Are church and state separated enough hear in the U.S.?

[Jopari]

People who want pure separation from church and state should be calling for the removal of religious establishments as non-profit organizations, rendering them intelligible for tax exemptions. Most churches would crumble underneath the financial duress.

I have no problem with churches being non profit. However, when the pastor gets a new convertible without tax because it's 'for business' I have an issue. Corruption is something I don't agree with. Especially in a spiritual establishment.

Otherwise, churches can be tax free.

As for religious ideas influencing political matters, whether you as an individual like it or not, some people rely more on moral convictions rather than ethical mandates. Ignoring the influence of moral persuasion is a recipe for failure in a democratic republic.

Here I'm confused. Are you saying that a candidate wouldn't be viewed as moral if he was an atheist? This goes back to the discussion regarding religion and morals being separate and one not equaling the other.

And what exactly is the difference between a moral conviction and an ethical mandate?

I toss in a null value, finding religious institutions to be extremely helpful on a personal level while apprehensive when clumped together with other motives contrary to doctine.

Yes, they may be helpful on a personal basis. But when they influence the government and such then it goes too far. Even if these motives aren't contrary to their doctrine.

 

[Sinborn]

Here I'm confused. Are you saying that a candidate wouldn't be viewed as moral if he was an atheist? This goes back to the discussion regarding religion and morals being separate and one not equaling the other.
QUOTE]

It depends on his/her platform, not the fact he/she's an atheist or not. Ethics and morals sometimes intertwine and coincide, especially when it comes down to immediate human survival. Unfortunately, people like their cake and want to eat it too, so a single label might render a particular individual unethical or immoral in the eyes of an individual, depending on what motivates you most. What I meant is that you can't expect to win a population's vote solely on ethical, even if they are completely rational, ideas and proposals. On the same token, going for a pursuing a place of power on morality alone will probably lead to failure.

I also come from the school of thought that demands that ethics and morals are not to be considered synonyms. Ethics branch are conjured and motivated through human interactions between each other while morals come from a higher, unquestionable source. I usually don't take the time to sort through every motivation, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to convey.

 

[Sinborn]

Here I'm confused. Are you saying that a candidate wouldn't be viewed as moral if he was an atheist? This goes back to the discussion regarding religion and morals being separate and one not equaling the other.

It depends on his/her platform, not the fact he/she's an atheist or not. Ethics and morals sometimes intertwine and coincide, especially when it comes down to immediate human survival. Unfortunately, people like their cake and want to eat it too, so a single label might render a particular individual unethical or immoral in the eyes of an individual, depending on what motivates you most. What I meant is that you can't expect to win a population's vote solely on ethical, even if they are completely rational, ideas and proposals. On the same token, going for a pursuing a place of power on morality alone will probably lead to failure.

I also come from the school of thought that demands that ethics and morals are not to be considered synonyms. Ethics branch are conjured and motivated through human interactions between each other while morals come from a higher, unquestionable source. I usually don't take the time to sort through every motivation, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to convey.

 

[Jopari]

It depends on his/her platform, not the fact he/she's an atheist or not. Ethics and morals sometimes intertwine and coincide, especially when it comes down to immediate human survival. Unfortunately, people like their cake and want to eat it too, so a single label might render a particular individual unethical or immoral in the eyes of an individual, depending on what motivates you most. What I meant is that you can't expect to win a population's vote solely on ethical, even if they are completely rational, ideas and proposals. On the same token, going for a pursuing a place of power on morality alone will probably lead to failure.

I also come from the school of thought that demands that ethics and morals are not to be considered synonyms. Ethics branch are conjured and motivated through human interactions between each other while morals come from a higher, unquestionable source. I usually don't take the time to sort through every motivation, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to convey.

Thank you for clearing that up.

I agree that running a platform totally on ethics or morality will fail. However, the part about ethics and morals being different intrigues me. I can't say if I disagree or agree, but I do understand what you're getting at.

 

[violent_anger]

from what i heard, that one guy had a problem with his daughter saying "under god" but the mom, on the other hand, had no problem at all. this is all just from year old memories, but unless the mother was religious, it would seem that the guy is bitching about something that isn't so important.

 

[Hollow Bastion]

Except if an atheist or some other non-theist wanted to be patriotic, since the pledge has an unneeded phrase in it that alienates the non-theist.

 

[violent_anger]

it would be really helpful if i knew how religious the mother was...


anyways, if it's as you say, why doesn't the mother mind it?

 

[Hollow Bastion]

anyways, if it's as you say, why doesn't the mother mind it?

Eh, what does what I say have anything to do with the mother? I was just giving some example where a non-theist would see it as important.

 

[Square Ninja]

People who want pure separation from church and state should be calling for the removal of religious establishments as non-profit organizations, rendering them intelligible for tax exemptions. Most churches would crumble underneath the financial duress.

Now that's just retarded. Churches aren't there to make a profit, and by and large they do not. It's not like the state is "funding" a religion. It's serving the public by allow these churches to remain open.

 

[pepsi458]

A wall between Church and state, good on paper and in theory but, in the real world it is a false sense of security that only the naive think exist. In reality this is a one way wall as state attack Church little by little. Example, we are to have freedom of speech and now we are not allowed to pray in some schools that is an example of how the state has attack the Church.

 

[Hollow Bastion]

A wall between Church and state, good on paper and in theory but, in the real world it is a false sense of security that only the naive think exist. In reality this is a one way wall as state attack Church little by little. Example, we are to have freedom of speech and now we are not allowed to pray in some schools that is an example of how the state has attack the Church.

You mean school sponsored prayers? I would imagine such prayers tend to promote a religion. And since it's a public school (and therefore, funded by the government), unless the school plans to present prayers of all faiths, the easier path would be to remove prayer (something religious) from public schools.

That's not an attack on the Church.

 

[pepsi458]

No I do not mean "school sponsored prayers," I mean praying, by yourself in a public school. Some of my friends were praying for one of their classmates during school, in the hall, and they got in trouble.

 

[Hollow Bastion]

Technically, you are allowed to pray in school, but not during school-sponsored events (unless it's a private prayer or whatever) and the like. If you pray before a test or something, technically nothing can be done to you. Unless it's disruptive to the class.

 

[Reflection]

In the modern world, I honestly don't think separating people's religions are that important. People getting offended by Christmas carols, not being allowed to sing musical masterpieces in school choirs because they are psalms or something from the Bible, it's hurting more than it's helping, in my opinion.

 

[Genocide]

You mean school sponsored prayers? I would imagine such prayers tend to promote a religion. And since it's a public school (and therefore, funded by the government), unless the school plans to present prayers of all faiths, the easier path would be to remove prayer (something religious) from public schools.

That's not an attack on the Church.

Even though it would go against the foundation of the country, I think there should. It might help cut down on the underage sex with students the teachers are having, or help cut down on retards who come to school dressed like Reno and Sephiroth, kidnap a girl, burn her house down, and stab her in the stomach. Yes, I'm talking about about a specific event.

I also think that spanking should be reinstated.

 

[Square Ninja]

Even though it would go against the foundation of the country, I think there should.

Quoted for being exactly like the current GOP.

 

[var1ables]

No I do not mean "school sponsored prayers," I mean praying, by yourself in a public school. Some of my friends were praying for one of their classmates during school, in the hall, and they got in trouble.

Freedom of excercise clause of the first amendment.They can't do that. Based on the first and ninth.

You see the problem with people like you, is that you've been brainwashed.Your church has told you "they banned prayer in schools " which is true, but what they should say is "they've banned school sponsored prayers," which is what all the courts and laws are about. It's so you can't support a religion and show all others as inferior. IE Christianity over Islam, Islam over Judaism etc.

Even though it would go against the foundation of the country, I think there should. It might help cut down on the underage sex with students the teachers are having, or help cut down on retards who come to school dressed like Reno and Sephiroth, kidnap a girl, burn her house down, and stab her in the stomach. Yes, I'm talking about about a specific event.

Yeah, cause religion has really cut down on sexual abuse.

 

[Angel]

when we worship the american flag with a prayer at the start of each school day?

no.

 

[Square Ninja]

when we worship the american flag with a prayer at the start of each school day?

no.

The Pledge of Allegiance is not prayer. Don't like "under God?" Don't say it.

 

[Angel]

The Pledge of Allegiance is not prayer. Don't like "under God?" Don't say it.

how is it not a prayer?

Prayer is the act of attempting to communicate, commonly with a sequence of words, with a deity or spirit for the purpose of worshipping, requesting guidance, requesting assistance, confessing sins or to express one's thoughts and emotions. The words of the prayer may take the form of a hymn, incantation or a spontaneous utterance in the person's praying words. Secularly, the term can also be used as an alternative to "hope".

I'd say that the pledge fits under that. And "Under God" doesnt bother me. The fact that we are FORCED to gather and place our hands over our hearts(quite similar to joining hands in prayer) to "worship" a stationary object bothers me.