and never criticize or question their religion. doing so does not makes you a bad persion. it makes you an educated person.
i personally commend kerry for promoting views contrary to his religion. he can still be a faithful man (in the religious sense) without following the scripture verbatim.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Taualumna
Umm, isn't that exactly what I'm saying? The US was founded on Judeo-Christian principles. That's why religion will still be relevant even if one does not refer to the "church".

p.s. you don't really like me, do you?

You're wrong.

In general, the forefathers of our nation, when mapping out the country, utilized secular principles to found it. See e plurbus unim, an adaptation of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property", etc.

"In God We Trust" didn't come until much later - on some coins due to an unfortunate misappointment of a pro-Christian man by Lincoln in the 1860s, and then on bills as a backlash against 'Godless Communism' in 1956.

Again, this is why I bring up relevance to the conversation. The statement is misguided, unfounded, and patently false - I can see where you got the ideas, but they're interpolation rather than fact.

-RC
--PS - I don't hate you at all, I'm just correcting the factual errors you've posted and attempting to bring some of your posts back to the topic. We don't butt heads in other forums, and I don't want you to stop posting here - just take it for what it is, an attempt to correct your misconception.

[Tom Earp]

Basically the church and state thing came from the Friggen ACLU, the biggest disruptors of American Life as We know it.

Dont disciplne Kids, Parents and teachers, crime among younger children has gone up.

All Countrys have some form of demonstrateive religion. Just look at Islamic Countrys who toatlly rule their countrys.

Take In God We Trust off of American Coinage are they friggen Nuts.

A Judge In the South taken off of the Supreme Court for fighting the Taking down of the 10 Commandments.

Who was Moses and when the Commandments given to Him.

Do not all peoples beleive in a God and just call it someone else?

Is my God Better than yours? Well maybe it or HE/SHE is just named differently.

Hell, most of this stems back when Relegion Roman Catholic Church owned A lot of the Ground, had most of the money and ran political operations in Countrys.

That time is over, people are not as poor in many areas and feel and have the right to vote that they did not have in days of Yore, You know before you and youre were there!

Funny, I noticed when Kerry made a statement, Jackson looked at him with a Say What look!

Jackson and Sharpton are not the two best examples that should be used.

They too have their agendas for what they want. If you dont think so, then think again. $$$ Rules and BS walks!

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by KSig RC
You're wrong.

In general, the forefathers of our nation, when mapping out the country, utilized secular principles to found it. See e plurbus unim, an adaptation of "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of property", etc.

"In God We Trust" didn't come until much later - on some coins due to an unfortunate misappointment of a pro-Christian man by Lincoln in the 1860s, and then on bills as a backlash against 'Godless Communism' in 1956.

Again, this is why I bring up relevance to the conversation. The statement is misguided, unfounded, and patently false - I can see where you got the ideas, but they're interpolation rather than fact.

-RC
--PS - I don't hate you at all, I'm just correcting the factual errors you've posted and attempting to bring some of your posts back to the topic. We don't butt heads in other forums, and I don't want you to stop posting here - just take it for what it is, an attempt to correct your misconception.

Even if that were so, most, if not all of the founding fathers were Christian. They would have influenced the principles, even if it was unintentional.

[KSig RC]

Originally posted by Taualumna
Even if that were so, most, if not all of the founding fathers were Christian. They would have influenced the principles, even if it was unintentional.

This argument is seriously flawed as well.

1.) It is purely conjecture.

2.) The fact of the matter is that these men went out of their way to utilize secular principles as often as possible.

Now, take into consideration that they called for a separation of church and state to begin, and I think you've lost any footing you had, right? I see where you're coming from, but it's just not a valid argument.

[PhiPsiRuss]

Originally posted by Taualumna
Even if that were so, most, if not all of the founding fathers were Christian. They would have influenced the principles, even if it was unintentional.

The Founding Fathers of the United States considered incorporating Christianity into the government, and led by Benjamin Franklin, soundly rejected this. Ben Franklin was very worldly, and even made explicit references to the tolerance of Muslims during some of his arguments for the Seperation of Church and State.

[Taualumna]

Originally posted by PhiPsiRuss
The Founding Fathers of the United States considered incorporating Christianity into the government, and led by Benjamin Franklin, soundly rejected this. Ben Franklin was very worldly, and even made references to Islam during some of his arguments for the Seperation of Church and State.

It's hard to have a clean slate when you're an adult, so I stand by what I said about influence. No matter how "worldly" one is, one's upbringing will likely come in to play when making even the most important decisions. Things become more difficult with elected officials who have to represent their respective area, which may be made up of people who may have stronger or weaker religious beliefs, but that's probably something entirely different.

[AGDee]

Here's my take on it...

I am a Christian. I personally have no problem saying "Under God" in the pledge or having "In God We Trust" on the money, etc. However, I would be up in arms if it suddenly changed to "Under Allah" or "In Buddah We Trust". Since I would be so upset if someone else's "God" was so integrated into our society, I don't think that MY God should be imposed on them. I don't want a Catholic President proposing that all birth control be illegal due to his religious beliefs. I don't want a strict conservative declaring that playing cards or dancing is illegal, because of their religion.

My children pray anywhere they want, any time they want. Nobody can stop you from praying. It is not illegal for children to pray silently to their God at school. What's wrong is forcing prayer on children whose parents do not hold the same beliefs as whoever decides which prayers to use. Everybody who is for prayer in school seems to believe that only Christian prayers would be used. What if your child's teacher was Muslim and pulled out the mats and had everybody face Mecca? How comfortable would you be with that?

You can argue that our country was founded on Judeo-Christian values, but you can also argue that it was simply founded on being humane to others. You don't have to be Judeo-Christian to believe that all men are created equal, that we have a right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness as stated in the Declaration of Independence. The PreAmble to the Constitution goes like this:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nothing about religion in there...

Dee

[AlphaXi4983]

yes, the founding fathers may have chosen to leave religion out of the founding of the US, but all western law is based on religion, parimarily judeo-christian religions. the western idea of "right" and "wrong" is based on religon. trace it back to its furtherst roots and you will find that more often than not that western law is based on religious morality.

[FHwku]

Originally posted by AlphaXi4983
...trace it back to its furtherst roots and you will find that more often than not that western law is based on religious morality.

.

Maybe more social morality than religious.