Religion has no place in politics

Discussion in 'Religion' started by Themistokles480, Nov 10, 2012.

?

The establishment clause should be read

  1. Strict Separation (church =! state)

    83.3%
  2. Loose reading (church + state)

    16.7%
  1. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

    What do you think? Was the establishment clause of the constitution intended to apply a "wall of separation between church and state," as Jefferson claimed, or can it be loosely interpreted. Does it apply only to Fed., or was it intended to apply to the Fed. and States evenly.
     
  2. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    I'd agree with Jefferson....but...you can't separate religion out of people, so the best I could hope for is that it's influence in politics is positive overall.
     
    2 people like this.
  3. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

  4. clembo

    clembo Well-Known Member

    Religion has no place in politics

    I agree.
     
  5. JoeNation
    Cheerful

    JoeNation FOX Lies, GOP buys!

    Name one country where the combination of church and state is a good mix and I will name you dozens where it isn't.
     
  6. Themistokles480

    Themistokles480 New Member

    Malta in the 16th century? (playing devil's advocate ;) )
     
  7. CoinOKC
    Yeehaw

    CoinOKC Donald Trump For President In 2020

  8. The Goldeneye

    The Goldeneye Member

    I have to disagree with this. Even though they aren't coming around door to door or even as annoying as some religions they still push there ideas. For example during the holiday season in Santa Monica California the atheists took all the spots for Nativity scenes and replaced them with really boring signs with their ideas all over them. BOO! At least the Jews had a space and put up a giant Menorah.
     
  9. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    I'm not an atheist, or a christian, but I celebrate christmas.

    The problem is when nativity scenes are in a government-owned space, versus a christian churches' space.

    The reason should be clear: The government must remain as neutral as it can be in respect to the endorsement of religion.

    For perspective:

    It would also be inappropriate for the scenes to be placed in an islamic-space. It would also be inappropriate for muhammed to be placed in a government-owned space.

    If those "spots" the atheist's took were government-owned, I'd have a problem with that too, as I view "atheism" as a religion itself, though I'm certain they'd have objections to such a view...and that's the point. ;)
     
  10. c jay
    Brooding

    c jay Well-Known Member

    Atheism is a religion like any other, it all has to do with what does or doesn't happen at the point of death. As for the use of public spaces for religious displays, I see nothing wrong or unconstitutional about it. The non-establishment clause was written in a time when people could be jailed in the state of Virginia for not going to an Anglican service once a year and marriages were not recognized unless performed by the Anglican Church. The establishment clause did not eliminate a person right to practice religion, but eliminated the states ability to force feed and fund a particular sect or religion. If a public space can be booked to present a cause or ideal, then it should apply to all, be it political, social, or religious. If Occupy Wall Street or The Tea Party want to put up banners and hold a rally on a public square, then why should a Christmas Pageant bother you?
     
    2 people like this.
  11. Guy Medley

    Guy Medley Well-Known Member

    Atheism is not a religion. It's the act of not having religion. I'm one and really I could care less about nativity scenes in public spaces. Doesn't bother me. When people come knocking at my door peddling their beliefs I kindly tell them I'm not interested. What does get irritating is all the "good Christians" who continually preach not their faith but their supposedly stoic belief in the constitution when schools deny prayer in the classroom or counties disassemble biblical rhetoric in front of court houses, or when a religious group wants to dictate law based on a fictional work to everyone. That isn't upholding the constitution....that's defiling it. That is exactly why the writers of it included the seperate on of church and state within it.
     
    2 people like this.
  12. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    Atheism is a religion, huh. How?

    And I have no problem with Christians marching down the street opposing my right to marry, for example. Or staging sit-ins against the right of a woman to have a legal, medically supervised abortion. Those are political acts. Placing a baby Jesus propaganda piece on the courthouse lawn is not the same thing. You are using a publicly funded space to advertise your religion. How about using a church lawn instead?

    Why are people who claim to have approval and protection of the all-knowing, all-powerful Creator and King of all that exists so needful of government validation and support? Why do they want the government impose the rules of their particular "faith" on society as a whole? Any religion that needs active government endorsement and assistance rather than simple government indifference to survive is pretty pathetic.
     
  13. c jay
    Brooding

    c jay Well-Known Member

    Atheism is based in the undying faith that nothing happens next. Your dead, that's it. This is something you can't prove and something you can't disprove. Dogma dictates that an atheist hold true to the belief in an after-nothing, and that anyone spouting any other beliefs is either ignorant or naïve. More fundamental atheist often lash out at a competing religions with the conviction that their religion (atheism) is the only one true religion (belief system) and are offended by the practices of an opposing faith. Atheism as an intellectual outlook is fine, once there is any emotional investment in that belief, it becomes religion. If someone wants to put up a statue of Jesus, Mohammad, Ganesh, or chunk of crystal and dance around it, why should it bother me. I do believe that should anyone pass laws closing business on someone's holy day, requiring me to attend or register to any particular faith, or discriminate against me in the work place based on my beliefs, then that is crossing the line and should be allowed no quarter. As far as public spaces go, we all paid for it, all should have access. No one group has veto power over the others, show a little bit of tolerance.
     
  14. IQless1
    Blah

    IQless1 trump supporters are scum

    Well said.

    I disagree.

    Aside from my reluctance to allow religious expression in government spaces for the reason of separation of church and state, there's another reason, and that is that some religions provoke great amounts of anger and hostility.

    Few people would want Charlie Manson displaying video of his followers killing Sharon Tate and removing her unborn baby from her body, but technically your opinion would allow it, since it can fall under the "religious expression" banner.

    Extreme? Yes, and that's the point. If you allow one religion to be expressed in a public space, then you must allow all others, and some of them are not as benign as "Chistmas" and such. You'd then have to allow highly imaginative people to express their own religious beliefs, which includes torture and murder.

    You could limit that, of course, but then you wouldn't be as accepting as you'd want to be, right?

    So, IMO, express your beliefs in your home or at your place of worship, and keep the government out of it completely, or as much as it can be.

    The lighting of the Christmas tree at the White House is somewhat acceptable to me for specific reasons: While it's a public display of religion on government property, it's also the President's religious expression, and it's his residence...it's his home.

    It wouldn't be acceptable to me if Sharon Tate's murder and subsequent abortion was displayed at the White House, even if Charlie Manson was the President, but then again I'm prejudiced that way.
     
    2 people like this.
  15. Guy Medley

    Guy Medley Well-Known Member

    Once again the lack of religion is not a religion. Lack of money is not wealth. It's simply placing science above fiction, not faith but fact. Your definition is false based on religious definition of atheism.
     
    3 people like this.
  16. c jay
    Brooding

    c jay Well-Known Member

    In extreme events, we seem to have no problem separating acts of sedition from free speech, yet when it comes to religion we go soft. Any religion preaching "death to the infidel" or bombing abortion clinics from the pulpit has crossed the line and should not be protected under the establishment clause. When it comes to acts of violence, the preacher is as much responsible as the criminal committing the act. That's how it worked for Charlie, who after, all never raised a hand against Sharron Tate. He just incited it, may he never see the light of day outside a jail cell.
    I recently had the opportunity to attend a traditional Hindu wedding, it was held in a public auditorium and extended into a public plaza. They had statues of Ganesh and they chanted prayers. I am not Hindu and have no problem with something like this, especially since they paid the state a usage fee. Are we talking no weddings allowed in parks or only allow atheist weddings.
     
    2 people like this.
  17. c jay
    Brooding

    c jay Well-Known Member

    Atheism as an intellectual out look is a philosophy, frothing at the mouth quoting Dawkins and Darwin is religion. It's a matter of emotional intensity. A true atheist wouldn't be bothered by public displays of faith, they'd say "how quaint" and go on. Evangelical Atheist are outraged by such displays and filled with a sense of self righteous indignation. Same goes for Evangelical Christians if it not their brand of Holy Book.
    I think you could find "Christians" who are truly non religious, they follow the EZ version of the New Testament of just simply being nice to other people, seldom go to church, and never get in your face. Their version of "what's next" is warm / fuzz and may not include a hell.
    My using the word Atheist, by definition, may be in error. However, the actions, thoughts and emotional intensity by some individuals professing to be Atheist is not in error, and can only be construed as religious in nature.
     
    2 people like this.
  18. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    Well you finally do kind of get it in the end. I'm probably one of those atheists you wouldn't like. Let me try to explain. My "emotional intensity" against religion in general and Christianity in particular is pretty much in direct proportion to degree to which the faithful try to turn purely religious dictates and prejudices into laws that must be followed by all.
     
    2 people like this.
  19. Takiji

    Takiji Well-Known Member

    It seems to me that Christians should be fighting as hard as they can to disassociate their religion from government, any government, and to keep it free from the taint of secular politics and profane, manmade institutions. And they certainly shouldn't be trying to establish a government founded on religious dictates and dedicated to the enforcement thereof (aka a theocracy).

    Yet for many, maybe even most of them, it seems government validation and support are primary goals and using the government as their enforcer is just fine, even desirable. Considering the nature and teaching of the man they claim as their founder I don't understand this at all.
     
    2 people like this.
  20. c jay
    Brooding

    c jay Well-Known Member

    I understand where you're coming from. At one point I was there myself, mostly anti-Catholic, anti-religious to a point, but not quiet atheist. I thought about it a lot and came to the conclusion that what I really had a problem with was zealots. Not wanting to become one, I came up with a reminder to keep me in check; "One should be wary of their ideals for these are the things that wars are made of." Works for me. There are some thing worth going to war over, but they should be few and far between. It is also a moral imperative that the good to come greatly out weigh the damage incurred.
     
    2 people like this.

Share This Page