Thou shalt have no seperation of Church and State.
 

I found this little piece, in the Reader's Comments section, of the online edition of the Omaha World Herald. http://www.omaha.com/index.php?u_pg=610
I just had to share this little gem. The author espouses everything that I stand against.

Absolutely no problem with this part, whatsoever. Knock yourself out, Elroy. In fact, I would fight, and die, for his right to be able to do so.

Ok, now see, your beliefs are starting to spill over into my life, now. And I'm just not gonna have that. Religion should be, and for most is, a personal thing, best kept to ones self. Keep me out of it!

I see. So, now you have a personal God given mandate to interfere with my life? I don't think so, Cupcake.

You just don't get it. If I don't believe in one, I then, by default, do not believe in the other. And if the government is required to "protect religion", then that goes for all religions, not just yours. Think!

Um...no. Religion has no place in a classroom, funded with my tax dollars, unless it's a course on Comparative Religion. If I want my children to be indoctrinated into your religion, I'll give you a call, and have you take them to your church. Until that time, keep your beliefs off of, and out of, my kids.

It almost reads like satire (the article you linked, not your post comments). Sadly, I am sure that it is not. These fundementalists who believe that it is their duty and responsibility to spread Christianity really get on my bad side.

I always thought of freedom of religion to be more of a protection from religious persecution, not a protection of religion. My understanding, weak though it may be, of the tenets of the founding of this country as it regards religion is that the government should protect people from persecution based on their religious choice (to my mind this includes the choice not to practice religion at all), not protection of any one religion.

I wonder if the author of that article recognizes that most of the "founding fathers" were Deist not Christian?

Excellent job Billorights. I agree with everything you said. The only thing I cannot understand is why this country is moving farther to the right and the fundies are poised to get many of the insane things they want.

Because God has willed it to be so.......

:hmm: Don't make me come over there...

That's the traditional reading for ash wednsday...an interesting irony, becase it is the one day on which we are called by tradition to wear a visible sign of our faith. anyone who needs a loudspeaker to pray...isn't praying.

it's interesting theology to think about before making any public statement, and one that surely has my attention.

Coincidentally, I was just reading on www.au.org (Americans for Separation of Church and State) for research into some writing I want to do about the religious right. They had a <a href="http://www.au.org/site/DocServer/They_Said_It.pdf?docID=221">handy list of really outrageous quotes</a> that underline yours. Here's a choice one:
And then, most frighteningly of all for me, because--as you said--I believe the absolute opposite:Of course I don't mean I should never have to encounter a Christian--they don't get any more born-again than my own parents, so I couldn't escape them if I wanted to. I believe freedom of religion by definition must provide for freedom from religion. As you said, religion should be a personal issue, shared by mutual consent. Much like sex, if you will... no means no.
And ditto to braisler: I didn't fully understand this until I read Walter Isaacson's excellent biography of Benjamin Franklin, where this was discussed in detail.

Ick.

As a Christian, I find that pretty offensive.

My belief influences how I act in public (how could it not?), but to force that belief on others is no better than the Islamic radicals who do the same.

*shakes head*

Now I have another reason not to to live in Nebraska, cool.

Not much more needs to be said than this IMO.

GOOD


GRAVY.


This is why I am getting into politics. To do my part to put a stop to this horseshit. Government is government. Religion is religion. Government is a protector of religion by guaranteeing freedom of ANY FORM of worship one may desire. Bada-bing, bada-boom. It doesn't go any farther than that. Religion does not have the power to influence our government, religious institutes are privately funded by those who believe in the cause. Sadly religion does affect our government, with the type of fundamentalist right-wing candidates that we have today.

Shoulda, coulda, woulda. The problem is most "Christians" don't live that kinda of "Christian" lifestyle.

I read a story once where one of the characters was a mass murderer. He killed because he said that a sin, is a sin, is a sin. There is no difference from one sin to the next. You're still going to hell. So if you're going to go to hell becuase you stole a comic book from a local store, its no different than killing 17 people. They are both sins, and you are going to hell. He said that if he couldn't live the lifestyle that Jesus did, then there is no point to being a Christian. "Don't be a half-ass Christian". If you're going to sin, then don't live the way Jesus did, and dont follow his beliefs, because you're will just be going against them.

It was pretty interesting to look at it from that character's prospective. It's always better to keep an open mind to everyone else out there in the world.

Wait a tick. Even though I am atheist/agnostic, I still have a bible. And unlike you good sir, I actually STUDY and analyze what it says, instead of blindly following what a preacher man might have told me.

To quote your own bible, from Mark 6:7 - 6:12
I don't recall Jesus telling anyone to force their will upon others, but merely to offer the belief and for those who do not accept, to let them accept their fate whatever it may be.

Mark 16:15 - 16:17
Great... so lets let the Lord condemn those of us who refuse to believe and not a close-minded Christian.

As Jesus said in Luke 6:37
Let people make thier own decisions

Me, me, me, me.... me; me, me me: me!

I just want the sanctity of my government to remain impartial to all religions, to better serve the mass public.

Reading all that right wing "thought process" (or lack thereof) that BOR found, just gave me a headache. EXCELLENT find, Bill O'Rights

bill...send those comments, as stated, to the paper that printed that shit as a letter to the editor...

An older friend of mine is a priest. I live in MA the "most liberal" state in the USA. He and I both think that forced religion is wrong and spereation of church and state is good. He and I both find the moral majority, religious right, and the reborn christians offensive. I dont care what a persons beliefs are just how they manifest.

"A Christian is called by God to worship Him always, and not just in His house of worship. This includes following His commands, commandments and guidance provided by His word, the Bible."
No comment

"Those who demand a separation of church and state are attacking Christians for their beliefs. There can never be a separation of church and state for those of us who call ourselves Christians. It goes against our beliefs."
No I am attacking the state and a right wing minority

"And for those who do not want Christians to "force their beliefs upon those who choose not to believe," sorry, but Jesus told us Christians to go and make disciples (followers) of all nations. To do anything less would be to turn our backs on God."
God said to kill Pagans, Mediums, and Psychics. Eat Children. Beat Servants, Lock up Wives. Desert Wives and Children. And that he would kill non Nonbelievers http://www.evilbible.com/

"Remember this: When God is removed from our lives and our government, it leaves a void to be filled by that which opposes God - in another word, Satan. The government shall not establish a religion, but the government is required to protect religion."
The 1st amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,..." Article 6 "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
"

"No matter how hard one may try to prove otherwise, this country was founded on religious principles and beliefs. It is important that our children are taught this not only in church but also as a matter of history in our schools."
Some were religious some were not. They would be better described as alcoholics

Teaching about religion in schools is an important part of understanding history. Traching religion in public schools is exactly what our founders wanted to protect us from. If a bunch of students want to pray (like Muslims, who are supposed to do it 5 times a day,) the school should be accomodating and find a place for them to do that. If a student wants to say grace before eating (not that many ever do, but it happens,) it's perfectly fine.

Anyone who gets offended by seeing another person practice his or her religion in public needs to remove the stick from their ass and crawl back into their cave or prreferred place of worship. Unless we're dealing with human sacrifice or anything else disruptive or harmful, people need to be given freedom to practice what they believe, but they also need to keep it out of my face if I'm not interested.

What about "give to Ceasar what is Ceasar's, and give to God what is God's."
Isn't that a reasonable argument for at least some semblance of separation of church and state?

But "separation of church and state" has been blown out of proportion from what it orginally meant (those exact words aren't even in the Constitution). The government isn't supposed to establish a religion, or advocate an official religion, but that doesn't mean religion is to be effaced from anything to do with government.

If it was founded on religious principles, they weren't yours! Here is an official government document that proclaims that the United States was not founded on the Christian religion.

Article 11 of the US Treaty with Tripoli

Signed by John Adams and unanimously approved by the Senate in 1797.

Being a sympathetic atheist, the guy has a point.

If you are a Christian and believe the teachings, it will not only affect your personal life BUT your politics as well. It would be hypocritical if it didn't. This is why I laugh about pro-abortion Christians, there IS no such thing. If you are pro-abortion and call yourself Christian its time to do a little soul searching.

Likewise if you think your way is THE way, and your path is the only path to salvation, how could you in good faith (no pun intended) NOT try to convert others and show them the way? You would again be a hypocrite.

Yes this indeed is a lot like the Islamic theocracies (minus the homicidal death cults) but it is true to the concept of the religion as a whole. The idea of a private religion doesn't work when it is your duty as a Christian to spread the word.

You need to do a little research.

There are many Christians that are pro-choice and several organizations to represent them. I myself belonged to one in Denver and have worked on reconciling the differences between the two sides.

But I digress into a thread-jack.

Yes but I don't agree that its a vaild possition for one claiming to be a Christian, as MOST definately not a Catholic. There are Christian support groups for a number of activites. Googling "Christians for" has 254,000 hits alone, and I don't think I'll have to dig far to find contractictory ones. I suppose I was to harsh saying Christians, being a former Catholic its sometimes hard to seperate the splinter groups from the true Church of Christ. (hehe my wife hates when I say that to her, being shes not Catholic ) :p

Jumping in a bit late, but the thread caught my eye. So to start with our first blurbie:

*This is a fair enough interpretation of the type of Christian this individual happens to be, though I suspect you could find other Christians who, while doing the same things, would use different justifications.

My difficulty with this section is the use of rhetoric of definition. This is a peeve that is continued in the following section, is how the participants of the charismatic evangelical movements and the religious right in more general terms have co-opted the term "Christian." It is a clever and effective move on their part, though I wonder if what Christians really need is more divisiveness.

*This is problematic at best. However, it does hold true to the central arrogance of many organized religions. I'll try to touch on a few points briefly if I can.

1. There is a legal precedent that is in opposition to and effects Christian beliefs, therefore Christians have a moral obligation to ignore or destroy that precedent.
-However, the other legal hurdles that are in place that bar other religious from accessing the same rights that the author is claiming can be left well alone. Consider the practice of polygamy within other religions, as one example.

2. I sympathize with what should be the author's dilemma. On the one hand, a religious calling does effect all aspects of your life. You cannot reasonably separate it from your political views. However, the author does not have this dilemma. The complaint here is simply that the government should be more overtly Christian (within the author's definition of Christian) than it is. Logically, this argument has no legs because the premise for this action: Freedom of Religion, turns out to be the same premise to the counter-argument.

*Again, I can sympathize at first. I recognize that if a person has a deeply active faith, they feel that they also have a moral obligation to try to save you, me, and other godless heathens. Though I do find his claims a bit suspect. Given that Jesus was Jewish, they probably should be trying to make everybody Jewish. But then, that's a whole different issue.

*This has a few implications and assumptions that can't really be justified. It assumes that a government free of religion would necessarily remove religion from the lives of individuals. This just isn't so. Even when governments in the past have actively tried to eradicate religion it wasn't so. Furthermore, the assumption that where God isn't, Satan is, is fairly bold conjecture. Since this rhetoric isn't very polished, it is easy to see that when the author says "religion" they mean "Christianity" (as they define it).

*I'm willing to embrace this idea, however, so long as we take it to it's logical conclusion and discuss all the aspects of the religious history of our country. That ought to scare them pretty sufficiently.


The later point made about the hypocrisy apparent in Christians who adopt a stance which allows abortions is valid one, but only in a kind of interesting way. Presumably the impetus for this comes from the Commandment: Thou shalt not kill.
This particular commandment has a lot of flexibility in it, apparently, certainly more than I or perhaps you might easily see. When I read "Thou shalt not kill." I read it as meaning, *at all*. Given that reading, when we consider Commandments from God, which are pretty big and important things, then we can't have abortions, because that violates the command of God.

However, neither can we bomb abortion clinics, have the death penalty, or effectively make war of any kind. Naturally, this creates something of a problem. I feel confident that the Church was aware of this problem and presented provisos into the text itself, or into dogma, that would allow for such things. This itself creates a problem.
1. If the text stands and means Thou shalt not kill. At all. Then you have the difficulties mentioned above.
2. If the text or dogma has been amended to allow killing under certain circumstance, then there is a different problem, which is going against a direct commandment of God.

It's kinda pesky.


P.S. Nice Aly pic, Bill O'Rights

The 1797 Treaty With Tripoly proves that the USA Is NOT intended to be a Christian Nation.
The fact that the one unambiguous statement in the US Constitution on religion--the First Amendment--specifically prohibits the establishment of a state religion, is not enough for fundamentalists, who continue to erroneously assert that America is a Christian nation.
In 1797, President John Adams signed the Treaty of Peace and Friendship between the United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli of Barbary. Known today as the Treaty With Tripoli, this document had been negotiated in an unsuccessful attempt to halt the plundering of US ships by pirates from the Barbary States of Algiers, Tunis, Morocco, and Tripoli (Libya today).
Article 11 of the Treaty With Tripoli reads as follows:

"AS THE GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES IS NOT IN ANY SENSE FOUNDED ON THE CHRISTIAN RELIGION, as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims], and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Mohammedan) nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religions opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

Of course, maybe Pat Robertson and the others feels they're more qualified to define our Constitution than John Adams.....

________________________________________________________________________

Gimme That Old Time Religion - PAGAN FOR LIFE!

I believe this is a good example of why you shouldn't believe everything you read on the internet. But, with all do respect to miyamotomusashi, God does seem harsh in the days of developing the Israelites into a nation and much of that I don't understand. Maybe God had to completely break them from their pagan lives in Egypt and purify them as a nation. However, I do believe I have a basic undertanding of the Jesus Christ of the New Testament. I can assure you he isn't urging his followers to kill Pagans..., Eat Children, beat servants, lock up their wives etc.

Is abortion in contradiction to the Nicene creed? Is separation of church and state mentioned in the historic confessions of faith? Look...you're making a total strawman arguement over this, and worse yet, you appear to be fully conscious of that.

The fundies love to say that the theolgical left isn't Xtian...and the fundy athiests don't like to argue against opponents who aren't as brittle as Falwell. But both of those intellectual lies aside...the fact remains that there is a growing concern for theology that is orthodox and aware.

i won't tell you how to be a good republican. don't tell me how to be a good Christian.

I'm sorry but being this is the philosophy forum, not the agree with everyone forum, my philosophy is abortion is contrary to being a Christian. You may have a different philosophy on it, but to me, murder is murder, and a child is no less a child prior to birth.

Likewise my philosophy is such that I personally don't care about abortions, I think its just Darwin working his magic so to speak. I no longer consider myself a Christian and as such I do no feel bound by their rules. I found rather then trying to twist the faith to fit my philosophy, it was better to start from scratch.

You of course are free to think and feel what you want, but don't expect me to think Christians who support abortion are good Christians. If I believed in the Christian faith, I would not want to face my maker knowing I supported abortion.

I know this is a touchy issue, but having first hand seen the negative effects of abortion, and the possitive effects of adoption, and I am only speaking of the effects on mother involved, I see no way I can change my view of it.

So until you have had someone very close to you, break down in tears over having had an abortion, (not my doing thank you), please don't tell me what to think about the issue as well.

You may oppose abortion all you like...i will respect that.

but do you see me walking around saying that my philosophy is that eating cheese is contrary to being a Daoist?

No. Even if i did care that much about cheese, i'm not a Daoist. So i don't tell people what their beliefs are. That you oppose abortion isn't relevant.

I'd be equally upset if you said that being pro-life is contrary to being Christian. You don't have standing to speak for the community. You do have standing to speak for yourself, and other communities. Just not this one.

Aww, crap.

Let's look at the First Amendment:

Where, exactly, does this prevent the Government from having an overt religious stance? Where does it mandate a "separation of church and state"?

The answer is NOWHERE! Our founding fathers were overtly and, for the most part, unabashedly Christian. They saw the rule of God as being one way of keeping a government on a moral track.

Look, I am not particularly Christian, but I believe in a higher power. What I can't understand is the current mentality in the United States...that anything offensive to any individual must be completely eradicated. This is true of religion, so-called Political Correctness, sexuality, etc. In essence, we have become a nation of thin-skinned, intolerant, non-intellectual sissies!

I personally agree with the Reverend Robertson - nothing in the Constitution guarantees a freedom from religion. What the amendment does guarantee is your right to believe in and worship whatever & however you wish. If the prevailing sentiment continues, how far are we from banning ANY external indication of religion?

Or do you think that would be a good thing?

If we as Americans really want a separation of church and state, I have no problem with it. What I DO have a problem with is the judicial branch changing the meaning and intent of the First Amendment as they have over the last 60 years. I find legislation from the bench to be a particularly abhorrent abuse of our governmental system. If we wish to truly separate church and state, make and pass a constitutional amendment that provides such separation in the way that our founding fathers intended!

I don't think you fully read his post. He doesn't oppose abortion.

Fwiw, I don't see anything inherently wrong with non-Christians such as Ustwo making objective statements about Christianity. It's completely valid, and worthy of a debate. He may be wrong, but he's not incapable of being correct on such matters.

I do think he's wrong because I don't believe that Christianity has anything to say about what sort of morality controls should be in place in governments. Internally, I see pro-choice Christians just as consistent as pro-choice-of-taking-the-Lord's-name-in-vain.

On the flipside, I also believe that 'pro-choice' is the wrong position for anyone to take. Christian, Muslim, atheist, whoever. For the same reason that I believe no one should support legal infanticide, and with no religious references necessary.

I think I actually agree with this line of reasoning.

But yeah, I would indeed consider separation of Church and State to be a good thing.

*shrug*

You're welcome to your POV, but I will vigorously argue to the contrary.

As usual, it devolves into a discussion of definitions, e.g. human, person, christian, catholic.

Let's just say that my definitions differ from yours and neither you nor the Pope have final judgement on who is correct :D

okay...i wasn't reading. it doesn't change my real point, tho. Ustwo can talk about Christianity. this is important, so imagine it in all caps. As an outsider.

That's the only way in which he can speak. to utter Pope-like declarations of what all Christians ought to belive, and by implication tell people who disagree that they are not Christians isn't just rude. It's totally with out value in any debate.

I don't tell Ustwo how to be a Republican. Becuase i'm not one. It's up to him, the history of the party, his fellow republicans, and whatever diety they'd like to invoke (i'd suggest satan, baal, or mammon, but that's just me ;)) and none of my business.

i may react after the fact, and say i approve, disapprove, spit upon, would like to tear my hair out because of what they say their party is.

see how that works? his investment in that community gives him the right to speak for it, along with other republicans. my investment in this community gives me the right to speak for it, along with my fellow Christians.

I see this statement as the true problem with the way such people think. Note the bolded “make disciples” portion. The way the author uses this leads one to believe that one should be out making disciples by force. It is their God ordained duty for force everyone to follow their version of the faith. It is this very thinking by a large majority of the extreme christian right that scares me the most.

And while I respect your right to be a Catholic, I must disagree. Which brings me to my second point, anyone who is serious about being a “christian” in this country should be out fighting to protect their rights to freedom of “free exercise thereof” (and that IS found in the constitution). It is important to understand that this is the very reason for separation of church and state, to protect religions for themselves. Many of our ancestors came to this country to escape the State established religions in Europe (most notably Catholicism) so that they would be free to exercise their own religions beliefs in the way they best saw fit without being told by the State what to do. Many people have forgotten that today blinding them to the importance of this separation. (I personally grew-up in a religious sect that views the Pope as the anti-christ, and the Catholic Church as the beast predicted in Revelations during the last days. This is not meant to be an inflammatory statement rather a statement of fact. Because of this background it has been ingrained in me to always fight for one’s freedom of religion, or more rightly put, freedom from religious persecution.)

Please don’t let this one nut job represent all of Nebraska ... there are many good people in this state that are not this close minded. (Actually I think you will find people like this author in every state, if you are watching for them.)

no, No, NO! Time to pull out the big boys.

“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between Church & State.” - Jefferson

“Notwithstanding the general progress made within the two last centuries in favour of this branch of liberty, & the full establishment of it, in some parts of our Country, there remains in others a strong bias towards the old error, that without some sort of alliance or coalition between Government & Religion neither can be duly supported. Such indeed is the tendency to such a coalition, and such its corrupting influence on both the parties, that the danger cannot be too carefully guarded against. And in a Government of opinion, like ours, the only effectual guard must be found in the soundness and stability of the general opinion on the subject. Every new and successful example therefore of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance. And I have no doubt that every new example, will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; And that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom; and a continuance of their example since the declaration of Independence, has shewn that its success in Colonies was not to be ascribed to their connection with the parent Country. If a further confirmation of the truth could be wanted, it is to be found in the examples furnished by the States, which have abolished their religious establishments. I cannot speak particularly of any of the cases excepting that of Virginia where it is impossible to deny that Religion prevails with more zeal, and a more exemplary priesthood than it ever did when established and patronized by Public authority. We are teaching the world the great truth that Governments do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of Government.” - Madison

Our Founders knew that Religion and Government don’t mix. They established the separation of church and state to protect RELIGION from the corrupting influences of government (not the other way around as many would have you believe). Madison even claims that Religion will “flourish” because of this separation (and it has) and a moral society will be one more check against corrupt government. It’s the people, not the government, who are meant to be moral here. Government is always corrupt, and by mixing religion with government you make it corrupt as well.

This struck me. My answer to this is I agree. Not with much else - since most of your comments are reactionary. This is a nation founded with the help of christianity and some aspects you WILL just have to deal with, just like you have to deal with life.

But agree- except that I don't think tax dollers should be funding education at all. This means a government body dictates what goes into your childs head. Nu-uh. I am a big advocate for privitization of schools. Homeschools, private schools, parocial schools, and charter schools. All of them are excellent alternatives to public education.

Point to make here: There's nothing in the Constitution of the United States prohibiting the use of religion in the establishment of laws (such as the Ten Commandments). The whole separation idea is generated from two things: One, the first amendment, which actually says nothing about separation, but has been interpreted by some (including the Supreme Court of the US) to imply a separation, and second, a letter by Thomas Jefferson that calls for the separation of church and state, since Jefferson refused to authorize Thanksgiving,

I was raised, Catholic, and attended 4 different Catholic grade and highschools. I am ANYTHING but an outsider. Someone such as myself doesn't decide to become an atheist on a whim, and I understand the Christian faith better then the vast majority of those who call themselves christian.

I find abortion disgusting, but I'm not going to lose any sleep over it, and its to small of an issue to let it decide my politics. That doesn't mean I can not see a christian perspective on the issue.

Your comparison to politics is quite out of place. You may not tell me how to 'be' a republican but you will damn sure tell me my views are wrong. Likewise I will not tell you how YOU should be a christian, but I can tell you that were I a believer I'd expect a long fiery vacation after I went to meet my maker.