Thread: Separation of Church and State

[quote]

Originally Posted by Tick

But do you think that the restrictions placed on expression is the state establishing a religon, Athiestism?

No, not at all. That is like saying the sky is blue because it is not green.

Originally Posted by Tick

True enough, in the twelve step program you can beleive a door knob is God if that is what helps you.

I have no idea what the twelve step program is but our founding fathers made certain that if you cared to believe that god was a doorknob that is well within your right.

Originally Posted by Tick

Your second paragraph is what I am hitting at. You beleive certain things and those things directly effect every thing you say, think, do, behaviors are tied subconsciensly to every action you take. Should we only elect athiests to office, I say that athiest is a religon as much as christianity, because it is a beleif system in and of itself.

Specifying religious beliefs as a qualification for public office is up to the candidate, and is beneficial to candidates from a homogenous party like Republicans. It would not be beneficial for someone cite Non Theism as a qualification for office.

Never at any point did I suggest that Non Theists should be the only elected officials. That was completely your idea Ticky. I say it doesn't matter, because while I detest the most likely unintentional moral failure of a Legislator or Senator trying to create a law involving his/her religion's tenents in the decision making process, I would join the army to defend thier rights to make horrible decisions based on 2000 year old dogma and nonsense. That's because I'm an "originalist", like Scalia, whom I hate. And a Patriot!

Originally Posted by Goldwater

That's because I'm an "originalist", like Scalia, whom I hate. And a Patriot!

You watched 60 min last night, huh?

Originally Posted by Tick

No that is not too much to ask, I was suggesting the the govermnment restrictions is indeed establishing a religon, Is it OK to recognize that there is a god, or does a minority have the right to dictate what is apropreiate in that expression while our tradition was the expression of a recognition of God?

Why should the majority have the right to decide if there is a god or not! There shouldn't be religion in the government because unless there is some due proscess to decide that there is a god, you can't go making laws and government customs assuming that there is god.

Once again, religion is someone's personal choice and the state has no right to say what religion we should have, or even to say that we should be a monotheist. (in god <singular) we trust)

You can't just claim that because god has existed in our government from its inception that it should continue to be that way. You need to have reasons to keep things the way that they have always been or to change them. There is reasons to change but no reasons to keep this the way it has always been.

Originally Posted by Think for myself

So why do we need religion in government?

It's not that we need religion in government, in fact the opposite is true, other wise we would be Iran. The reason for starting this thread was to discuss the influence of what we believe in our every day lives.

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

You watched 60 min last night, huh?

TVO'd it and watched it about an hour ago! I have been an "originalist" for a long time but didn't have an official classification for myself until seeing the Scalia piece the first time it aired.

I've enjoyed being an originalist because people come unglued when you keep throwing the original simple language at issues others try to make infinitly more complex.

[quote=Pragmatist;688223]

No, not at all. That is like saying the sky is blue because it is not green.

Really? So you think that decision makers should be devoid of beleif influences in their thinking processes?

Originally Posted by Pragmatist

I have no idea what the twelve step program is but our founding fathers made certain that if you cared to believe that god was a doorknob that is well within your right.

OK, so if you beleive that a doorknob is God, then what are the evidences that the doorknob is God, and it being your God askes you to conform to the teachings of the doorknob religon, It is true of Hindu's, Muslim's, Buddists, Wicca, and Christianity, and even Atheists. If you claim one of these as your beleif system then by definition it is incumbant for you to hold certain things as true. And those things are what influence you to think and behave in accordance with those beleifs.

Originally Posted by Goldwater

Specifying religious beliefs as a qualification for public office is up to the candidate, and is beneficial to candidates from a homogenous party like Republicans. It would not be beneficial for someone cite Non Theism as a qualification for office.

Never at any point did I suggest that Non Theists should be the only elected officials. That was completely your idea Ticky. I say it doesn't matter, because while I detest the most likely unintentional moral failure of a Legislator or Senator trying to create a law involving his/her religion's tenents in the decision making process, I would join the army to defend thier rights to make horrible decisions based on 2000 year old dogma and nonsense. That's because I'm an "originalist", like Scalia, whom I hate. And a Patriot!

I agree that it doesn't matter. My point is that the abandonment of religon in public life or public domain is not possible. I say that even if you are a non-theist you are still bound by what you beleive, I say that even non-theists are still followers of a religon, Non-theism. And that that beleif has a direct influence on your actions and opinions and the way that you would approach a problem solving situation.