Separation of Church and State - Page 5 - U2 Feedback

Go Back   U2 Feedback > Lypton Village > Free Your Mind > Free Your Mind Archive
Click Here to Login
 
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 02-19-2004, 04:33 PM   #61
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar
So Dread do you believe we should use the Bible in our schools and government? So people of other religions will have to read, learn or have laws based on a religion that's not theirs and may actually conflict with theirs?
No, what I believe is that we have used "separation of church and state" as an excuse to eliminate and deny the Western Heritage of this country. To deny that this country was founded by Christian forefathers and to eliminate that heritage from our government is wrong.

Does that mean we do not tolorate and respect others rights to believe in and worship in a manner that they choose?

I think Thomas Jefferson who did not get along with Mr. Ames' views on the Republic, was on the money in many aspects of his belief that being like Christ overstepped the bounds of denomination and doctrine. It could be argued that Jefferson was the ultimate Christian in that he believed that God was a major part of this country, but that Doctrine should not be.

The Bible is a book...not a doctrine. It should be a part of it yes. I would say that the past 50+ years since the court moved away from separation of Church and State have provided us a society that has more and more been on the decline.

One more thing...try teaching about Puritains, Pilgrims, and the Founding Fathers without getting into Christianity. Then you have children raising their hands saying, you are teaching religion.

Then when you teach about Kwanza...a made up holiday...no one says boo. You can teach about Hannuka an make menorahs...no one says boo. Mention Christ, and put a cross up and holy crap what have you done. Which of the three has had a MORE important role in the history and foundation of this country?

On this issue, I do believe that the courts got it wrong.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 04:33 PM   #62
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by FizzingWhizzbees


So as long as the government doesn't adopt one of the 33000 denominations which profess to be "Christian" it's not infringing on anyone's rights?
yes
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 04:50 PM   #63
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Well, your answer would imply that the only way that the government undermines anyone's rights is if it endorses one of the 33000 Christian denominations and nothing else the government can do would undermine someone's rights.

But since I'm sure that's not what you meant...does that mean the government can endorse "Christianity" so long as it remains as non-denominational Christanity and not Baptist or Methodist or any of the other denominations?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 04:59 PM   #64
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Fizz,

I am kind of in the midst of hanging with the kids....running back to the computer, and then trying to type coherantly.

yes, it is my contention that as long as the governement is NOT embracing a National Denomination or forcing the doctrine of a Religion upon people then they are NOT violating the 1st Amendment.

Does that mean that the government can endorse Christianity? It is clear that the founding fathers of the US did....however, they also appeared to avoid the denomination arguments sticking to the Bible as a common denominator as well as the belief in God.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:06 PM   #65
Blue Crack Addict
 
Moonlit_Angel's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: In a dimension known as the Twilight Zone...do de doo doo, do de doo doo...
Posts: 19,271
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
One more thing...try teaching about Puritains, Pilgrims, and the Founding Fathers without getting into Christianity. Then you have children raising their hands saying, you are teaching religion.
Teaching religion in a historical context is a little different from endorsing a particular one in a public school. Obviously when it comes to history, religion will be discussed, 'cause it has played a part in a lot of the big events of the world.

Angela
__________________
Moonlit_Angel is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:11 PM   #66
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox


No, what I believe is that we have used "separation of church and state" as an excuse to eliminate and deny the Western Heritage of this country. To deny that this country was founded by Christian forefathers and to eliminate that heritage from our government is wrong.

Does that mean we do not tolorate and respect others rights to believe in and worship in a manner that they choose?
I don't think anyone is eliminating and denying Western culture by keeping religion out of legislature.

Do you believe the heritage has been denied and eliminated from all the the Theocricies that have been turned into democracies?

We claim America as the melting pot of the world, we sell it as an idea of freedom. You speak of freedom of religion but what you're really saying is that you can practice what ever religion you want, just under the shadow of Christianity.

I'm a Christian and I love Christianity, but I don't want it as my government. I'd honestly rather go back to the days of drawing the arch in the sand then to live with some of the things I see today being expressed as 'Christian'.

Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

The Bible is a book...not a doctrine. It should be a part of it yes. I would say that the past 50+ years since the court moved away from separation of Church and State have provided us a society that has more and more been on the decline.
I've also seen the decline of society blamed on the integration of races over the past 50 years.

One more thing...try teaching about Puritains, Pilgrims, and the Founding Fathers without getting into Christianity. Then you have children raising their hands saying, you are teaching religion.


Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox

Then when you teach about Kwanza...a made up holiday...no one says boo. You can teach about Hannuka an make menorahs...no one says boo. Mention Christ, and put a cross up and holy crap what have you done. Which of the three has had a MORE important role in the history and foundation of this country?

On this issue, I do believe that the courts got it wrong.
I agree there's a double standard, but I don't think it rest entirely in the hands of the courts.
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:12 PM   #67
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Moonlit_Angel


Teaching religion in a historical context is a little different from endorsing a particular one in a public school. Obviously when it comes to history, religion will be discussed, 'cause it has played a part in a lot of the big events of the world.

Angela
You miss the point I think.... Kids react when Christianity is mentioned. Not when other heritages are mentioned. I understand the difference.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:18 PM   #68
Blue Crack Addict
 
anitram's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: NY
Posts: 16,297
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Do people need to have their religion in the public domain in order to feel better about it or something?

The early Christians were Christian Jews who essentially moved away from Judaism in the decades following the crucifixion. One of the contentious points was that the Jews of the present-day Israel were very interested in pursuing revolts against the polytheistic pagans, whereas the early Christians at that time believed that Christ was going to return to them like a thief in the night. They did not think the second coming was going to be thousands of years away, but that it was imminent, and that the kingdom of heaven is near. They did not see much need in leading revolts because they were preoccupied with this notion that Christ was returning, and they separated themselves from worldly authority in a way. Christians showed that they were able to exist within the context of a non-Christian society considerably better than Jews and later Muslims, because unlike Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not a theocracy, and Christianity does not pervade the social fabric of a Christian. Compare Israel or various Islamic Republics to countries predominantly inhabited by Christians and you will see the difference immediately. I studied this some years ago in my Undergraduate career, and I may be somewhat fuzzy, but that was the gist of it, historically.

So, I'm wondering how come 2000 years later now we all need to proclaim our Christianity from the mountaintops, why certain groups are trying to make the religion into a theocracy which it never was in the first place?
__________________
anitram is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:26 PM   #69
BVS
Blue Crack Supplier
 
BVS's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: between my head and heart
Posts: 40,697
Local Time: 08:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram
Do people need to have their religion in the public domain in order to feel better about it or something?

The early Christians were Christian Jews who essentially moved away from Judaism in the decades following the crucifixion. One of the contentious points was that the Jews of the present-day Israel were very interested in pursuing revolts against the polytheistic pagans, whereas the early Christians at that time believed that Christ was going to return to them like a thief in the night. They did not think the second coming was going to be thousands of years away, but that it was imminent, and that the kingdom of heaven is near. They did not see much need in leading revolts because they were preoccupied with this notion that Christ was returning, and they separated themselves from worldly authority in a way. Christians showed that they were able to exist within the context of a non-Christian society considerably better than Jews and later Muslims, because unlike Judaism and Islam, Christianity is not a theocracy, and Christianity does not pervade the social fabric of a Christian. Compare Israel or various Islamic Republics to countries predominantly inhabited by Christians and you will see the difference immediately. I studied this some years ago in my Undergraduate career, and I may be somewhat fuzzy, but that was the gist of it, historically.

So, I'm wondering how come 2000 years later now we all need to proclaim our Christianity from the mountaintops, why certain groups are trying to make the religion into a theocracy which it never was in the first place?
__________________
BVS is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:27 PM   #70
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by anitram

So, I'm wondering how come 2000 years later now we all need to proclaim our Christianity from the mountaintops, why certain groups are trying to make the religion into a theocracy which it never was in the first place?
How is America becoming a theocracy?

America was not nor is it ever going to be a Theocracy under the constitution.
__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 05:29 PM   #71
ONE
love, blood, life
 
FizzingWhizzbees's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: the choirgirl hotel
Posts: 12,614
Local Time: 02:41 PM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
I am kind of in the midst of hanging with the kids....running back to the computer, and then trying to type coherantly.
lol...I'm running between a bottle of wine, a very amusing episode of Friends and a group of fighting cats...so I'm thinking that makes us equal.

Quote:
yes, it is my contention that as long as the governement is NOT embracing a National Denomination or forcing the doctrine of a Religion upon people then they are NOT violating the 1st Amendment.

Does that mean that the government can endorse Christianity? It is clear that the founding fathers of the US did....however, they also appeared to avoid the denomination arguments sticking to the Bible as a common denominator as well as the belief in God. [/B]
Firstly, I think the part about not "forcing the doctrine of a religion upon people" is what I've been saying in the gay marriage thread. If someone opposes gay marriage on the basis of a religious doctrine then to make that opposition into a law would be "forcing the doctrine of a religion upon people."

Secondly, if the government can involve "Christian" beliefs so long as those are not the beliefs of a specific denomination then presumably it can impose beliefs which are agreed upon by the majority of Christian denominations upon people. But what impact does that have on those who aren't Christian at all? Aren't they still being forced to abide by the doctrines of a religion they don't support?

Using the Bible as a "common denominator" - isn't the Bible open to interpretation? I mean on the one hand you have people who believe the Bible to be the literal inspired word of God and its commands should be followed exactly. On the other hand you have people who believe that the Bible isn't to be taken literally, as it was inspired by God but written by imperfect individuals so is open to errors. What about where there is disagreement about a specific verse, for instance some people believe that there is a commandment not to "kill" while others believe the commandment is not to "murder." That has implications for an individual's position on the death penalty - if you can "kill" but not "murder" then you can support the death penalty. If you believe the commandment means people cannot "kill" then you can't support the death penalty. Which interepretation should the government use?
__________________
FizzingWhizzbees is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 08:05 PM   #72
Blue Crack Addict
 
nbcrusader's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Southern California
Posts: 22,071
Local Time: 06:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by BonoVoxSupastar


The Bible as I know it with the Old and New testament is specific to Christianity.
Even Islam recognizes the Bible as a Holy Book.
__________________
nbcrusader is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 09:11 PM   #73
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by Dreadsox
To deny that this country was founded by Christian forefathers and to eliminate that heritage from our government is wrong.
*sigh*

And to correct this piece of romanticism, let's read what our "Christian forefathers" had to say:

Thomas Jefferson (3rd U.S. President and writer of the Declaration of Independence):

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill." He also went as far as to create his own version of the New Testament, cutting out over 3/4 of it, as he didn't like any of it. You can read it here.

But we all know Thomas Jefferson is the "black sheep" of the Founding Fathers....so let's move onto the next one.

John Adams (2nd U.S. President):

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Oops...

James Madison ("4th U.S. President and writer of the Constitution):

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

He even went as far as to condemn religious exemption from taxes:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These Founding Fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists (at least, before the fundamentalist takeover of the SBC in the 1970s) believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they—the Baptists—who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it. And, perhaps, they knew it was Christ himself who first proposed the separation of church and state: "Give unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and unto the Lord that which is the Lord's."

So, no, Dreadsox, I can deny it, and I have evidence to back it up.

Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 09:36 PM   #74
ONE
love, blood, life
 
melon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: Toronto, Ontario
Posts: 11,781
Local Time: 09:41 AM
And to accentuate my point that Christianity does not agree, hence why "separation of church and state" is the only sane solution...

Quote:
San Francisco Churches Endorse Gay Marriage
by Mark Worrall

Posted: February 19, 2004 8:03 p.m. ET

(San Francisco, California) Protestant and Jewish leaders Thursday praised San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom for issuing marriage licenses to same-sex couples. Many of the synagogues and churches had been blessing gay couples with commitment ceremonies.

"This is a good and holy thing. It's traditional family values at their best," Rev. Karen Oliveto, pastor of the Bethany United Methodist Church told the San Francisco Examiner.

"God is doing a new thing in San Francisco, and we joyously enter into this journey for justice."

Oliveto presided over the nation's first same-sex church marriage last Sunday and now faces an investigation from the United Methodists' Sacramento headquarters.

Temple Emanu-El, Glide Memorial United Methodist Church, Grace Cathedral, Dolores Street Baptist Church, First Unitarian Universalist and St. Francis Lutheran Church all endorsed allowing lesbian and gay couples the right to wed.

"As Jesus says, 'love your neighbor as yourself. Treat others with the same respect and dignity that you would like to be treated with,'" Rev. Margot Campbell Gross of the First Unitarian Universalist Church told the Chronicle.

Rabbi Sydney Mintz from the Temple Emanu-El will marry her lesbian partner later this week.

The Temple is part of the liberal Jewish Reformist movement, which has long condoned same-sex civil unions.

The religious leaders hailed the issuing of the licenses as a great achievement in civil rights and said they wanted to remind the public that the conservative lobbies who are suing the city don't have a monopoly on morality.
Melon
__________________
melon is offline  
Old 02-19-2004, 10:06 PM   #75
ONE
love, blood, life
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 10,881
Local Time: 09:41 AM
Quote:
Originally posted by melon


*sigh*

And to correct this piece of romanticism, let's read what our "Christian forefathers" had to say:

So, no, Dreadsox, I can deny it, and I have evidence to back it up.

Melon
Interesting....LOL

I do not have time tonight....

Thanks for the condescending sigh....I have always been respectful of you, I was looking forward to your response. Will give it time tomorrow.
__________________

__________________
Dreadsox is offline  
 

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:41 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Design, images and all things inclusive copyright © Interference.com