religion and gov

[Molly]

I believe that religion and politics should be separate. Never the less I believe morals, politics and a humanitarian society are woven together in order to preserve a prosperous country. Of coarse a persons religious belief will influence who they vote for or other political affiliation. But a government must remain independent of individual belief.

[ticbeast]

Agreed. Why should the government force the morals and believes of some unto all? Theocracies fail to take into account the existence of other perspectives.

[Tharagor]

Agreed. Why should the government force the morals and believes of some unto all? Theocracies fail to take into account the existence of other perspectives.


Democracy, in it's truest sense, can easily lead to theocracy.

After all, Democracy is rule of the majority, not necessarily of the correct.

[tony mitra]

Umm - Democracy, far as I know, not only promotes ruling by the majority, but also ensures protection of the minority. Otherwise, it is a false democracy.

This, however, is just my view. There are so many flavors of democracies around these days.
Cheers.

[preservanation]

Agreed. Why should the government force the morals and believes of some unto all? Theocracies fail to take into account the existence of other perspectives.
What if laws are based on religious morals?
Would those be illegitimate laws?

In another words, if a society's laws share the same "rules" as a religion, should they automatically be negated?
Can Gov share laws with religious tenets, or are they mutually exclusive?

[Elrathin]

What if laws are based on religious morals?
Would those be illegitimate laws?

Yes, they should be if religion is the ONLY reason. I'll give an example, the "blue book" laws in Colorado that say a liquor store can't sell alcohol on Sunday and that car dealerships have to be closed should be repealed due to them being unconstitutional.


In another words, if a society's laws share the same "rules" as a religion, should they automatically be negated?

If their only basis is in religion than yes. For instance, it is immoral for someone to commit murder. That doesn't mean murder should be legal just because it says it is immoral in the bible. It just happens that murder is immoral, but there are other implications outside of religion that also are considered in that law.


Can Gov share laws with religious tenets, or are they mutually exclusive?


Share? Yes, but to make laws SOLELY on a religious base with no other considerations is wrong.

[preservanation]

I can't find anything in there to really disagree with you on, El
Damnit...

[David Hume]

What Elrathin said.

[Athena]

Agreed. Why should the government force the morals and believes of some unto all? Theocracies fail to take into account the existence of other perspectives.


Democracy, in it's truest sense, can easily lead to theocracy.

After all, Democracy is rule of the majority, not necessarily of the correct.


Only when there is no education for democracy can it become a theocracy. That is because of the very different understandings of God that go with religion and go with democracy. The God of democracy is not a supernatural being who can be malnipulated by human efforts. The God of democracy is not a miracle worker, and does not send birds to feed starving people, nor does He come with a supernatural being of evil and host of demons.

The God of democracy is reason. Reason, is the controlling force of the universe. Whatever happens is the result of what happened before, and has nothing to do with the whims of a God. That is why in a democracy, people must be committed to knowing truth, and committed to developing good reasoning. They must discover the reasoning of all things and then apply this reason to governing themselves. This is secular, not religious. And means, dealing with realities, such as the reality of war, not a fantasy of God's will and thinking we can engage in war without paying a high price for it for several generations. The price of war is not just tax money, and debt, but the suffering of those attack as well, and world relationships. The US is still living with the results of the second world war, both good and bad. Democracy requires much more thinking than religion, and is also far better able to improve life on earth. That is why so much progress has been made in the last couple of hundred years, and not the thousands of years between the first democracy and the second one, nor before the first democracy when people assumed the God's ruled rather than we rule.

[Athena]

Sorry about posting to my own post, but it is too late to edit and this needs to be clarified. There are universal laws, such as the laws of physics. We don't make them and can not change them. We can only learn them and then use this knowledge to get desired results. Ignorance of them, can get very negative results, such as drinking from a polluted well that causes disease and death, and praying to idol for protection, or sacrificing humans and animals to fix the problem, rather than purifying the water. Or building bridges that collapse, or taxing people who feel powerless to stop this until they endure malnutrition for so long they realize they must fight for their lives, and they are driven to kill their king. What happens to us is a matter of our own choices and nature, not the whims of a God. So we can learn the reasoning for why things are as they are, and we can govern ourselves. This is secular and it is what democracy is about.

Religion, believing there is a God who has favorite people and who rules by whim according to if He is pleased or not, should have no part in government.

[tony mitra]

Religion, believing there is a God who has favorite people and who rules by whim according to if He is pleased or not, should have no part in government.


If I was to apply reason, I would disagree with the first part of the statement, that God favors certain people.

If Jesus, for sake of argument, was sent by God to earth, then God could have, should have, and I would argue, would have, saved Jesus from that excruciating death and humiliation.

Sure, there would be people who would argue that point, attempting to prove some ulterior motive of God for allowing that horrible death to happen. Nonetheless, I might remain unconvinced that God favored Jesus and yet allowed his assassination.

If I was to apply reason (that has many flavors, so I can only do it ala Tony Mitra), I'd say that God had no influence in things that happen on earth, and that the concept of God being omnipotent is a concept only shared in the mids of many humans, and not shared by any other creature on earth, who, the belief goes, are also creations of God. In fact, there is good evidence that it is man, and not God, that often decide the fates of lower creatures, and at times even fates of other living humans.

Man, while not being the creator of a single living species, has been the greatest destroyer the planet has ever known, no thanks to God.

And when we discuss democratic Governments, we often forget that the role of such a Government is to serve the best interest of "its" people, and not "all" people of the planet, and certainly not all creatures of the planet, nor the planet as a whole.

So, hypothetically speaking, Democracy married to Nationalism is still a selfish organisation, in the overall scheme of things.

Just my views of course, and I consider myself to be mostly ignorant.

Cheers and have a great weekend.

[Athena]

Religion, believing there is a God who has favorite people and who rules by whim according to if He is pleased or not, should have no part in government.


If I was to apply reason, I would disagree with the first part of the statement, that God favors certain people.

If Jesus, for sake of argument, was sent by God to earth, then God could have, should have, and I would argue, would have, saved Jesus from that excruciating death and humiliation.

Sure, there would be people who would argue that point, attempting to prove some ulterior motive of God for allowing that horrible death to happen. Nonetheless, I might remain unconvinced that God favored Jesus and yet allowed his assassination.

If I was to apply reason (that has many flavors, so I can only do it ala Tony Mitra), I'd say that God had no influence in things that happen on earth, and that the concept of God being omnipotent is a concept only shared in the mids of many humans, and not shared by any other creature on earth, who, the belief goes, are also creations of God. In fact, there is good evidence that it is man, and not God, that often decide the fates of lower creatures, and at times even fates of other living humans.

Man, while not being the creator of a single living species, has been the greatest destroyer the planet has ever known, no thanks to God.

And when we discuss democratic Governments, we often forget that the role of such a Government is to serve the best interest of "its" people, and not "all" people of the planet, and certainly not all creatures of the planet, nor the planet as a whole.

So, hypothetically speaking, Democracy married to Nationalism is still a selfish organisation, in the overall scheme of things.

Just my views of course, and I consider myself to be mostly ignorant.

Cheers and have a great weekend.


I should have saved a signature I used awhile back. Something about politics demanding a big view and we have small views. Generally what we know about life is limited to our personal experience of it. The book Uncle Tom's Cabin was written during our time of slavery, and presented a Black point of view. For the first time, Whites could see reality from the Black point of view, and that became a major factor in mobilizing the Civil War.

God is important, because God is a bigger point of view. However, the religions that brought together more people than any human being could, did so by defining "US" and "THEM", and therefore, divides humans, as well as unites them. Also religion is built on superstition, not science.

Ideologies can also unite people, however, they do not have the emotional appeal of religions and promise of eternal life. An ideology appeals to reason. Democracy is an ideology. Like religion it must be taught to be manifest. Like religion it is about the good for all, and it went with the concept of reincarnation. That means, if we leave the world in a mess, there is a chance we will born back into the mess we leave behind, or if we are racist or sexist, we could come back as the other race, sex. Now our view of reality gets pretty big, and do unto others as you would have them do to you, carries an important warning. That is a pretty motivation for taking care of this planet and each other. It means learning as away of life, so that we can make the best decisions possible.

[Jade Rat]

I may cede the point that Church and state isn't being abused, but our founding fathers on September 7, 1774 prayed in congress. Surly the men who wrote and signed the Constitution and prayed during congress did not mean for America to become a Atheistic state, where all forms of religion is banned in public, especially amongst and in governmental buildings.

Wouldn't we come to the conclusion that they had something else in mind when they wanted to separate church and state?

[Elrathin]

Seculurism does not equate to Atheist.

Not having any religion represented in the government does not mean the government is atheist.

[4Reaganomics]

the attack on the presence of God in our country is an attempt to implement atheism.

The amount of times that Adams and Jefferson referenced a creator is astonishing. They surely wished that it would be recognized in our society that there is a God.

[Elrathin]

the attack on the presence of God in our country is an attempt to implement atheism.

Which God? You know we have religions that worship multiple gods as well. OR is the government only supposed to be represented by the Christian God?


The amount of times that Adams and Jefferson referenced a creator is astonishing. They surely wished that it would be recognized in our society that there is a God.


The founding fathers did not wish that God was the major part of the government nor did they agree to have the government represent a certain religion.

That is why it is best not to represent any specific religion.

[4Reaganomics]

but it is best to maintain a creator in our country

If our forefathers didn't want a creator as part of our country, they wouldn't have referenced him repetatively

we wouldn't pledge under him

[Elrathin]

but it is best to maintain a creator in our country

Not really because as I said there are some religions that believe in multiple creators so already you are leaving those guys out.


If our forefathers didn't want a creator as part of our country, they wouldn't have referenced him repetatively

Um, much like the reason they didn't end slavery then, they wanted to appease some people. That doesn't mean they wanted God in the government.


we wouldn't pledge under him


You do realize when the pledge of allegiance was done and when "Under God" was put in right? The founding fathers had nothing to do with that.

[PostmodernProphet]

Not really because as I said there are some religions that believe in multiple creators so already you are leaving those guys out.

out of curiosity, can you name a religion that believes in multiple creators?......and by that I mean a religion currently practiced by a large number of people......

[4Reaganomics]

Yes, but the historical content of a creator in our country goes back to its first days and has been protected throughout.

I can't begin to list the quotes with God in them, and I doubt that they were a gimmick

If you believe that they were not their true beliefs then so be it. I respectfully disagree and believe that they put a creator in our country for a reason.

[Elrathin]

out of curiosity, can you name a religion that believes in multiple creators?......and by that I mean a religion currently practiced by a large number of people......


Wicca for one (The God and the Goddess), and then there are the Hindus and the Indians different beliefs and yes I constitute all those as large. Definitely not the majority, but they shouldn't be ignored either.

[Elrathin]

Yes, but the historical content of a creator in our country goes back to its first days and has been protected throughout.

I can't begin to list the quotes with God in them, and I doubt that they were a gimmick

If you believe that they were not their true beliefs then so be it. I respectfully disagree and believe that they put a creator in our country for a reason.


Well then, we can also say the founding fathers did not believe in ending slavery or they would right? However, it has been shown that MANY times appeasment was made so that the newly formed country wouldn't fall on its face and IMO, religion was one of those appeasements.

Why do you think there was so many things put into the constitution to prevent a government sponsored religion?

[PostmodernProphet]

out of curiosity, can you name a religion that believes in multiple creators?......and by that I mean a religion currently practiced by a large number of people......


Wicca for one (The God and the Goddess), and then there are the Hindus and the Indians different beliefs and yes I constitute all those as large. Definitely not the majority, but they shouldn't be ignored either.


The Hindus, except perhaps for a few minor sects, do not believe the universe was created, they believe it has always been and will always be......I have only debated with Wiccans on two occasions, but neither of them imparted any Wiccan creation story, perhaps you can enlighten me.....and I would not agree that an American native religion would be "large".....are you aware of any particular one that is worshipped actively by say, 10,000 people?

[4Reaganomics]

Yes, but the historical content of a creator in our country goes back to its first days and has been protected throughout.

I can't begin to list the quotes with God in them, and I doubt that they were a gimmick

If you believe that they were not their true beliefs then so be it. I respectfully disagree and believe that they put a creator in our country for a reason.


Well then, we can also say the founding fathers did not believe in ending slavery or they would right? However, it has been shown that MANY times appeasment was made so that the newly formed country wouldn't fall on its face and IMO, religion was one of those appeasements.

Why do you think there was so many things put into the constitution to prevent a government sponsored religion?


They did not want our country to become a church state where religious officials dictate our laws and not government. However there were certain things they want to be part of our society, such as a creator and marriage as a union between strictly men and women. This is what I understand when I study their works, beliefs, and characters.

[Elrathin]

However there were certain things they want to be part of our society, such as a creator and marriage as a union between strictly men and women. This is what I understand when I study their works, beliefs, and characters.


I see no documents from the founding fathers that suggested marriage was only between a man and a woman. NONE. The founding fathers were mostly DEISTS, not Christians.