Total Posts:19|Showing Posts:1-19
Jump to topic:

Separation of Church and State

Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:42:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
How come separating Church and state means the church can intervene in government, but government can't intervene with church? Not just "not intervene with church" but "cannot make any general laws that impact what goes on in church" as well. I'm not saying this out of strawmanning, because I've just had a discussion with someone who genuinely could not understand how separation means a two-way relation, then saw this link, and just got confused. http://www.masslive.com...
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
OberHerr
Posts: 13,062
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:44:17 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Wait, I'm not getting what your saying.
-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-OBERHERR'S SIGNATURE-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-

Official Enforcer for the DDO Elite(if they existed).

"Cases are anti-town." - FourTrouble

-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-~-
johnnyboy54
Posts: 6,362
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:48:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think you misunderstand what the separation of Church and State really entails. It simply means that government cannot have an established religion.

Do you think that people should not let religion affect their political views? That is the implication I think you are making. Correct me if I am wrong.
I didn't order assholes with my whiskey.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:54:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If the church and state are separate, every law made by the government requires a secular purpose and effect. It's a pretty simple concept theoretically, although in practice it becomes very difficult to determine what constitutes a secular purpose/effect.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,760
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:56:54 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If there is a true separation of church and state, then the government can intervene in religious practices in so far as religious practices are against the law. In the United States, the church and state are NOT fully separate - and if you ask me, that's a GOOD thing.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 7:59:27 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:42:31 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How come separating Church and state means the church can intervene in government, but government can't intervene with church? Not just "not intervene with church" but "cannot make any general laws that impact what goes on in church" as well. I'm not saying this out of strawmanning, because I've just had a discussion with someone who genuinely could not understand how separation means a two-way relation, then saw this link, and just got confused. http://www.masslive.com...

http://www.kgw.com...

Umm, the government can and does.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/31/2012 8:21:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That's "seperation of church and state". The phrase doesn't actually appear anywhere in the constitution. Any questions...?
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
NixonianVolkswagen
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 11:03:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 8:21:14 PM, EvanK wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That's "seperation of church and state". The phrase doesn't actually appear anywhere in the constitution. Any questions...?

That's The First Amendment. Or, are you refuting that the phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution?
"There is an almost universal tendency, perhaps an inborn tendency, to suspect the good faith of a man who holds opinions that differ from our own opinions."

- Karl "Spartacus" Popper
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 1:46:29 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 8:21:14 PM, EvanK wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That's "seperation of church and state". The phrase doesn't actually appear anywhere in the constitution. Any questions...?

Yes, you understand establishment means settling into a position, of any kind? That is, accepting a religion to be part of a state is just as wrong as saying it should be completely kicked out and no-one can be religious and are both establishments of religion's place. Any special treatment specifically starts establishing religion. For example, tax exemption of religion can easily be viewed as unconstitutional.

My problem is that people say they are for the establishment of the separation, then say things like promoting a tax exemption, or general favour for a religious group. It seems silly and more importantly promoting a double standard for no apparent reason other than being able to claim to be making a Christian, laicitéan country.

Also, I don't care whether it is in the constitution or not: it is about these people who say both should be true: that government cannot start making laws that affect religion negatively, and then making laws that affect religion positively.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
twocupcakes
Posts: 2,750
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 2:31:14 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:48:27 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
I think you misunderstand what the separation of Church and State really entails. It simply means that government cannot have an established religion.

Do you think that people should not let religion affect their political views? That is the implication I think you are making. Correct me if I am wrong.

People have to articulate there opinions in a secularist way. For, example it is not okay to say "Murder should be outlawed because a magic man in the sky told me". However, it is okay to say "Murder is bad because it causes harm to people".
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 2:42:15 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 11:03:18 AM, NixonianVolkswagen wrote:
At 8/31/2012 8:21:14 PM, EvanK wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That's "seperation of church and state". The phrase doesn't actually appear anywhere in the constitution. Any questions...?

That's The First Amendment. Or, are you refuting that the phrase doesn't appear anywhere in the Constitution?

Yes, it is the first amendment, pardon my not mentioning it. But my point was that the phrase "seperation of church and state" is not to be found in the constitution, or any of it's amendments. The first amendment is the only one dealing with religion, as far as I know. The phrase is actually from a letter Jefferson wrote.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
EvanK
Posts: 599
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/1/2012 2:51:22 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/1/2012 1:46:29 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 8/31/2012 8:21:14 PM, EvanK wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That's "seperation of church and state". The phrase doesn't actually appear anywhere in the constitution. Any questions...?

Yes, you understand establishment means settling into a position, of any kind? That is, accepting a religion to be part of a state is just as wrong as saying it should be completely kicked out and no-one can be religious and are both establishments of religion's place. Any special treatment specifically starts establishing religion. For example, tax exemption of religion can easily be viewed as unconstitutional.

My problem is that people say they are for the establishment of the separation, then say things like promoting a tax exemption, or general favour for a religious group. It seems silly and more importantly promoting a double standard for no apparent reason other than being able to claim to be making a Christian, laicitéan country.

Also, I don't care whether it is in the constitution or not: it is about these people who say both should be true: that government cannot start making laws that affect religion negatively, and then making laws that affect religion positively.

It means they cannot establish a state religion, as England had.

What people tend to misunderstand about it, though, is that it doesn't eliminate religion from society. It was meant to prohibit the Federal Government from establishing an official religion, not to prevent a city from putting up a Christmas tree.

Churches are tax exempt if they are non profit.
The problem with socialism is that, sooner or later, you run out of people's money."_Margaret Thatcher

"The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government."_Thomas Jefferson

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."_Thomas Jefferson

"It is easier to fool someone than to convince them that they have been fooled."-Mark Twain
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 2:50:15 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:42:31 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How come separating Church and state means the church can intervene in government, but government can't intervene with church? Not just "not intervene with church" but "cannot make any general laws that impact what goes on in church" as well. I'm not saying this out of strawmanning, because I've just had a discussion with someone who genuinely could not understand how separation means a two-way relation, then saw this link, and just got confused. http://www.masslive.com...

To understand separation of church and state you need to look at History.

In 1534 the Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church, because the Catholic church would not annul King Henry VIII's marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon. This meant the English Monarch were not only the head of state but they were also head of the Church of England.

When Queen Mary (Henry VIII's daughter) came to power she sought to prevent Protestants from Reforming the Church of England, which at that time was a branch of Catholicism, with the monarch acting as pope. Queen Mary had roughly 300 Protestants burnt at the stake; 800 more Protestants went into exile.

Queen Elizabeth (Mary's half-sister) reformed the church of England (the Modern Church of England). through Queen Elizabeth's reforms the Church of England adopted episcopal-protestantism; Queen Elizabeth founded Anglicanism.

The Puritan movement started as a result of the episcopacy of Anglicanism. Puritans believed that he Church of England was not Protestant enough, and/or that they were too catholic.

Both Catholics and Puritans were persecuted by Queen Elizabeth and her Anglicans. This was tantamount to a centrist persecuting both conservatives, and progressives.

King James (Elizabeth's first cousin twice removed) further persecuted Puritans, while remaining sympathetic to Catholics. King James became King of Scotland when he was a 1 year old, because his mother (Mary, Queen of Scots) as chased out of Scotland by Protestants for being a Roman Catholic. Mary, Queen of Scots was executed by Queen Elizabeth, after being exiled to England by the Protestants.

The Persecution of Protestants by King James led many Puritans to flee England. The Pilgrims established a colony in the Americas in order to find religious freedom. The land they established their colony on belonged to the Virginia Company of Plymouth. Prior to the establishment of the Plymouth colony by the Pilgrims the Virginia Company of London established the a colony in Virginia called "New London"; it was later renamed Jamestown after King James. Unlike Jamestown, the Plymouth colony was not established by the Virginia Company, the Virginia Company just owned the land they settled on.

King Charles (son of King James) was even harsher in his persecution of Puritans than his Father. King Charles wanted the Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland to adopt the Anglican model, and as a result Scottish Presbyterians (Puritans) revolted leading to the Bishop Wars; later Irish Catholics revolted leading to the Irish Confederate Wars.

In 1642 the English Civil War broke out between Anglican-Royalists and Puritan-Parliamentarians. The following year the Puritan colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven established the New England Confederation. While the New England Confederation was Parliamentarian the Dominion of Virginia was royalist; Virginia was Royalist because they were more Anglican.

The Bishop wars, Irish Confederate Wars, and English Civil Wars were collectively known was the Wars of 3 Kingdoms. During the Wars of 3 Kingdoms the Scottish-Presbyterian rebels were nicknamed Whiggamores (cattle driver).

When King Charles was beheaded in 1649 the Commonwealth of England was established. Th commonwealth soon collapsed and King Charles II (King Charles's son) took the thrown. King Charles II was Protestant, but his Queen was Catholic, and he named his Catholic brother (King James II) his successor.

Those in opposed the reign of King James II was called Whigs (after the whiggamores). Those who were in favor of the reign of James II were labeled Tories (outlaw), because it was unconstitutional for a Catholic to be King.

King James disbanded the New England Confederation, because he felt the colonists were too independent. He replaced the Confederation with the Dominion of New England. Under this new dominion he was able to appoint officials to rule over the colonists. Through his appointed officials King James actively promoted Anglicanism in New England.

In 1688 the Whigs overthrew King James in the Glorious Revolution. When news of the revolution reached Boston, the colonial militia arrested the governor of New England, along with several officials of the Church of England.

The glorious revolution inspired Locke's two treaties of government, in which Locke wrote that every man has the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke's work inspired the American Revolution.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
DanT
Posts: 5,693
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/2/2012 3:01:43 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/2/2012 2:50:15 AM, DanT wrote:
At 8/31/2012 7:42:31 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
How come separating Church and state means the church can intervene in government, but government can't intervene with church? Not just "not intervene with church" but "cannot make any general laws that impact what goes on in church" as well. I'm not saying this out of strawmanning, because I've just had a discussion with someone who genuinely could not understand how separation means a two-way relation, then saw this link, and just got confused. http://www.masslive.com...

To understand separation of church and state you need to look at History.

In 1534 the Church of England split from the Roman Catholic Church, because the Catholic church would not annul King Henry VIII's marriage to Queen Catherine of Aragon. This meant the English Monarch were not only the head of state but they were also head of the Church of England.

When Queen Mary (Henry VIII's daughter) came to power she sought to prevent Protestants from Reforming the Church of England, which at that time was a branch of Catholicism, with the monarch acting as pope. Queen Mary had roughly 300 Protestants burnt at the stake; 800 more Protestants went into exile.

Queen Elizabeth (Mary's half-sister) reformed the church of England (the Modern Church of England). through Queen Elizabeth's reforms the Church of England adopted episcopal-protestantism; Queen Elizabeth founded Anglicanism.

The Puritan movement started as a result of the episcopacy of Anglicanism. Puritans believed that he Church of England was not Protestant enough, and/or that they were too catholic.

Both Catholics and Puritans were persecuted by Queen Elizabeth and her Anglicans. This was tantamount to a centrist persecuting both conservatives, and progressives.

King James (Elizabeth's first cousin twice removed) further persecuted Puritans, while remaining sympathetic to Catholics. King James became King of Scotland when he was a 1 year old, because his mother (Mary, Queen of Scots) as chased out of Scotland by Protestants for being a Roman Catholic. Mary, Queen of Scots was executed by Queen Elizabeth, after being exiled to England by the Protestants.

The Persecution of Protestants by King James led many Puritans to flee England. The Pilgrims established a colony in the Americas in order to find religious freedom. The land they established their colony on belonged to the Virginia Company of Plymouth. Prior to the establishment of the Plymouth colony by the Pilgrims the Virginia Company of London established the a colony in Virginia called "New London"; it was later renamed Jamestown after King James. Unlike Jamestown, the Plymouth colony was not established by the Virginia Company, the Virginia Company just owned the land they settled on.

King Charles (son of King James) was even harsher in his persecution of Puritans than his Father. King Charles wanted the Church of Scotland and Church of Ireland to adopt the Anglican model, and as a result Scottish Presbyterians (Puritans) revolted leading to the Bishop Wars; later Irish Catholics revolted leading to the Irish Confederate Wars.

In 1642 the English Civil War broke out between Anglican-Royalists and Puritan-Parliamentarians. The following year the Puritan colonies of Massachusetts, Plymouth, Connecticut, and New Haven established the New England Confederation. While the New England Confederation was Parliamentarian the Dominion of Virginia was royalist; Virginia was Royalist because they were more Anglican.

The Bishop wars, Irish Confederate Wars, and English Civil Wars were collectively known was the Wars of 3 Kingdoms. During the Wars of 3 Kingdoms the Scottish-Presbyterian rebels were nicknamed Whiggamores (cattle driver).

When King Charles was beheaded in 1649 the Commonwealth of England was established. Th commonwealth soon collapsed and King Charles II (King Charles's son) took the thrown. King Charles II was Protestant, but his Queen was Catholic, and he named his Catholic brother (King James II) his successor.

Those in opposed the reign of King James II was called Whigs (after the whiggamores). Those who were in favor of the reign of James II were labeled Tories (outlaw), because it was unconstitutional for a Catholic to be King.

King James disbanded the New England Confederation, because he felt the colonists were too independent. He replaced the Confederation with the Dominion of New England. Under this new dominion he was able to appoint officials to rule over the colonists. Through his appointed officials King James actively promoted Anglicanism in New England.

In 1688 the Whigs overthrew King James in the Glorious Revolution. When news of the revolution reached Boston, the colonial militia arrested the governor of New England, along with several officials of the Church of England.

The glorious revolution inspired Locke's two treaties of government, in which Locke wrote that every man has the right to life, liberty, and property. Locke's work inspired the American Revolution.

In short the reason why "congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof", is because when the British Monarchs promoted Anglicanism it led to civil war and oppression. Religion can influence state policy, so long as the state does not try to promote or discourage a particular religion. You can't really prohibit politicians from adhering to their religion, but you can prohibit them from passing laws that discourage or promote certain religions.
"Chemical weapons are no different than any other types of weapons."~Lordknukle
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 12:26:21 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:48:27 PM, johnnyboy54 wrote:
I think you misunderstand what the separation of Church and State really entails. It simply means that government cannot have an established religion.

Is it not more than that though? Doesn't it mean that religion should not affect the law?

Do you think that people should not let religion affect their political views? That is the implication I think you are making. Correct me if I am wrong.

I mean it is impossible, but I think that separation of church and state entails respecting others' beliefs or lack of and others' rights not to have religious beliefs or values forced upon them by the law.
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 12:27:23 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 7:56:54 PM, FourTrouble wrote:
If there is a true separation of church and state, then the government can intervene in religious practices in so far as religious practices are against the law. In the United States, the church and state are NOT fully separate - and if you ask me, that's a GOOD thing.

Why can't their be a medium where people have to freedom to follow religious beliefs or or not and not be forced by the law?
rogue
Posts: 2,325
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 12:28:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 8/31/2012 8:21:14 PM, EvanK wrote:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

That's "seperation of church and state". The phrase doesn't actually appear anywhere in the constitution. Any questions...?

But it is part of the implied constitution, which has become almost as legitimate as the actual one.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 5:23:31 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
@DanT, thanks for the history lesson, but in the nicest of ways that's not what I meant.

Again, it's the people who say they promote separation of Church and State (laicitéanism) then throw their own meanings to it.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
EricPrice
Posts: 79
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/4/2012 8:20:36 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
A very good reason not to subject religion to the vote is that I will always do my best to foul that religion with my balloteering. I am not alone in this pastime. Whichever religious group receives official sanction will inevitably outrage every other religious group.

This is my point: a secular state = a religious community

You may proof my conclusion, if you like:

•Major religions demand exclusive adherence (Christians cannot also be Muslims, Muslims cannot also be Jewish.) This makes most religions natural competitors.

•This exclusivity, if granted the force of law, would eventually begin to reduce the abilities of competing religions. The lawmaking religion would outcompete the other religions.

•Therefore, all religions must be denied the ability to outcompete rival religions - if the goal is a society that is free to worship as it pleases.

With the caveat that all religions may seek to influence the state, provided that all other groups have the same privilege. What the Separation of Church and State demands is that the opposite cannot occur: the state may not seek to influence the church.