Thread: Separation of Church and State

I am confused as to how people can argue against US tax dollars from going to religions. The first act of Congress and the President was to establish the pay of Chaplins whom must be ordained priests. Therefore your tax money has gone to pay for religion ever since the beginning.

I understand that the US Government cannot establish a religion but establishment is an entirely different thing than paying for religion.

Because the number of religions in the world can only increase, and one day, there will be too many to pay for. Scientology is funded in taxes now, I beleive.

And in any case, why should my tax dollars go towards anything that isnt infrastructure, which religion is not?

No Scientology is not considered a religion by the US government it was brought on charges for numerous felonies.

Religion should be kept entirely separate, that's my take on it. I dunno, there's just not much reason to have them affiliated in any way, it almost seems to set the stage for discrimination, bias, etc. Politics is politics, leave religion out of it.

Originally Posted by The Last Cathedral

No Scientology is not considered a religion by the US government it was brought on charges for numerous felonies.

Scientologists seem like a pretty crazy bunch. But still, a religion shouldn't need recognition from the United States to exist.

Of course religion is infrastructure. As a good brother of mine pointed out, when your soldiers go into battle they are looking for their chaplin, he is God on the battlefield. Without him they have nowhere to turn. Without him there is no God. And a soldier needs God.

There is no Atheist in a fox hole may be a very generalized statement but it is obvious that religion is an integral part of humanity, it has dictated identity and nationality for no less than 10,000 years, it drives humans to be better than they are.

All the great works of man which have existed through out the ages are religious.

Not one Wonder of the Ancient World was built for secular purposes, all were religious structures.

To be religious is to be human. What you believe is entirely personal however. The myriad of beliefs proves that humanity cannot believe in just one thing.

Once any religion is proven, then I'll pay for it hsnap:

Originally Posted by The Last Cathedral

Of course religion is infrastructure. As a good brother of mine pointed out, when your soldiers go into battle they are looking for their chaplin, he is God on the battlefield. Without him they have nowhere to turn. Without him there is no God. And a soldier needs God.

There is no Atheist in a fox hole may be a very generalized statement but it is obvious that religion is an integral part of humanity, it has dictated identity and nationality for no less than 10,000 years, it drives humans to be better than they are.

All the great works of man which have existed through out the ages are religious.

Not one Wonder of the Ancient World was built for secular purposes, all were religious structures.

To be religious is to be human. What you believe is entirely personal however. The myriad of beliefs proves that humanity cannot believe in just one thing.

Yes but religion isn't infrastructure in the same way that schools, or hospitals, or police stations, or bridges are. Society NEEDS these things, but society can function without religion.

If society can function without religion why is it any irreligious state (Russia, North Korea, etc) are all failing and miserable?

Religions are indeed a way to control the masses, no different than Hollywood or Commercials or Beer or any other amenity we use to control ourselves. If we didn't control ourselves we'd be killing each other because of some dumb argument like whose penis is larger.

Humans are animalistic, and pleasures and past-times reduce our urge to go insane. Social behavior one should say. Movies are a distant form of social behavior but all entertainment in general is a social behavior.

Religion is the foundation of social behavior. Every religion is different, but all connected in the same founding principle that it brings together individuals to be more sociable. It is why Marriages are religious, why births are religious. Everything is made religious because it is just a human condition.

As I said, the ideas behind the religion are less important, whether it is the Egyptian Gods, or Hindu, or Christianity they all fulfill that social purpose that you lack in a godless//atheist society.

Anyone living in the Soviet Union after Stalin could tell you what that is like. The state controlled everything even sex, you couldn't just go and enjoy being with someone, you couldn't just get married if your society wanted you to, you had to register with the great Bureaucracy governed through your Oblast straight from Moscow.

Religions tend to be natural - because they are traditional, that is they function automatically, your fathers' father did it so he did it so you do it.

When you try and legislate life, it just doesn't work.

So I guess what I'm trying to say is anything traditional will become religious, whether it is ... observing a day to mourn your dead son or whether it is to create the elaborate dogma that is Catholicism.

Legislation (the opposite of religion it is logic and reason not faith) has its place...but it can't fulfill that human need for society.

It merely controls society in a way favorable to some for various human reasons.

In a way - the US Government is becomming a religion of its own with traditions and such the same way the Egyptian Government became religious and the Roman government became religious (both during their pagan eras not during Christianity).

The Roman Republic was frought with religious belief...the sanctity of which should not be violated.

The collapse of that is a very complex story but it can be traced to changes in dogma...people stopped believing in the Republic as it was and wanted it in a different way (namely an Imperator to defend the people from a tyrannical Senate hence the birth of Empire).

It's all complex but I'm trying to illustrate my ideas in a way that matches their source in historical context because I didn't just have an opinion one day I developed my ideas of the basics of religious roots from what I know about history - which is a lot if I say so myself