What is your opinion on the separation of Church and State?

Fair point.

There is two point where I am doubtfull :
_ Putting religion too much forward in a democratic country could increase the religious tensions between the different religious communities. Setting aside religion from politics is a good point to prevent religion-based conflicts. The same point could be done for ethnic groups.
_ The second point is that if a religion get too much involved in politics, the reject of a policy could become the reject of religion. The history of my own country France is a perfect example of that : catholics sided too much with the king party and the victory of the republic was also the start of the disappearance of catholicism in France. A reverse example is the communist countries : a lot of them are pious orthodox and catholic as being christian was an act of resistance toward the state.

 

Well on America we don't have a right to be free from conflict . We have the right to freely practice our religion we are already having nonreligious people trying to change that, so you're right , our government is being influenced too much by secular humanists.

 

FoxHastings said: ↑
There is no more "glorified" than there ever was ......and "mainstream" ? What does that mean?

EVERY generation thinks their generation was/is "special" or different.. ….it wasn't....humans have been humans forever....and looking back through rose colored glasses doesn't change a thing...

I 'm not sure what YOU mean by "glorified"...but if you think there was a time when there wasn't lots of sex and violence you sure CAN SHOW ME PROOF and then I'll accept that humans had a glitch and stopped having sex and doing violence ...LOL!

Hey, did ya know that Christians claim evil started from the very first humans who ate an apple and then had SEX and their kid killed his brother ….see, violence and sex from the get go
You need "recent"? I don't know why you need "recent" but how about the 1920's ...speakeasies .JAZZ !!!, women danced with no underwear, gangsters slaughtered each other, the illegal booze flowed...oh, and then there was all the regular crime like rape and lynchings and murder and corruption in government....but no, no "glorification"" then EITHER.

No, I'm not..... I asked you to show a time in human history where there was no sex or violence....and of course you can't, there never was an imaginary time like that.

I'm not your brother.

 

You dont need to enact a state or federal church in order to embrace some for of religiosity in your laws.

For example, all christian cults would say that all 10 commandments are the law of god. Hence, all 10 commandments should be the law of man. That doesnt have to be tied to any one cult.

 

There is much overlap with other religions, such as the Hindu ten classical restraints, and verses in Allah's most generous Quaran which appear to be almost one offs of each commandment, but with more emphasis of punishment.

 

I couldn't vote in the poll because your choices were strangely inadequate.

The Constitution forbids the adoption of an OFFICIAL STATE RELIGION, but it does not forbid practice of religion by anyone, or any group of citizens, or the inclusion of religious principles in the formulation of ethical, moral, or legal practices, if the people want them.

Thus -- under our system, no one is FORCED to pay a "church-tax", or be a member of any official, national religion.

From the Constitution of the United States, read:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the exercise thereof."

Now, that wasn't so hard... was it...?

 

Embracing some religious teachings in our legal system wouldnt require a tithe. It doesnt have to have a declared religious establishment in order to do so either.

 

Eventually humans will have to solve the religion problem. If not, religion will ultimately result in the extinction of our species.

Obviously we are not in the position to ban religion in the US, but we are slowly on the way to make religion less popular.

In the meantime, we must fight every religious incursion into our civics.

 

Current religions have the choice of evolving to survive in a changing environment or going extinct because they failed to adapt.

There have been countless prior religions that have gone extinct for the same lack of ability to adapt so there is nothing special about what exists now.

The odds are there will be some hybrid variation of religion that will evolve to fill the vacant place in society that will remain after the current religions are no longer relevant.

 

That is a really good point and idea. However, “no religion” could be the new hybrid version. As our species continues to advance and learn more about the cosmos, we won’t need a crop to lean on. The loss of religion will not go quickly or easily. There will be violent push back from dying religions, but ultimately we will leave it behind.

If we don’t leave religion behind, we will destroy ourselves.

 

I don't think a "Church" need be silent politically. They've done a lot of good. Religion had a lot to do with ending slavery and the civil rights movement. Anyone working for a tax free institution engaging in politics can be problematic though. I prefer more speech to less. Let them have their say.

 

The replacement for current religion will make the current ones look much better (see the new age crap that is flourishing because conventional religion is failing). Religion will never leave us, but it will change forms. Glad that your bigoted views aren't mainstream yet.

 

How are my views bigoted?

 

Your anti-religious views are bigoted against religious people, of course. Wanting to eliminate my views is pretty bigoted.

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

I think the framers of the constitution were very deliberate in their wording. An 'establishment of religion' is an authoritative interpretation of spiritual text that always or nearly always results in a heirarchy of leadership in the population of followers of that religion. I think the purpose of the concept of 'separation of church and state' (which isn't literally mentioned anywhere in the Const., just ftr) was to prevent only the influence of religious establishments on/in our system of governance, not the influence of the spiritual beliefs of individuals. For example: it would be unconstitutional imo for a Cardinal of the Catholic Church to guide political policy by directing one of his congregation who held office to legislate in a certain direction, but it would not be unconstitutional for that Catholic legislator to let his or her own spiritual beliefs guide policy (it would still not necessarily be a good thing, but it would be acceptable if accepted by We The People).

Im not sure which option in the poll is most applicable here.

 

Hardly. I could just have easily called your views bigoted. I don’t call different opinions of mine bigoted generally.

I never said I wanted to eliminate your views.

 

No the religion Police of Iran don't come around hitting people with sticks, we aren't taxed for the services of a government Ministry, and we aren't told to attend to see our taxes at work, besides that, can you Please spell out your personal belief on it further, because I can't do that for you. Because the Government is Promoting to you a Baptist interpretation, its in agreement from Baptists, the Government told you hey, follow this Baptist interpretation of there's a "Separation of Church and State".

People need to look into "Laicite" from France and check their views about "don't bother me" with any of it. When the Vatican goes to my University, my Police Department and my Utilities, the position is to work through a political entity negotiations, not the silent treatment we give terrorists.

 

Of course you want my views eliminated, you said you can't wait until they are gone. I have said nothing about your views other than accurately describing them as bigoted.

 

Maybe this will be more simplified:

Keep religion out of govt and get govt out of religion. Spirituality will effect our governance so long as people are spiritual.

As to the rest of what you said, I detected some angsty sarcasm, perhaps? Not sure. Can you rephrase more clearly?

 

Oh ya well people can charge up to you while at a church to use Zuckerberg's Facebook. Get government in facebook, get religion out of itself where it was. I'm not here to promote above pronagraphy anybody else's insulting attempts to make me particiate in the internet. When was the last time the Mormons dragged you into Church anyway?
No going to the Alabama's State University has inherent ordering of society from its institution in Presbyterianism, Plain as Day. The State of Maryland straight spin off from working full throttle, should point you to a Catholic solution. Especially people coming up to you about it.

I don't have any sarcasm. What's your ridiculous claim that People who FEEL things about their own little what, SOULS , are guiding the Queen's judgments of morality, wait its the other way, we're all supposed to be in a universe where we a publicly beholden to religious standard, that is EQUAL to arguing about the destruction of all religion worth a grain of poop to even mention, you're good at arguing that for yourself, what do I Feel today.​

 

What are the costs going to be with a French Secular society , every soap opera there is a fling, somebody gets a menage a trois gun, and shoots somebody, and that's police work. There's police work and disorder with every unpredictable element about everyone, lucky for Students who never had an idea to do anything at all, because parents have them go, talking to anyone when its what everyone expects to happen, lucky for that. Because you'll encourage a world without 2000 years of lifelong marriage, won't you. This isn't the Natural State of Man as we're aware, for the 5 wives arabs, and the concubine euroepan pagan and the Asian concubines and the 2nd wives in Asia. We will cause plice costs purely because you make a society unpredictable that currently isn't, that is organized around predictable human relations pronounced as God's plan by a Minister of God, what God has brought together through all times until death, let no man part, and any doubt on that is unfaithful, and destroying it would be to make the Minister foolish, and there's no more questions about the Church involvement in the state.

 

Honestly, you are the bigot b

 

The only reason I am talking about a hybrid arising to fill the void is because there are certain aspects of ourselves that are addressed by religion and they will still need to be addressed once there is no longer any need to believe in the superstitions.

Scientific studies of people claiming to be "communing with god" have established that this is a just a deep meditative state of mind. There is no actual connection with any imaginary deity because this same state of mind can be achieved by anyone with practice. The studies revealed that this state of mind can be detected in other mammals.

Religion nefariously co-opted this state of mind and fallaciously claimed that it was "evidence" of god but as someone who can achieve that state there is no god, just a pleasant experience.

Then there is the need for community and sharing of events in our lives like births, marriages and death. There is no need to invoke any imaginary deity but there is a need for that community in those circumstances. When there have been instances of many people all dying suddenly we congregate to share the suffering of the bereaved. When there is a natural disaster we will come together to assist the victims. We do this automatically and naturally and do not need religion in order for this to happen.

So some hybrid will fill the void that religion leaves behind and in many respects that will be the GOOD aspects of religion while the BAD aspects such as bigotry and hatred will not survive.

 

Anyone have a gibberish translator because none of the above makes any sense whatsoever?

 

I keep saying, that in our Christian Bubble that a commitment to monogamy, marriage, and lifelong partnerships appears normal, that homosexuals also would want the suggestion and approbation of lifelong marriages, when its not! Its not the natural reasoned or rational state of man. Many civilizations ahead of the Europeans at certain times even, do not have those. There is no Muslim that says he does not get multiple wives, if he cannot afford one. The Asian view on women and sexuality ventures close to usage. Emperors proudly have harems and concubines, in the Western World our best attempt at the native philosophy was ms. Pearl Buck's "The Good Earth". Need others? The Africans developed other systems of the type that the alpha male does share in the prize of larger pools of mates. Do not feel at home at all that you will maintain anything of any sort known as 'marriage' without the Cross beating these heathens into the dust. I think that's a false equivalency.