Church & State.

[Bolo]

With the recent death of jerry Falwell, an old issue has again come to light; the age old question of whether the Founding Fathers meant to create a wall between the institutions of the Churches of America and the government.

Jerry Falwell was an outspoken advocate of an integration of the two, but was that idea really intended from the outset of our government's creation?

In the Treaty of Tripoli, circa 1797, John Adams and the entierety of Congress approved the following words, and proclaimed them to the nation at large:

"Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."

The Founding Fathers were insistant that the States remain neutral in the debate over religious convictions—that is, not taking sides, playing favorites, or trying to establish teh United States as anything but a secularized nation outside of our churches.

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on Man"
-Thomas Jefferson.

What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not.

"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
- James Madison, 1785

James Madison is considered the main author of the Constitution. With the most prominent of the founding fathers—including Madison, Adams, Jefferson, and the first congress— SO CLEAR on the issue (that there should be a separation between the two institutions), how can there be any debate as to what they meant, and how they "really intended" for us to integrate the two separate organizations?

[SyntheticTacos]

There can and will continue to be debate because many religious extremists don't want to look at those facts, and they want to continue to enforce their religion on the rest of us. :\ Thanks for the facts though buddy. :D

[Memorize]

Founding Father's version of Church and State: The government cannot interfere with religion

Today's version of Church and State: Religion cannot interfere with the government.

[TheBlueNeck]

At 5/30/07 09:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Founding Father's version of Church and State: The government cannot interfere with religion

Today's version of Church and State: Religion cannot interfere with the government.

And that's why the Founding Father's alowed the constitution to adapt to diffrent belifes.

[Bolo]

At 5/30/07 09:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Founding Father's version of Church and State: The government cannot interfere with religion

Today's version of Church and State: Religion cannot interfere with the government.

I would argue by the James Madison / Thomas Jefferson quotes that they didn't really want religions to interfere with the government, AND the government to interfere with religions.

[AdamRice]

At 5/30/07 09:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Founding Father's version of Church and State: The government cannot interfere with religion

Today's version of Church and State: Religion cannot interfere with the government.

Yet another completely meaningless and sarcastic comment. It is obvious that the founding fathers did not want integration of church and state, so please just shut the hell up.

[JakeHero]

An asshole will say Church and State is what the Catholic Church had in the Middle Ages. A super asshole will say it's anybody that legislates based on what they believed is right, derived from their personal religion.

[SmilezRoyale]

At 5/30/07 09:48 PM, AdamRice wrote:

At 5/30/07 09:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Founding Father's version of Church and State: The government cannot interfere with religion

Today's version of Church and State: Religion cannot interfere with the government.

Yet another completely meaningless and sarcastic comment. It is obvious that the founding fathers did not want integration of church and state, so please just shut the hell up.

If one cant interfear with the other, the opposite is also true, the other cant interfeir with one.

Exclusing fundamentalistcs, Christians, most of which are republicans and themselfs feel they adhear to spiritualist / modern christian piety are afraid of the government turning religon into something that you :

1) Cant be proud of

Well... if you think it's weird to be proud to be a christian, then your not using 2nd person logic. All denominations have they're dark side, so it's not really apropriate to be proud of being anything except yourself; of course. [Yourself being a general term to the reader]

2) Have to maintain in secrecy:

The same way Heretics like the gnostics did.

_____________________________________________
_____________________________

Never the less, it's easier to encourage the reforment of something then it is to try and sqash it to peices, as usually the result is a powefull uprising, followed by more fundamentalism.

[dalmo]

When they said seperation of church and state they didnt mean like it is now.... Also every single founding father was christian so why would they mean that?

[Bolo]

At 5/30/07 10:07 PM, dalmo wrote: When they said seperation of church and state they didnt mean like it is now.... Also every single founding father was christian so why would they mean that?

"As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity,"

That says no religion in politics to me. I don't understand how anyone could misinterpret it.

Most of the founding fathers were mildly cynical of religion, and considered it a marginally perverse institution that worked against the best interests of the people. They didn't, however, forbid it. All they did was make PERFECTLY CLEAR that there is a line that should not be crossed between Politics and religion. And the second we cross that line, we begin to erode the democracy / political system on which our American lives depend.

[Memorize]

At 5/30/07 09:44 PM, Bolo wrote:

I would argue by the James Madison / Thomas Jefferson quotes that they didn't really want religions to interfere with the government, AND the government to interfere with religions.

Well... no d'uh.

However, I doubt they'd go as far as people like Ravariel and go on a rant about how if someone believes in something that will never come up in politics, they should not be allowed to run for office.

And before and after the constitution was drafted, some states actually required you be protestant to even run for office at all.

When people today say "religion should stay out of politics", what they really mean is that "if religion influences ANY decision, even if it's extremely small, you should be kicked out of office".

Hell, everyone has a belief system that influences their decisions. And how are you going to take that away?

Other than those southern baptists weirdo's who think soldiers should be killed, I hardly hear a religous person start whining about something.

First, we took away required bible study at schools. Ok. Good. But now what are people complaining about? Being near someone who's reading a bible at schools.

Just like how an atheist walked up to a WWI memorial, saw a cross that's been there for decades, and just because he didn't like it, he calls up the ACLU and demands it be brought down. Pointless? Yes. And do the Veterans say? That it should stay. But does the ACLU listen to what the vets want? No.

He's offended by something he doesn't believe in and is not interfering with his daily life.

We went from government and religion should not interfere with each other to "government should".

At 5/30/07 09:48 PM, AdamRice wrote:

Yet another completely meaningless and sarcastic comment.

And your post is what exactly?

[Maus]

At 5/31/07 05:27 AM, cellardoor6 wrote: Plagiarism, once again.

Provide proof, or don't troll topics.

All off topic replies have been deleted.

[Bolo]

At 6/1/07 12:12 AM, Tal-con wrote: Well, there's a few book out there proving that Thomas Jefferson was a devout Christian, but regardless I agree, America should be a secular state. Our laws shouldn't simply because God said so, however, being that we're in a democracy and people can vote over whatever the fuck they want, there's no problem in my mind with people like Falwell encouraging evangelical Christians to vote on issues like abortion, etc.

The government shan't be guided by God, but instead by people who may themselves be guided by God.

In a nutshell that's what I think, I guess.

I agree. While the people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they see fit, the government should not influence / be influenced by the values of a particular sect.

And thanks, Maus, for cleaning up this topic.

[snuggz420]

Ive been sayin it for years... our country needs a president that believes in science not religion.

[Memorize]

At 6/1/07 01:04 AM, Bolo wrote:

I agree. While the people should be allowed to practice whatever religion they see fit, the government should not influence / be influenced by the values of a particular sect.

Are you then claiming that those without religous views should be allowed have their own beliefs influence their decisions?

[Memorize]

At 6/1/07 01:44 AM, Tal-con wrote:

Gee, that seems only fair, not like you could stop them.

Hey. Either to everyone or not at all.

[Memorize]

At 6/1/07 01:50 AM, Tal-con wrote:

Please explain how one would regulate another's thoughts and intentions, to prevent atheists from using their life experience from influencing their vote.

How would they do it to either?

[snuggz420]

No Im saying that religion gets people killed, it always has.... lets find a way to better life for humans instead of arguing whose god is better and killing eachother because of it.

[Kevinatorkicksass]

The founding fathers obviously wanted to separate church and state. Thus, one did not interfere with the other and cause problems like the ones in England at the time.
Bottom line is that they meant to have them separate so no one could tell people what to believe in or have the church influence the government's decisions.

[Dr-Worm]

At 6/1/07 01:32 AM, Memorize wrote: Are you then claiming that those without religous views should be allowed have their own beliefs influence their decisions?

There's no theology or specific moral code to atheism, so all that they'd have would be their secular decision-making. It's something that religious people (should) have, too, and it's what politicians should use, rather than their religious beliefs. This is what the Founding Fathers intended, to have not just a place where politics doesn't interfere with religion, but where religion doesn't interfere with politics.

And if the quotes given at the beginning of the thread aren't clear enough, history shows us that the Founding Fathers would intend this, considering that basically everything that had ever gone wrong internally in England was because monarchs let their religions influence their decision-making. This is something that Elizabeth I didn't do, which is why she was so successful.

Unfortunately, Bush seems to love throwing all that right out the window when he makes decisions about things like abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

[AdamRice]

At 6/2/07 07:46 PM, Dr-Worm wrote:

At 6/1/07 01:32 AM, Memorize wrote: Are you then claiming that those without religous views should be allowed have their own beliefs influence their decisions?

There's no theology or specific moral code to atheism, so all that they'd have would be their secular decision-making. It's something that religious people (should) have, too, and it's what politicians should use, rather than their religious beliefs. This is what the Founding Fathers intended, to have not just a place where politics doesn't interfere with religion, but where religion doesn't interfere with politics.

And if the quotes given at the beginning of the thread aren't clear enough, history shows us that the Founding Fathers would intend this, considering that basically everything that had ever gone wrong internally in England was because monarchs let their religions influence their decision-making. This is something that Elizabeth I didn't do, which is why she was so successful.

Unfortunately, Bush seems to love throwing all that right out the window when he makes decisions about things like abortion, stem cell research, and gay marriage.

Excellent point. It's retarded how he is allowing his religion to influence decisions that are putting the United States behind other countries in the long run.

"Being a devout Christian I cannot support stem cell research, so I'll just let other countries like Japan, China, and Korea get the first stab at it, it's not like them having a better medical program is going to do anything bad to our economy. Gee I think I'll go ask congress for another 100 billion from the deficit to use on staying the course. Inflation is just make believe and spending tax money in our own nation instead of overseas is what those dirty liberals want."

[Memorize]

At 6/3/07 12:06 AM, AdamRice wrote:

Gee I think I'll go ask congress for another 100 billion from the deficit to use on staying the course

You anti-soldier, piece of trash.

Inflation is just make believe and spending tax money in our own nation instead of overseas is what those dirty liberals want."

You are a filthy liberal.

[Alucarda]

Founding fathers did not want integration of church and state. BUT there people trying to make this a Christian.Not all found father where Christian.
Atheist for president 2008

Religion IS just use to control people.

[MrKickyourbutt]

At 6/3/07 02:59 AM, Memorize wrote:

At 6/3/07 12:06 AM, AdamRice wrote:

Gee I think I'll go ask congress for another 100 billion from the deficit to use on staying the course

You anti-soldier, piece of trash.

Wow, I really hope you're trying to be ironic. If not, then please kill yourself.

Lets see, he said nothing about the troops, so how is he "anti-soldier?" This is just a typical conservative argument, since you don't have anything meaningful or worthwhile to say. He's against the money sucking war (not that he even said so) not the soldiers. How dare you even make this claim.

Inflation is just make believe and spending tax money in our own nation instead of overseas is what those dirty liberals want."

You are a filthy liberal.

Wow. Just wow.

A question: would you kill a democrat if you had the chance?

[SmilezRoyale]

Any law in the current US government system which is malproductive and is otherwise only backed by a religous purpose is better off getting rid of. Any law in the US government that serves a purpose and is also backed by religous purpose is not.

I hope law makers look at current legislation and don't think that because it's similar to something in religon it needs to be removed. Just look at what the law is, and see what purpose [or non purpose] it creates.

Things Mal-productive, + Backed By religon:

- Certain issues reguarding homosexuals; Bad for Humanitarianism, Bad for Culture, and bad for possible adoptions which could take place.
- TOTAL removal of abortion for strictly religous reasons; Will probably force abortions elsewhere without solving the problem, it will also cause human rights unrest.
- Use of creationism as an educational founding; it's outdated, it's completely unfounded, and it's unfair that people should be forced to be taught something that isn't true because somone else is offended about it.

Positive laws in the government, ALSO backed by religon; [The obvious ones]

- Murder : You will never find a society that has dirrectly legalized mudrer, even an atheist one.
- Rape : permitting this does more harm than good, obviously, it's an insult to women, and a slap in the face to moderate religous indivduals who push for fight's against people who abuse women because it's simply wrong.
- Drug Use [Indirrectly, not part of the commandments but few preists encourage cocain, so to speak]
- Private Displays of religon: Once the government starts banning people from use of religous decorations or statements on they're house; particularly unoffensive ones, then you know something is wrong.

Some to a lesser Extent, [Neutral in effect] , backed by religon;

- Public displays of religon: Public Displays of religon might get people annoyed, but they don't cause certain 'Negative' society outlooks like some of the others i mentioned above, also, removing the protection of that 'sort of thing' doesn't serve a positive purpose either, since no-matter what you do, you get somone angry. One could argue that when i go to school, i pass 3 jewish temples on the way; I really don't feel pressured to become a jew very much. I've also been in classrooms with manorahs [Along side Christmas Tree's obviously]
- Certain religous Backdrops in governmental display, Ex, In god we trust, one nation... , Commandments on certain buildings. I really wouldn't care if one day the government descided to do it in a muslim fashion [Asuming it was agreed upon] It doesn't change the way i think. I don't think removing these things, or keeping them, has such a great effect on society that the fate of these things should be a hot topic.

[tony4moroney]

At 5/30/07 09:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Founding Father's version of Church and State: The government cannot interfere with religion

Today's version of Church and State: Religion cannot interfere with the government.

no. founding father's version of church and state;

KEEP THEM SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER'S INFLUENCE

church / state, state / church

[LordJaric]

At 6/1/07 01:45 AM, Tal-con wrote:

At 6/1/07 01:13 AM, snuggz420 wrote: Ive been sayin it for years... our country needs a president that believes in science not religion.

What about the people who, you know, believe in both?

I know, I was surprised they existed too.

I'm one of those people, and I've thought about getting invovled in politics.

[SadisticMonkey]

At 5/30/07 09:05 PM, Memorize wrote: Founding Father's version of Church and State: The government cannot interfere with religion

Considering it's not actually a problem these days...

Today's version of Church and State: Religion cannot interfere with the government.

...and this is.