Total Posts:12|Showing Posts:1-12
Jump to topic:

U.S Separation of Church and State

000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
We need to legally enforce separation of church and state. Elections are so religiously charged that we have never had a president that was not Christian. We secretly are a Christian country. As such, Christianity has influenced the law of this nation and what the law seeks to protect.

If you need evidence, look no further than the Butler Act.

This is not a bad thing until it comes to fairness, representation, and power. When Obama was running, some accused him of being a Muslim. Everyone in his defence was saying," no he's a Christian." No one, no one at all said, even if he was, so what?

Then we have such characters as Bachmann that make it their priority to abolish abortions, purport their anti-gay agenda, and see it as top legislative priority to make "In God we Trust" the official motto of the country!

We need to take religion out of the question when deciding a president, for theology will not lead the country, ideology will. We need to take religion out of the discourse of our Congress, for faith should not influence the government, only the American people should. We need to turn this from a Christian country, to a country of the people, and nothing more.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
DevinKing
Posts: 206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:05:55 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
--Although faith (in my opinion) should not influence policy, people do influence policy. In this country, it is true that a large number of people are religious. We live in a representative democracy and as such, these views influence or government a great deal whether they are right or wrong.
After demonstrating his existence with complete certainty with the proposition "I think, therefore I am", Descartes walks into a bar, sitting next to a gorgeous priest. The priest asks Descartes, "Would you like a drink?" Descartes responds, "I think not," and then proceeds to vanish in a puff of illogic.
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:15:13 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
We need to legally enforce separation of church and state. Elections are so religiously charged that we have never had a president that was not Christian. We secretly are a Christian country. As such, Christianity has influenced the law of this nation and what the law seeks to protect.

If you need evidence, look no further than the Butler Act.

This is not a bad thing until it comes to fairness, representation, and power. When Obama was running, some accused him of being a Muslim. Everyone in his defence was saying," no he's a Christian." No one, no one at all said, even if he was, so what?

Then we have such characters as Bachmann that make it their priority to abolish abortions, purport their anti-gay agenda, and see it as top legislative priority to make "In God we Trust" the official motto of the country!

We need to take religion out of the question when deciding a president, for theology will not lead the country, ideology will. We need to take religion out of the discourse of our Congress, for faith should not influence the government, only the American people should. We need to turn this from a Christian country, to a country of the people, and nothing more.

How are you going to get people not to vote based on religion?

The idea of separation of church and state is that the state does not interfere in church affairs. Read the 1st amendment. It says the state can't prohibit, nor require the religious practices.

Too many people misuse the term, it's sickening.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:23:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:15:13 PM, DanT wrote:

How are you going to get people not to vote based on religion?

They don't have to. The government simply needs to rest any religious charge and stay within the politics pertinent to the nation as a whole.

The idea of separation of church and state is that the state does not interfere in church affairs. Read the 1st amendment. It says the state can't prohibit, nor require the religious practices.

Too many people misuse the term, it's sickening.

What's sickening is your vacuous accusation of using the term improperly. I was asking to take separation of church and state steps further to ensure greater equality of representation and reduce religious influence in legislation. If you really want to waste my time with some semantic interpretation of the term, then I'm not interested.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:33:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
We need to legally enforce separation of church and state.:

We already do. It's called the Establishment Clause of the very First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.

Elections are so religiously charged that we have never had a president that was not Christian.:

Religion is important to some people, and people on the election trail can espouse their religious views to reach their demographic... it in no way violates the Constitution. If you don't like their overt religiosity then don't vote for them. I think we call that "freedom" ...... or some sh*t like that.

Basically you want a one-sided approach to the First Amendment instead of equally protecting both government and religion like the Constitution states.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:47:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:33:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
We need to legally enforce separation of church and state.:

We already do. It's called the Establishment Clause of the very First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, I am aware, but it is too weak. Either the Supreme Court needs to wake up and start taking this amendment very seriously, or we need to expand the specificity of the law. Something like the Butler Act, in DIRECT respect of the Bible occurs frequently, UNCHALLENEGED (On the Constitutional level)!

Elections are so religiously charged that we have never had a president that was not Christian.:

Religion is important to some people, and people on the election trail can espouse their religious views to reach their demographic... it in no way violates the Constitution. If you don't like their overt religiosity then don't vote for them. I think we call that "freedom" ...... or some sh*t like that.

Religion is irrelevant to politics.

Basically you want a one-sided approach to the First Amendment instead of equally protecting both government and religion like the Constitution states.

What are talking about? Are you trying to say that government has a right to freedom of religion?....
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:50:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:47:32 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:33:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
We need to legally enforce separation of church and state.:

We already do. It's called the Establishment Clause of the very First Amendment of the Bill of Rights.
Yes, I am aware, but it is too weak. Either the Supreme Court needs to wake up and start taking this amendment very seriously, or we need to expand the specificity of the law. Something like the Butler Act, in DIRECT respect of the Bible occurs frequently, UNCHALLENEGED (On the Constitutional level)!

Elections are so religiously charged that we have never had a president that was not Christian.:

Religion is important to some people, and people on the election trail can espouse their religious views to reach their demographic... it in no way violates the Constitution. If you don't like their overt religiosity then don't vote for them. I think we call that "freedom" ...... or some sh*t like that.

Religion is irrelevant to politics.

Basically you want a one-sided approach to the First Amendment instead of equally protecting both government and religion like the Constitution states.

What are talking about? Are you trying to say that government has a right to freedom of religion?....

Asking for the news media and politicians to not dwell on religion is like asking for the news media to cover up all personal information about the candidates and just focus on the issues. It's not going to happen.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:52:52 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:
We need to legally enforce separation of church and state. Elections are so religiously charged that we have never had a president that was not Christian. We secretly are a Christian country. As such, Christianity has influenced the law of this nation and what the law seeks to protect.

If you need evidence, look no further than the Butler Act.

This is not a bad thing until it comes to fairness, representation, and power. When Obama was running, some accused him of being a Muslim. Everyone in his defence was saying," no he's a Christian." No one, no one at all said, even if he was, so what?

Then we have such characters as Bachmann that make it their priority to abolish abortions, purport their anti-gay agenda, and see it as top legislative priority to make "In God we Trust" the official motto of the country!

We need to take religion out of the question when deciding a president, for theology will not lead the country, ideology will. We need to take religion out of the discourse of our Congress, for faith should not influence the government, only the American people should. We need to turn this from a Christian country, to a country of the people, and nothing more.

Nothing can be done about that. You can't tell people "hey, you are no longer allowed to care about issue X because it is irrelevent!" (where issue X is the candidate's religious affiliation).

A lot of people care about stupid things (religious affiliations being one of them), and a politican's job is to kiss enough arses until election day, then completely flip flop around until the next election cycle, and blame all their flip flops on the opposing party.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:56:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:33:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

Basically you want a one-sided approach to the First Amendment instead of equally protecting both government and religion like the Constitution states.

What are talking about? Are you trying to say that government has a right to freedom of religion?....

No, but the people who make up the government do.

What exactly is it that you are insinuating. Are politicians not allowed to be religious, openly express their religion, or let religion influence policymaking? And even if each premise is undesirable, how exactly would one go about policing the level of "religiosity" in our government?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 7:59:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:56:07 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:33:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

Basically you want a one-sided approach to the First Amendment instead of equally protecting both government and religion like the Constitution states.

What are talking about? Are you trying to say that government has a right to freedom of religion?....

No, but the people who make up the government do.

What exactly is it that you are insinuating. Are politicians not allowed to be : :religious,
No, they are allowed.
openly express their religion,
No, they are allowed.
or let religion influence policymaking?
NO, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED. (not yelling, emphasizing)
And even if each premise is undesirable, how exactly would one go about policing the level of "religiosity" in our government?

The supreme court can rule obviously religiously charged legislation unconst.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault
Steelerman6794
Posts: 158
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 8:02:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 7:59:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:56:07 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:33:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

Basically you want a one-sided approach to the First Amendment instead of equally protecting both government and religion like the Constitution states.

What are talking about? Are you trying to say that government has a right to freedom of religion?....

No, but the people who make up the government do.

What exactly is it that you are insinuating. Are politicians not allowed to be : :religious,
No, they are allowed.
openly express their religion,
No, they are allowed.
or let religion influence policymaking?
NO, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED. (not yelling, emphasizing)
And even if each premise is undesirable, how exactly would one go about policing the level of "religiosity" in our government?

The supreme court can rule obviously religiously charged legislation unconst.

How is that a deviation from the status quo?
000ike
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/9/2011 8:05:56 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 11/9/2011 8:02:29 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:59:24 PM, 000ike wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:56:07 PM, Steelerman6794 wrote:
At 11/9/2011 7:33:53 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 11/9/2011 6:55:29 PM, 000ike wrote:

Basically you want a one-sided approach to the First Amendment instead of equally protecting both government and religion like the Constitution states.

What are talking about? Are you trying to say that government has a right to freedom of religion?....

No, but the people who make up the government do.

What exactly is it that you are insinuating. Are politicians not allowed to be : :religious,
No, they are allowed.
openly express their religion,
No, they are allowed.
or let religion influence policymaking?
NO, THEY ARE NOT ALLOWED. (not yelling, emphasizing)
And even if each premise is undesirable, how exactly would one go about policing the level of "religiosity" in our government?

The supreme court can rule obviously religiously charged legislation unconst.

How is that a deviation from the status quo?

Looking at the constitution in a perfectly abided vacuum, it is not. However, in reality the law is violated frequently and the highest court, has yet to, to my knowledge, intervene in clear religiously charged legislation.
"A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault