Separation of Church and State (1 Viewer)

[Vassago]

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.

 

[Adam Caramon]

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.

 

[ChipperT]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Vassago
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
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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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.

 

[Insane_ai]

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

 

[Vassago]

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!

 

[venivici]

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.

 

[Adam Caramon]

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.

 

[Galaxiom]

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.

 

[Vassago]

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...

 

[Galaxiom]

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

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.

 

[house]

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!

 

[Rich]

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?