This article got me thinking: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/04/appeals-court-says-cross-on-federal-land-is-unconstitutional/?iref=allsearch

(Article summary: A group put a cross on public lands, other groups complained, the group then started interring veterans at the site in order to make the cross a "war memorial", other groups took this group to court, court sided against the cross group.)

The USA was founded on a strict separation of church and state; it has been ingrained into our culture since its inception. Of those who left Europe to come to America, a common theme was escaping religious persecution.

However, today, it seems as if Europe is far less religious than America is, much like a role reversal.

Since the USA is such a young country in the grand scheme of things, I wonder how Europe handles these sorts of situations? There must be religious symbols all over Europe, some hundreds of years old or more I'd imagine.

Is there any sort of official separation of church and state in the UK or any other European country? I've come to understand that politics & religion are not nearly so intertwined in Europe as they are here.

In England the Head of State(King or Queen) is also head of the Church of England and appoints Bishops, Archbishops etc. In Scotland the Church is independant.

I do not see how the invasion of the Americas can have a common theme of escaping religious persecution, seems every European nation who supposedly discovered the lands were bent on stealing it from the people who already lived here and claiming it as their own.


This article got me thinking: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/04/appeals-court-says-cross-on-federal-land-is-unconstitutional/?iref=allsearch

(Article summary: A group put a cross on public lands, other groups complained, the group then started interring veterans at the site in order to make the cross a "war memorial", other groups took this group to court, court sided against the cross group.)

The USA was founded on a strict separation of church and state; it has been ingrained into our culture since its inception. Of those who left Europe to come to America, a common theme was escaping religious persecution.

However, today, it seems as if Europe is far less religious than America is, much like a role reversal.

Since the USA is such a young country in the grand scheme of things, I wonder how Europe handles these sorts of situations? There must be religious symbols all over Europe, some hundreds of years old or more I'd imagine.

Is there any sort of official separation of church and state in the UK or any other European country? I've come to understand that politics & religion are not nearly so intertwined in Europe as they are here.

I do not see how the invasion of the Americas can have a common theme of escaping religious persecution, seems every European nation who supposedly discovered the lands were bent on stealing it from the people who already lived here and claiming it as their own.

Escaping persecution of one's self and persecuting others are 2 entirely different things.

Brian

In England the Head of State(King or Queen) is also head of the Church of England and appoints Bishops, Archbishops etc. In Scotland the Church is independant.

Oh, I didn't know that. I thought the Archbishop of Canterbury was the head of the Church of Englad? Is the king or queen more the ceremonial leader while the archbishop is the day-to-day guy, or not?

Either way, that's formally. I'm wondering more about the every day type of stuff. Do politicans there give speechs that mention god a lot? Do they use religious rhetoric in their communications with the masses?


I do not see how the invasion of the Americas can have a common theme of escaping religious persecution, seems every European nation who supposedly discovered the lands were bent on stealing it from the people who already lived here and claiming it as their own.


I know that was one of the reasons that I was taught in high school. In further studying, it does seem to at least hold up to some scrutiny.

I don't think that would be limited to European nations either; such is the way of powerful countries, exerting their will and influence upon the weaker ones around them.

This article got me thinking: http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/04/appeals-court-says-cross-on-federal-land-is-unconstitutional/?iref=allsearch

(Article summary: A group put a cross on public lands, other groups complained, the group then started interring veterans at the site in order to make the cross a "war memorial", other groups took this group to court, court sided against the cross group.)

The USA was founded on a strict separation of church and state; it has been ingrained into our culture since its inception. Of those who left Europe to come to America, a common theme was escaping religious persecution.

However, today, it seems as if Europe is far less religious than America is, much like a role reversal.

Since the USA is such a young country in the grand scheme of things, I wonder how Europe handles these sorts of situations? There must be religious symbols all over Europe, some hundreds of years old or more I'd imagine.

Is there any sort of official separation of church and state in the UK or any other European country? I've come to understand that politics & religion are not nearly so intertwined in Europe as they are here.

That is a misconception that has been so ingrained into our culture in the last 50 years that it is now taken as fact. The US was NOT founded on Separation of Church and State. The country was "founded" mostly by groups of religious and political disidents. The Constitution formalized the idea of "Freedom of Religion" (not necessarily Freedom From Religion) and codified the ideal that there would be NO official "State Church" that was so prevalent in Europe from the 14th century on.

In fact, the Founding Fathers were almost without exception very religious men and would most likely been appalled at the lengths we now take to insure that our government remains secular to a fault.

That is a misconception that has been so ingrained into our culture in the last 50 years that it is now taken as fact. The US was NOT founded on Separation of Church and State.


This issue has been debated a million times, and I don't see that changing. Suffice to say I think, after reviewing a lot of the arguments, both for and against, that the founding fathers did not intend for this to be a "Christian Nation".

But, much like the bible, if you take all of the various statements from the founding fathers, language from our official documents, etc, you could make a case one way or the other.


In fact, the Founding Fathers were almost without exception very religious men and would most likely been appalled at the lengths we now take to insure that our government remains secular to a fault.

I can't agree with that, but as I mentioned, this same argument has played out over and over.

I think one of the things that I find interesting is how much reverence is paid to the founding fathers. These men were a product of their times, and had their own strengths and weakness', as we all do. To try to paint them as more then men, or infalliable is silly.

My personal thoughts are that they were intelligent men who made a calculated decision not to allow the church and state to fall under the same power structure. Perhaps they did not want to have to answer to the church, which seems logical.

In the UK, religion is a declining entity. People have realised that it is no longer a valid option in day-to-day activity.

The Church of England is more a historical figure than a real meaningful entity.

I have never heard any polititian mention god or religion as that would lose votes big time.

Col

In fact, the Founding Fathers were almost without exception very religious men and would most likely been appalled at the lengths we now take to insure that our government remains secular to a fault.
They capitalize the Founding Fathers in the US? Or do you have a sort of quasi-religious view of your own history? In Canada we capitalize religious terms like Hockey Player, and Snow Fall Warning.
Cheers,

More people in the UK find The Beatles more meaningful than god or religion. The Beatles are certainly more popular than god.

Col

I have never heard any polititian mention god or religion as that would lose votes big time.

Blair did....oh, I see what you mean.

More people in the UK find The Beatles more meaningful than god or religion. The Beatles are certainly more popular than god.

Col

That's a shame Col, something I fear will facilitate the further decline in your society.

Originally Posted by Davep http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1029528#post1029528)
More people in the UK find The Beatles more meaningful than god or religion. The Beatles are certainly more popular than god.
That's a shame Col, something I fear will facilitate the further decline in your society.
While I haven't seen any evidence that the original statement by Col is true, there are certain parallels that can be drawn between God and the Beatles:
* Both used to be far more popular in the UK than they currently are.
* Both have their current importance and/or relevance vastly overstated by people of a certain age.
* People believing in the importance of both have had a huge impact on one or more aspect of British life.

Lennon's oft taken out of context comment has proven to be fairly accurate, but even back then it wouldn't have taken a prophet to see that the days of religion as the be all and end all of British society were gone. http://beatlesnumber9.com/biggerjesus.html (http://beatlesnumber9.com/biggerjesus.html)

Is it 'facilitating' the decline of British society or just occurring at the same time? Who knows. The US certainly appears to be more overtly religious than the UK and it's hardly a bastion of moral virtues.

Like the British, the vast majority of Americans practice high moral standards. Our way of life is being attacked by the financial institutions.

But of course, that's another story.

Forget about the existence of God, and take religion separately, as even most religious people do. There are many studies that show a correlation (in America) between regular church attendance and a propensity to participate in community service.

Generally non-fundamentalist church goers exhibit more generosity and compassion.

Truthfully, the only reason the politicians in the UK don't mention God is BECAUSE they will lose votes. It's politics. It's the same reason politicians here do mention God. It has nothing to do with whether they truly believe it.

That's my opinion anyway.

The idea of Separation of Church and State is one thing. And it is a good idea (for the most part). But the current mindset is not Separation of Church and State. It is ELIMINIATION of Church from State. Which is basically what the Soviet Union took care of when the Communists took power in 1917.

An interesting thing to note is that it seems that the primary target of the elimination is of anything that has to do with the Christian religion. In fact, many of the current court rulings have declared that it is okay for certain OTHER religious dress and symbols to be present in public buildings and areas - such as Muslim Burqas being allowed for teachers in public school so they are not infringed upon for their religious freedom, however it is more and more not being allowed for teachers to wear a cross, for example, when teaching because that is a religious symbol. So, how is a cross any more a religious symbol than a burqa? A burqa identfies one's religion. A cross identifies one's religion. But they are being treated differently by the courts and by school officials.

It is also interesting that we have judges allowing Sharia Law principles to be followed in America which should not be happening. So, this for example, is one instance but it shows that it is more Separation of Christianity from State is more the true goal, and not separation of church and state. Maybe I guess they think that since Muslims don't have "church" it doesn't apply to them.

The idea of Separation of Church and State is one thing. And it is a good idea (for the most part). But the current mindset is not Separation of Church and State. It is ELIMINIATION of Church from State.


What do you think the difference is? To me, separation of church and state means that the church has no control of the affairs of state.

Or are you talking about public opinion here were there seems to be a backlash against religion?


An interesting thing to note is that it seems that the primary target of the elimination is of anything that has to do with the Christian religion.


Well, Christianity is still the dominant religion in the USA, so that is not surprising. You're bound to hear about a lot more cases that deal with Christianity when they're the majority; its simply a numbers game.


So, how is a cross any more a religious symbol than a burqa? A burqa identfies one's religion. A cross identifies one's religion. But they are being treated differently by the courts and by school officials.


A cross is a religious symbol, a burqa is an article of clothing. I think the burqa is more tied to Islamic culture than it is to the Muslim religion.


It is also interesting that we have judges allowing Sharia Law principles to be followed in America which should not be happening.


Do you have any examples? I had heard of a couple of cases where an Islamic couple/family was asking a judge here to hold valid agreements made while under Sharia law somewhere else. Essentially validating agreements made while under another jurisdiction.

Is that what you're referring to?

Tonight Bob Larson has 24,500 post.

The burka has been banned in France.

Oh and The Beatles sell more on iTunes than god.:)

Col

A cross is a religious symbol, a burqa is an article of clothing. I think the burqa is more tied to Islamic culture than it is to the Muslim religion.



I thought that Islam was the religion followed by Muslims.

I think that the total covering up of women is not mention in the Koran althougth they are told to keep their clothes around them, sorry I forget the exact wording its along while since I read it.

I think that the Burka is a cultural clothing item seized on by the fanatics as part of their subjugation of women.

Brian

I thought that Islam was the religion followed by Muslims.


It is. My point is that the cross is a religious symbol. A burqa is an article of clothing.

Example:

Cross is equal to Star of David. Both are religious symbols.
Cross is not equal to yarmulke (the skull caps jewish men wear). The cross is a religious symbol, the yarmulke, while connected to a religion & culture, is not a religious symbol.

I think that the Burka is a cultural clothing item seized on by the fanatics as part of their subjugation of women.


I agree. There was a group here that was trying to make it where the women who wore burqas could do so when they got their driver's license picture. They were trying to say it was infringing upon their religion to force them to remove the face covering.

That, to me, is insane. Your face has to be visible on government-issued ID.

The idea of Separation of Church and State is one thing. And it is a good idea (for the most part). But the current mindset is not Separation of Church and State. It is ELIMINIATION of Church from State. Which is basically what the Soviet Union took care of when the Communists took power in 1917.

An interesting thing to note is that it seems that the primary target of the elimination is of anything that has to do with the Christian religion. In fact, many of the current court rulings have declared that it is okay for certain OTHER religious dress and symbols to be present in public buildings and areas - such as Muslim Burqas being allowed for teachers in public school so they are not infringed upon for their religious freedom, however it is more and more not being allowed for teachers to wear a cross, for example, when teaching because that is a religious symbol. So, how is a cross any more a religious symbol than a burqa? A burqa identfies one's religion. A cross identifies one's religion. But they are being treated differently by the courts and by school officials.

It is also interesting that we have judges allowing Sharia Law principles to be followed in America which should not be happening. So, this for example, is one instance but it shows that it is more Separation of Christianity from State is more the true goal, and not separation of church and state. Maybe I guess they think that since Muslims don't have "church" it doesn't apply to them.

Bob

Identical in Australia

I think it is a general move to accommodate globalisation (politically) and that will be far easier if there is no national pride for your country or having a srong association with your country. Young people will grow up with it.

I reckon if I said to an 20 year old Australian tomorrow....how do you feel if the flag has part of the Chinese flag and a few Chinese are in our parliament.... he would probably think it was good idea.

Did you know that unless there are some changes then in the very near future, like this year, for an American astronaut to go to the International Space Station he will have to be flown to Russia and then NASA pays about $60 million for his ticket.

The burka has been banned in France.

Oh and The Beatles sell more on iTunes than god.:)

Col

You have no idea how glad I am that the Beatles are on Itunes.... I just discovered that the other day, do you know when Itunes got the ability to put the Beatles on there?

Did you know that unless there are some changes then in the very near future, like this year, for an American astronaut to go to the International Space Station he will have to be flown to Russia and then NASA pays about $60 million for his ticket.

Oh how the changes at NASA are effecting the Houston area.... So many friends of mine are losing jobs (and many others that I don't even know). As the job market is already low, I shudder to think how this is going to effect our local economy once the jobs are gone.

You have no idea how glad I am that the Beatles are on Itunes.... I just discovered that the other day, do you know when Itunes got the ability to put the Beatles on there?

Last month iTunes reached an agreement to be able to market Beatles tunes there. I wonder how much it cost them and how much they have already made?

Oh how the changes at NASA are effecting the Houston area.... So many friends of mine are losing jobs (and many others that I don't even know). As the job market is already low, I shudder to think how this is going to effect our local economy once the jobs are gone.


You must be close to Clear Lake City.

Oh how the changes at NASA are effecting the Houston area.... So many friends of mine are losing jobs (and many others that I don't even know). As the job market is already low, I shudder to think how this is going to effect our local economy once the jobs are gone.

Lots of people on the forum below are in the know. The Space Policy Discussion forum on the site.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php

You must be close to Clear Lake City.

Yup I go to church just North of there, a lot of my friends live there. :)

Lots of people on the forum below are in the know. The Space Policy Discussion forum on the site.

http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php

I'll have to check it out later. :)

I reckon if I said to an 20 year old Australian tomorrow....how do you feel if the flag has part of the Chinese flag and a few Chinese are in our parliament.... he would probably think it was good idea.


The flag part seems pretty silly. However, when you say "Chinese in our parliament" do you mean Chinese people as in citizens of China? Or Australian citizens who happen to be of Chinese ancestry?

The first seems completely idiotic, and I don't think anyone with a real solid understanding of government and politics would think it was a good idea.


You have no idea how glad I am that the Beatles are on Itunes.... I just discovered that the other day, do you know when Itunes got the ability to put the Beatles on there?


It was somewhat recently. There was a page on CNN dedicated to it.

I don't think the cross argument is valid. Where are teachers told they cannot wear religious symbols of their own religion? It might be a case by case basis, but that's never been not allowed here. In fact, there's a story similar to that which happened to a friend of mine I went to school with.

There was a high school teacher at my school who was very very religious. She was Christian. She wore her crosses and such, and never tried to force her religion on anyone else. One of my friends in the class was Pagan. She wasn't only pagan, but her entire family was. She was raised as such. It was just as much a part of her expression and religion as Christianity was to the teacher. As such, she wore her pentagram, which is used by pagans as a symbol of faith and is actually considered a circle of protection for the wearer. Even Christians during the European takeover adopted the Pentagram to stand for the wounds of Christ (nails in both hands and feet, crown.) She wore it every day, as she's required within her religious beliefs. One day, the teacher saw it, and requested she remove it. She refused and even made the point the teacher was wearing her religious symbols as well. The teacher insisted it was distracting the students, who were looking around confused because the only one distracting us was the teacher. She was sent to the office. The principal was less offended by the pentragram, but asked why she couldn't just take it off. She insisted it was important for her to wear, as it truly is required by her faith. The principal said he had no choice but to suspend her. Long story short, the family took the school board to court to allow her to make up for the classwork missed and won, so she could pass her classes and graduate. Keeping religion out of the politics has no bearing on not being able to express your religious beliefs, so long as you don't enforce others to follow the same. Someone wearing a cross, pentagram, star of david, etc. in no way convinces me or anyone else to believe what they believe.

The flag part seems pretty silly. However, when you say "Chinese in our parliament" do you mean Chinese people as in citizens of China? Or Australian citizens who happen to be of Chinese ancestry?

The first seems completely idiotic, and I don't think anyone with a real solid understanding of government and politics would think it was a good idea.



You missed the point and over anlayse. The young Australian is losing his connection with Australia as a country.

Yup I go to church just North of there, a lot of my friends live there. :)


I go there regularly, my family lives down there, maybe we cab have a cup of coffee.

You missed the point and over anlayse. The young Australian is losing his connection with Australia as a country.

Having a love for your country is great. Having pride in being an Australian or British or American is great. But letting that love or pride turn into a seething hatred of others countries/peoples is dangerous.

Having a love for your country is great. Having pride in being an Australian or British or American is great. But letting that love or pride turn into a seething hatred of others countries/peoples is dangerous.

What has that go to do with what I said about young Australians and their attitude.

As is the case in America there is a gradual removal of the things that identify with the countries and that I believe is for the move to global politics. And if younger Australians are a guide then it is working.

I go there regularly, my family lives down there, maybe we cab have a cup of coffee.

Ha, I know you used to live here... We've spoken about it before. I can't drink coffee but I can always find something to drink at a Starbucks.:p

You missed the point and over anlayse. The young Australian is losing his connection with Australia as a country.Does this explain the result of the Ashes then:D

What has that go to do with what I said about young Australians and their attitude.


Well, I asked a question and you didn't answer it. The type of situation you were talking about could be construed as racist.


As is the case in America there is a gradual removal of the things that identify with the countries and that I believe is for the move to global politics. And if younger Australians are a guide then it is working.

I haven't seen that here, to be honest with you. We're pushed to be tolerant of others, and to respect diversity, but I haven't seen any overt movement to remove things that identify with our country.

Does this explain the result of the Ashes then:D

Definitely high on the list of possibles:)

Well, I asked a question and you didn't answer it. The type of situation you were talking about could be construed as racist.



Are you serious.

In case you don't know China is the real big country above Australia. If there were world type gov't there would be at least three. The Americas, Europe and the Asia/Pacific.

But if it was racist I could not care less.:D



I haven't seen that here, to be honest with you. We're pushed to be tolerant of others, and to respect diversity, but I haven't seen any overt movement to remove things that identify with our country.

Again, are you serious. Although if you are young leftie I could see how you would have that view.

You missed the point and over anlayse. The young Australian is losing his connection with Australia as a country.
You mean they haven't got any conviction?:confused:

You mean they haven't got any conviction?:confused:

Because each day something is stripped away from Australian culture younger people are moving towards....we are a citizen of the world etc.....which of course leads to what you have posted. But nothing surprising there as we are officially a multi cultural society and that will produce an obvious outcome.

And of course they expect a world that is utopia.

Ha, I know you used to live here... We've spoken about it before. I can't drink coffee but I can always find something to drink at a Starbucks.:p

Send me a PM with an email and I'll get in touch. Have a great day.

Well, I asked a question and you didn't answer it. The type of situation you were talking about could be construed as racist.



I haven't seen that here, to be honest with you. We're pushed to be tolerant of others, and to respect diversity, but I haven't seen any overt movement to remove things that identify with our country.

Really Adam? Are you blind. What about the move to destroy our national language. English is the most advanced language in the world, and it is being usurped by one of the most retarded.

Spanish (American Spanish) culture is inferior in so many ways and it is going to be the future of the USA.

In our children’s lifetime the US will be a nation of poor Spanish speaking people subservient to their English speaking betters; in perpetuity.

Are you serious.


Read Thales reply and then ask me again.


But if it was racist I could not care less.:D


Ok...

Read Thales reply and then ask me again.



Ok...

Are you saying that my statement is racist?

Are you saying that my statement is racist?
The statement could appear to be racist or at least anti-spanish. A little harsh to describe the language of Cervantes as retarded:)

It would be racist in Australia and simply because race was mentioned.

In Australia the police will still say in a description...a male person of Middle Eastern (or Asian) appearance etc.....but there is strong lobby from the lefty Greens to have this changed.

And I am sure the next stage will be gender is removed as they have gone from....a man of Middle Eastern appearance to a.....a male person of Middle Eastern appearance.

I would predict the next stage is "person" will be replaced by "human" as that is our species. Our Prime Minsiter (Labor party) is atheist and of course the leader of The Greens is atheist and so the push for "human" will be on the go.

The statement could appear to be racist or at least anti-spanish. A little harsh to describe the language of Cervantes as retarded:)


I acquiesce to the appearance of racism, but in this case the actuality is merely politically incorrect.

By retarded, I mean that the Spanish language, although romantic and eloquent at times; is in reality retarded in the strict meaning of the word.

In as much as France has systematically limited the growth of French, American Spanish has not evolved for whatever reasons, I suspect it is from cultural reasons, and not racial. These limitations are a direct result of the Hispanic cultures and the methods employed by the original Spanish conquerors in the Western Hemisphere.

Do to the nature of English (the language) it has evolved to be the most inclusive language, it continues to grow in both vocabulary, and in use, far faster than any other language.

Interestingly enough a viable argument to my assessment that English is being usurped by Spanish in this country, could be easily made, that English will simply absorb the Spanish and become even more evolved.

This phenomenon originally occurred in 1066 with the Norman Conquest, which left English with a larger vocabulary than both the German and the French origins. Other factors that contributed to the evolution of English were the vastness and longevity of the British Empire, followed by the global dominance of the United States after WWII.

As far as the assessment that the American Spanish culture is inferior; that is a subject that is defensible on many levels, but would require at least one dedicated thread. I was merely pointing out that Adam's statement that there are no obvious signs of the active destruction of American Culture.

The burka has been banned in France.

Oh and The Beatles sell more on iTunes than god.:)

Col
Thy've got a long way to go to catch up on his book sales, though (shadow-authored or not) :)

You mean they haven't got any conviction?:confused:
Rather ironic, given that it used to be an entry requirement, you mean? :D

It would be racist in Australia and simply because race was mentioned.

I would predict the next stage is "person" will be replaced by "human" as that is our species. Our Prime Minsiter (Labor party) is atheist and of course the leader of The Greens is atheist and so the push for "human" will be on the go.

Actually the species is "homo-sapiens" (not "human"). I would suspect that would quickly be abbreviated to "homo" which would then lead to all sorts of controversy.

Actually the species is "homo-sapiens" (not "human"). I would suspect that would quickly be abbreviated to "homo" which would then lead to all sorts of controversy.

Maybe that is why "human" is used. Then you have that atheist crowd, the Humanist society.

The leader of the Greens is a homo.

Maybe that is why "human" is used. Then you have that atheist crowd, the Humanist society.

The leader of the Greens is a homo.
So maybe, to be exact and insure there is no confusion, we should be simply referred to as "certain member(s) of Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo Sapiens, Subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens."

After all, "human" contains as part of the structure "man" and that is certainly sexist. Incidentally "homo sapiens" means "wise homonid" and "homo sapiens" means "extremely wise homonid" which we know for certain in most cases to be a gross mislabelling.

So maybe, to be exact and insure there is no confusion, we should be simply referred to as "certain member(s) of Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo Sapiens, Subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens."

After all, "human" contains as part of the structure "man" and that is certainly sexist. Incidentally "homo sapiens" means "wise homonid" and "homo sapiens" means "extremely wise homonid" which we know for certain in most cases to be a gross mislabelling.

Or to be completly correct we should have on the TV news:

Members of the law enforcement sector of society (calling them police is so demeaning and negative) are seeking certain member(s) of Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo Sapiens, Subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapien

who are of interest in the slaying of

certain member(s) of Kingdom Animalia, Phylum Chordata, Class Mammalia, Order Primates, Family Hominidae, Genus Homo, Species Homo Sapiens, Subspecies Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Sorry folks, there's no time for any more news so the death of the Prime Minister will have to wait for tomorrow.

Actually the species is "homo-sapiens" (not "human"). I would suspect that would quickly be abbreviated to "homo" which would then lead to all sorts of controversy.
Pedants Corner. The species is actually Homo sapiens. Capital letter for the Genus and small letter for the species and no hyphen. We pedants do like things to be correct:D

Pedants Corner. The species is actually Homo sapiens. Capital letter for the Genus and small letter for the species and no hyphen. We pedants do like things to be correct:D

Good Morning Rabbie,
Thanks fro the smile.

Pedants Corner. The species is actually Homo sapiens. Capital letter for the Genus and small letter for the species and no hyphen. We pedants do like things to be correct:D
Thanks for the correction, but then I did add the disclaimer concerning the misleading definition, "wise homonid", didn't I? :p

That is a misconception that has been so ingrained into our culture in the last 50 years that it is now taken as fact. The US was NOT founded on Separation of Church and State. The country was "founded" mostly by groups of religious and political disidents. The Constitution formalized the idea of "Freedom of Religion" (not necessarily Freedom From Religion) and codified the ideal that there would be NO official "State Church" that was so prevalent in Europe from the 14th century on.

In fact, the Founding Fathers were almost without exception very religious men and would most likely been appalled at the lengths we now take to insure that our government remains secular to a fault.


Finally, something we agree on.

Finally, something we agree on.

Oh my lord! Can I go back and totally change that original post? That is a result that was never intended! :D:rolleyes::)

The same argument could be said with almost all things in the Constitution. Interpretations change as time moves forward. The right to bear arms was originally meant to be in place to protect from invasion in case England or another country decided to attempt an invade. It was meant to protect from oppression. Now, people flaunt it specifically so they can keep their guns. There's no threat of invasion and I'm pretty sure our military couldn't handle any such threat without issue.

Since the time of the Constitution, this country has drastically changed culturally and even the religions have changed. I think the separation of Church and State is important for this reason alone, let alone to protect non-religious individuals.

It was meant to protect from oppression. Now, people flaunt it specifically so they can keep their guns. There's no threat of invasion and I'm pretty sure our military couldn't handle any such threat without issue.


Yes, the world is a very different place now. A lot of the "gun clingers", As President Obama referred to them, are terrified the government is going to go all 1984/Brave New World on them. The news that they tend to watch constantly feeds these fears, so it isn't likely to change.


Since the time of the Constitution, this country has drastically changed culturally and even the religions have changed. I think the separation of Church and State is important for this reason alone, let alone to protect non-religious individuals.

I don't even want to imagine our country if such an important part were to have been left out, or if it were to go away.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassago http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1038341#post1038341)
It was meant to protect from oppression. Now, people flaunt it specifically so they can keep their guns. There's no threat of invasion and I'm pretty sure our military couldn't handle any such threat without issue.

Yes, the world is a very different place now. A lot of the "gun clingers", As President Obama referred to them, are terrified the government is going to go all 1984/Brave New World on them. The news that they tend to watch constantly feeds these fears, so it isn't likely to change.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassago http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.access-programmers.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?p=1038341#post1038341)
Since the time of the Constitution, this country has drastically changed culturally and even the religions have changed. I think the separation of Church and State is important for this reason alone, let alone to protect non-religious individuals.

I don't even want to imagine our country if such an important part were to have been left out, or if it were to go away.

It is not the first time the Constitution has been reinterpreted to fit the times. Teddy Roosevelt was known as the Trust Buster. When he was questioned as to the constitutionality of his actions, he addressed this in his first State of the Union speech:

"When the Constitution was adopted at the end of the eighteenth century, no human wisdom could foretell the sweeping changes, alike in industrial and political conditions, which were to take place at the beginning of the twentieth century. At that time it was accepted as a matter of course that the several states were the proper authorities to regulate, so far as was necessary, the comparatively insignificant and strictly localized corporate bodies of the day. The conditions are now wholly different and wholly different action is called for."

Anyone who thinks that conditions have not changed from 1786 until now is a fool. The trick is to stick to the underlying principals of the Constitution and use those as a guideline for our way of government today.

ChipperT: Again, we find common ground.

"Anyone who thinks that conditions have not changed from 1786 until now is a fool. The trick is to stick to the underlying principals of the Constitution and use those as a guideline for our way of government today."

Vasago: The right to bear arms is just as important today as it was then. Any time you have one group of people ruling over another, even in our repoublic, you need the ability to change the ruling party. In the event that peaceful means fail and those in power abuse their authority, force is the last option I would suggest but it is still a necessary option.

More to the original point of this thread, having an armed citizenry can help prevent a repeat of the Catholic church "torturing your body to save your soul" or the Muslim convert or lose your head ultimatum.

As a Christian, I realize that God calls us to follow Him. You still have the choice to so or not. As a realist, I ralize the Muslims feel that there way is right and mine is wrong. Atheists think we're both screwed in the head for believing in God in the first place. Until there is a final settlment of this issue, I.E. God manifesting on earth, it is best that the goverment stay out of this decision.

Ok, I should have checked for spelling and grammar first.....

Until there is a final settlment of this issue, I.E. God manifesting on earth, it is best that the goverment stay out of this decision.

Agreed! :)

Interesting stuff. It's funny, as from my vantage point, as it relates to the US, the separation of church and state is not actually a constitutional issue. Also, the early baptists in England are the ones who 'originated' the idea from what we can tell(google it - John Smyth and Leonard Busher).

Is it an important issue to deal with, yes. But, what the 1st amendment describes is the government mandating or driving the church, not the church being involved in the government(as I read it from an original intent perspective).

The concept of separation and church actually originates from early baptist distinctives and was later adopted as a norm and good principal. Ever since then though, the 1st amendment has been assumed to mean that the church and state have to be completely separate. Although, I do agree to a point and don't necessarily think a government should be a 'theocracy', a government's legal and moral compass should be in part directed by the nature of its citizens. How do you balance that though? I do not know. But the idea that a government only accepts 'secular' ideas and rejects all 'religious' content is ridiculous. Does that mean the government should accept any crackpot crazy off the wall view, heck no. But what it does mean is that a government should be aware, informed, and conscientious of church/religious issues as it relates to the running of a government.

my 2 cents.

Related to the topic at hand - A good book to read on secularization is "A Secular Age" by Charles Taylor. Its a heft book, but well worth it.

Although, I do agree to a point and don't necessarily think a government should be a 'theocracy', a government's legal and moral compass should be in part directed by the nature of its citizens.


In part, yes. But that reminds me of the old saying: "What is right is not always popular, and what is popular is not always right." If certain issues had been left to the legal and moral compass of the majority, we'd be an incredibly backwater nation that supressed minorities.


How do you balance that though? I do not know. But the idea that a government only accepts 'secular' ideas and rejects all 'religious' content is ridiculous.


I don't think it is ridiculous. Secular ideas require the burden of proof, whereas religious ideas are often thought to be above questioning. That's why religious ideas should remain in churches and not codified into law.


Does that mean the government should accept any crackpot crazy off the wall view, heck no. But what it does mean is that a government should be aware, informed, and conscientious of church/religious issues as it relates to the running of a government.


Aware and informed is fine. I'm not sure exactly what you mean by conscientious.

As an example, some religions refuse blood transfusions. For adults that can make up their own minds, that's fine. But when there is a child, the situation gets murky. The parents have instilled these beliefs into their child, and the child has little to no chance to resist such indoctrination.

If it was deemed medically necessary for a child to receive a blood transfusion, should the state be able to mandate that the child receive it over the parent's religious views? I say yes, because the life of a child is more important than the parent's choice fairy tale.

Does that mean the government should accept any crackpot crazy off the wall view, heck no.

Well that covers religion then. Any position based on nothing more than "God said so in this book" is a crackpot belief and does not deserve our respect let alone the right to expect to influence our public policies.

Well that covers religion then. Any position based on nothing more than "God said so in this book" is a crackpot belief and does not deserve our respect let alone the right to expect to influence our public policies.

What? You mean you don't believe in talking burning bushes and a magic man alcoholic zombie that can turn water into wine? I bet Chris Angel could do it.

And they say I'm crazy... :p

You mean you don't believe in talking burning bushes ... :p

I understand that some burning bushes can talk if you inhale the smoke enough of the smoke.

Some species of Acacia do have psychoactive properties and I would not be surprised if some of the original stories were delusions fueled by a drug induced psychosis.

More people in the UK find The Beatles more meaningful than god or religion. The Beatles are certainly more popular than god.----it is quite true, the young people like us would not crae more about the religion now!

More people in the UK find The Beatles more meaningful than god or religion. The Beatles are certainly more popular than god.----it is quite true, the young people like us would not crae more about the religion now!

Eh? :confused: