Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Raven667

Separation of Church and State

95 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Raven667

I'm a big believer in separation of Church and State but a lot of times I hear preachers say we must obey our Government weather we like it or not I find that a lot of churches are becoming State run Jesus clearly says in Mark 12:17 keep what is Caesars Caesar's and keep what is Gods  God's to me that says that Jesus was for separation of church and state but the bible also talks about respect for Authority feel free to give your thoughts on this

 

 

 

 

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Too late... 

Quote

JSX1A37BZpJQIwvMsFn2YhogE-S-GgMRCLmAw5RC

~

 

  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
lightly

  The word "God" doesn't appear anywhere in the U.S. Constitution...or the bill of rights..but I think it's in every state constitution ?  The words "in the year of our lord" does.   Many of the founding fathers were deists (who believed a supreme being created the universe to operate by natural laws..and then ended 'it's' involvement.)  in God we trust first appeared on coins after the civil war, and on paper money under Eisenhower in 1956. ..also added to the pledge of alleigence then were the words "one nation under God".  

I notice now that many on the "right" have adopted the stance that they are god's people and that the "left" are godless Marxist heathens.   :rolleyes:.  (this phenomenon can be witnessed by watching Fox News..for one example).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cookie Monster
Posted (edited)
5 hours ago, Raven667 said:

I'm a big believer in separation of Church and State but a lot of times I hear preachers say we must obey our Government weather we like it or not I find that a lot of churches are becoming State run Jesus clearly says in Mark 12:17 keep what is Caesars Caesar's and keep what is Gods  God's to me that says that Jesus was for separation of church and state but the bible also talks about respect for Authority feel free to give your thoughts on this

If someone believes in God, then they have to also accept that God either puts in place or allows to arise the Governments which exist.

That even includes Hitler and Stalin, Glad the Impaler and Genghis Khan. So if we accept God exists we can realise that he might well use a Government to do work on us. I think the Biblical passages are about realising a despot has power over us, remaining loyal and faithful to God, and letting God deal with it.

Going with the plights of many in the Bible, they held strong and then God saved them.

Edited by Cookie Monster
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1066
3 hours ago, lightly said:

also added to the pledge of alleigence then were the words "one nation under God".  

That was done in the mistaken belief that communists were atheists.  It was a deliberate attempt to discriminate against atheists.  The Russian govt was officially atheist, but most Russians still kept an Orthodox shrine in their homes.  That's one reason I don't say the pledge:  it is devisive and discriminatory.  It also commits one to support the US govt, even when its "leaders" violate the Constitution.

Doug

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Doug1066
2 hours ago, third_eye said:

History says... 

~

 

In Against Apion, Josephus argues that Apion was wrong in his identification of the Pharaoh of the Exodus.  To do this, he quotes Apion that the Pharaoh of the Exodus had a father named Ramses and a son named Ramses, but did not have that name himself.  Josephus argued that there was no such person, but I note that Seti I had a father named Ramses (Ramese I) and a son named Ramses (Ramses II), but he himself was named Seti.

A copy of the Egyptian Hymn to the Sun came from Ay's (the successor of Tutankaten) tomb.  It has an altogether embarrassing resemblence to the 104th Psalm.

The Pharaoh of the Oppression was most-likely Horemheb, who had it in for the believers in Akhenamen's failed religion.

Horemheb was succeeded by Ramses i, one of his generals.  Ramses I was on the throne for only 14 months before dying of an ear infection.

Ramses I was succeeded by his son Seti I.  While Horemheb was still alive, Seti was commissioned to build a new city, Piramesse (City of Ramses, meaning Ramses I).  Seti was directed by an oracle that if he wanted to be privy to the council of the gods, he should round up all "lepers and unclean people" and expel them from Egypt, but Seti needed workers and there were all these people he had rounded up.  So he forced them to work on his city, thus, the story that the Israelites were slaves.

The story of the Sojourn in Egypt fits neatly into the Amarna Period.  And the subsequent oppression of the "Israelites" stems directly from their being followers of the Aten (Adon, Aden, Adonai).

I submit that Akenaten's sun god is the one we now call Jehovah, the one worshipped by both Jews and Christians.

Doug

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
11 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Are you a Christian?

If so, I guess however you interpret his supposed words is how you would feel about a given subject. But that's obviously a subjective interpretation that could have proponents on either side.

Being an atheist, I support separation of church and state mainly because religion, in general, should never have a say in what is ultimately for the good of all the people. 

State affairs must be all inclusive.

Comparative religion classes in school? Sure.

Asserting to impressionable children that any one religious fairy tale is true because they say it's true? No way.

The ten commandments plastered around on state grounds? Nope.

One of the reasons is that if one religious group is allowed to promote their propaganda in state affairs, then all religions have that right.

The only possible conclusion to that scenario is conflict.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion is only possible if the government doesn't pick sides. The government is supposed to represent everyone.

Christians want the ten commandments placed on state grounds, yet they get all bent out of shape when Satanists want to place a Baphomet statue next to it.

Do they think they are special or something?

Holier than thou kind of thinking?

Standing ovation on this post. Well said.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nosy.Matters

here HERE !!!!!!

 

 

 . . my worthy little two bits.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raven667

To prove the dangers of mixing Church and Government look at England and Europe they would burn you at the stake if they thought your were a witch 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, onlookerofmayhem said:

Are you a Christian?

If so, I guess however you interpret his supposed words is how you would feel about a given subject. But that's obviously a subjective interpretation that could have proponents on either side.

Being an atheist, I support separation of church and state mainly because religion, in general, should never have a say in what is ultimately for the good of all the people. 

State affairs must be all inclusive.

Comparative religion classes in school? Sure.

Asserting to impressionable children that any one religious fairy tale is true because they say it's true? No way.

The ten commandments plastered around on state grounds? Nope.

One of the reasons is that if one religious group is allowed to promote their propaganda in state affairs, then all religions have that right.

The only possible conclusion to that scenario is conflict.

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion is only possible if the government doesn't pick sides. The government is supposed to represent everyone.

Christians want the ten commandments placed on state grounds, yet they get all bent out of shape when Satanists want to place a Baphomet statue next to it.

Do they think they are special or something?

Holier than thou kind of thinking?

Just to address the bit I bolded

Australia has identical wording in it's constitution  to the US ( we copied it from you ) However our interpretation is different 

Ie we actually allow and encourage the bit you have bolded, so tha t any religion has the same rights as the non religious or any other religion Prayers of any sort can be said in a school or a govt. workplace  Any religion's icons clothing etc are protected by law as a right  in a workplace  However any non religious person has the right to opt out protected by the same laws   So a non religious person or group cant override the rights of the religious but the religious cant override the rights of the  non religious 

Rather than violence, it seems to promote peace and equality But then, we are perhaps one of the most multi cultural nations on earth  (second after Luxembourg ,pop 700 000, and equal with Switzerland,  pop 8.5 million, compared with Australia's 25 million plus )

\quote

Report author Riyana Miranti, of Canberra University, says migrants make up a quarter of Australia's population.

"Compared to the OECD (Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development) average, which is only 11 per cent, and in comparison to other countries, this is almost double that of the United States and more than twice that of the United Kingdom," she said.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2010-11-17/australia-second-most-multicultural-country/2339884

Democracy should mean that ALL groups have a right to promote their own beliefs and interests, and that ALL people have a right to act upon their own beliefs and moralities, where the y don't hurt others  or breach basic human rights. 

 

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Orphalesion said:

Separation of Church and State is, in my opinion, a requirement for a modern, stable society. People can believe what they want, but society itself must be secular, both to keep it as fair as possible for everyone, and because the rules of most religions are ancient and written for an ancient society, not a modern one, and influenced by whatever agenda their (decidedly human!) writer(s) had at the time .

When 90% of a population are not secular (although the y may not attend a church) ,how can you justify a democracy being secular?  Voters will vote for people and laws who/which match their own values and beliefs. Only when most people are secular, can/will a democracy legitimately become secular.

The issue, and aim,  is equality for all, no matter what you believe or disbelieve. 

Thus, a person's rights to believe and worship, and live a religious lifestyle within the law, (whatever their religion)  should be protected, and so too should a person's right to do neither.

Australia is a modern stable society, and one of the most desired places to live, in the world,

yet

quote

When European States ceased enforcing one particular brand of Christianity on their subjects, whether it was Protestantism or Catholicism, citizens were relatively free to choose which version of the Christian religion that they wished to adhere to without fear of reprisal. It became a natural consequence, especially concurrent with the advent of philosophical rationalism and developing political theories stressing individual freedoms, for the choice to be whether one even wanted to be religious at all. Thus, secularism emerged in Christian Europe as a way of dissolving religious sectarianism, neutering the political ambitions of the Church and promoting religious freedom.

The Australian constitution was drawn up in this context, and Australia was intended as a secular nation. However, this secularity was never intended to sanitize the public square of religion. It was "secular" in the sense of ensuring that sectarian divisions in the old world would not be imported into the new.

This is why there is still so much religious paraphernalia in our constitution and parliamentary traditions. The assumption of our founding documents and practices was that most people would be religious at least some of the time, and they were free to choose when, how and where. Consequently our secular education system was never envisaged as prohibitive of religious instruction, only prohibitive of one religion being allowed to be imposed and to dominate.

In the post-World War II period, secularism became a great platform for multiculturalism and pluralism. This happened initially by virtue of our place in the British Commonwealth, which was diverse both culturally and religiously, and where Commonwealth countries facilitated heightened levels of interaction and transmigration.

Secularism subsequently became a way of supporting multiculturalism whereby numerous cultures with their diverse customs and religions could co-exist in a society that had no mandated religious adherence. Where religion is a matter of conscience, then relative freedoms and opportunities abound. This is not the case in many parts of the world. It was not true of the old communist bloc in the 1950s-90s, and it doesn't apply to much of the Middle East today, for example.

https://www.abc.net.au/religion/whose-religion-which-secularism-australia-has-a-serious-religiou/10097856

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

When 90% of a population are not secular (although the y may not attend a church) ,how can you justify a democracy being secular?  Voters will vote for people and laws who/which match their own values and beliefs. Only when most people are secular, can/will a democracy legitimately become secular.

In one version of the American theory, by priciples of (1) limited power of government and (2) divided power of government (among three branches, but also within the non-executive branches themselves, PLUS between federal and state governments, and within state governments, among its branches and in some states, between the state government and its minor civil divisions). Although some of the states allow episodic "direct democracy" (e.g. a few referenda on the annual or biennial election ballot), the federal government does not.

This is a conception of "legitimacy" in which what power there is derives from the people, but the people do not have each and every power that any sovreign has ever historically wielded. That these limitations and dispersals of government power were "undemocratic" was recognized and accepted from the outset. In fact, at the very outset, voting was limited to mature adult  male taxpayers (which in practice would be property owners or professionals).

People have been arguing about whence comes legitimacy for governments as far back as we have records, so I hesitate to invest heavily in defending this one view in this forum. However, you did make a global statement about legitimacy in a democratic context, and I rise to dissent. The American founders crafted something founded in democracy, but with limitations they felt were needed to avoid collective tyranny. One phrase of theirs which I especially admire (these dudes could write) is that these limitations on popular sovreignity were to allow "appeal from the people drunk to the people sober."

Other views are possible of course.

Edited by eight bits
To highlight what part of the quote was being answered.
  • Like 4
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
Posted (edited)
9 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

When 90% of a population are not secular (although the y may not attend a church) ,how can you justify a democracy being secular?  Voters will vote for people and laws who/which match their own values and beliefs. Only when most people are secular, can/will a democracy legitimately become secular.

I had a little different interpretation on what you were getting at here than 8.  To me 'democracy' is a process, it's how a government operates (although we can use the word 'democracy' more generally as 'nation' too which may be more of how you were referring to it).  In the sense of a democracy as a process, a democracy made up of religious people can be secular for the same reason that it's possible for orthodox Jewish people to make non-kosher food; there's what they believe and then there's what they do.

There seems to be an assumption in the above about how religious people will vote also that may not be justified - just because a person is religious it doesn't follow that their beliefs prescribe anything about how the government must be structured and what rights we have.  I forget the details now but I think it was religious believers in Rhode Island during the construction of our Constitution who argued for the 1st Amendment's 'separation' clauses, as they wanted protections to practice their specific religion without govt interference; they saw freedom of religion as a benefit to their religious practice.  Or more simply, a democracy can establish and enforce a national religion or a democracy can establish freedom of religion so it's helpful to have a word to distinguish between these, like 'secular' for the latter situation.

Edited by Liquid Gardens
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I forget the details now but I think it was religious believers in Rhode Island during the construction of our Constitution who argued for the 1st Amendment's 'separation' clauses, as they wanted protections to practice their specific religion without govt interference; they saw freedom of religion as a benefit to their religious practice. 

Yes, Rhode Island from its beginnings practiced church-state separation. Roger Williams, a Christian minister and founder of Rhode Island preached separation as an expression of Christianity. Most vividly, maybe, in his luridly titled The Bloody Tenet of Persecution (1640):

Quote

An enforced uniformity of religion throughout a nation or civil state, confounds the civil and religious, denies the principles of Christianity and civility, and that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.

The current Constitution of Rhode Island (Article I section 3) combines both Roger Williams' ideals and Thomas Jefferson's famous Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, dotting the legal i's and crossing the legal t's:

Quote

Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; and all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burdens, or by civil incapacitations, tend to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness; and whereas a principal object of our venerable ancestors, in their migration to this country and their settlement of this state, was, as they expressed it, to hold forth a lively experiment that a flourishing civil state may stand and be best maintained with full liberty in religious concernments; we, therefore, declare that no person shall be compelled to frequent or to support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatever, except in fulfillment of such person’s voluntary contract; nor enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in body or goods; nor disqualified from holding any office; nor otherwise suffer on account of such person’s religious belief; and that every person shall be free to worship God according to the dictates of such person’s conscience, and to profess and by argument to maintain such person’s opinion in matters of religion; and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect the civil capacity of any  person.

In closing, there's also an interesting intergenerational conversation that went on between Williams and Jefferson. The usual etymology of the phrase a wall of separation between church and state is Jefferson's 1802 letter to the Danbury Connecticut Baptists. And so it is,

https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

But Jefferson's root source is plainly Williams (Mr Cotton's Letter latlely published, examined and answered, 1644). Williams's wall didn't just separate church and state; his set off the church from all secular affairs:

Quote

When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World.

Rhode Island rocks.

Edited by eight bits
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
11 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Rhode Island rocks.

Thanks!  I knew it was 'Roger W' but I think in the past I've meant to mention theologian Roger Williams and accidentally mentioned Roger Whittaker who's a crooner who used to have commercials on the tube for his K-Tel greatest hits collection album when I was a kid, and thus his name is stuck in my brain forever.  Not quite the same person.... 

I like Williams' points not just because I'm not religious but because it seems to me the most consistent with Jesus' teaching about what is to be rendered to Caesar and that this world is not their kingdom.  I'm not aware of him even suggesting that believers should try to make the government/laws more 'biblical' (which may be because he wasn't expecting governments/the world to be around much longer). To me, of what I'm aware of, Jesus taught this separation if not in so many words then by example.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
fred_mc

In Sweden, where I live, the church was separated from the state in the year 2000. After that, more and more people who were earlier born to become members have left the church, and immigrants/newborns have chosen not to become members. It is now about 55 % of the population who are members.

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
13 hours ago, eight bits said:

In one version of the American theory, by priciples of (1) limited power of government and (2) divided power of government (among three branches, but also within the non-executive branches themselves, PLUS between federal and state governments, and within state governments, among its branches and in some states, between the state government and its minor civil divisions). Although some of the states allow episodic "direct democracy" (e.g. a few referenda on the annual or biennial election ballot), the federal government does not.

This is a conception of "legitimacy" in which what power there is derives from the people, but the people do not have each and every power that any sovreign has ever historically wielded. That these limitations and dispersals of government power were "undemocratic" was recognized and accepted from the outset. In fact, at the very outset, voting was limited to mature adult  male taxpayers (which in practice would be property owners or professionals).

People have been arguing about whence comes legitimacy for governments as far back as we have records, so I hesitate to invest heavily in defending this one view in this forum. However, you did make a global statement about legitimacy in a democratic context, and I rise to dissent. The American founders crafted something founded in democracy, but with limitations they felt were needed to avoid collective tyranny. One phrase of theirs which I especially admire (these dudes could write) is that these limitations on popular sovreignity were to allow "appeal from the people drunk to the people sober."

Other views are possible of course.

Yes the American system is admirable as an example to the world, both historically and in the present day  but it is not the most "democratic " of systems.

IMO Australia is a more "direct" democracy especially with it's preferential system of voting   but could be improved with citizen initiated referenda. It is very hard to change the constitution here, requiring a majority in a majority of states to do so. 

Yes the state wields power but theoretically a the servant of the people not the master.  If the people don't like a government they can remove it 

I don't have problem with this, in either theory or practice.  Humans require  laws, enforcement, and  judgements, to be constructed by the state to maintain  equality,  stability, and order;  and to protect the weak from the strong 

There are many models of democracy and i think the word encompasses them all  and differentiates them from non democratic systems 

If the peole can remove a govt. by their votes, then we have a democracy and (to me) this confers legitimacy of govt .

Govts which cannot be removed at the will of the people have no legitimacy 

This is a big difference, as people in such states have a right, and perhaps a duty to resist and attempt to overthrow such govts. by force . No such right exists in a democratic/legitimate govt. 

Within that overarching principle, govts. retain legitimacy even when the y make laws which are not popular or just, because, if the people don't agree, the people  can alter or remove the govt 

The best govts make provision for compromise and the rights of minorities and individuals  but that's not essential or a govt. to be democratic or legitimate. 

 IMO, democracy cant truly be collective tyranny because people have the abilty to either alter the system or leave it  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
12 hours ago, Liquid Gardens said:

I had a little different interpretation on what you were getting at here than 8.  To me 'democracy' is a process, it's how a government operates (although we can use the word 'democracy' more generally as 'nation' too which may be more of how you were referring to it).  In the sense of a democracy as a process, a democracy made up of religious people can be secular for the same reason that it's possible for orthodox Jewish people to make non-kosher food; there's what they believe and then there's what they do.

There seems to be an assumption in the above about how religious people will vote also that may not be justified - just because a person is religious it doesn't follow that their beliefs prescribe anything about how the government must be structured and what rights we have.  I forget the details now but I think it was religious believers in Rhode Island during the construction of our Constitution who argued for the 1st Amendment's 'separation' clauses, as they wanted protections to practice their specific religion without govt interference; they saw freedom of religion as a benefit to their religious practice.  Or more simply, a democracy can establish and enforce a national religion or a democracy can establish freedom of religion so it's helpful to have a word to distinguish between these, like 'secular' for the latter situation.

Yes that is true IF people don't expect laws to reflect  their beliefs, attitudes, and values 

However most people do, and wont tolerate laws or rules which run strongly  counter  to their basic beliefs. Thus a mildly religious population like Australia  can tolerate more secularism than  a popultion which is strongly religious  Thus things like  abortion  and  euthanasia become legal but laws still reflect common values such as no public nudity 

The quotes I gave indicate that secularism originated, not as meaning a  non religious state, but one in which all religions (and non region) was equally accepted. 

and indeed its the fundamentalist  in America who argue most strongly for the separation  of religion (church)  and state because they fear state interference in their religious beliefs and practices.

This goes back to the founding of America by people who came there to escape  a  church state which was religious and allowed only one belief 

America was not founded  by peole seeking to keep the state non religious but those who wanted it to protect religious freedoms 

Gradual court rulings have moved this more to the state  not allowing any religious observance in state institutions In Australia we went the other way with the same wording  allowing freedom for all/any  religious expression in state institutions,  well as non religious .The only caveat is that religious practice must not break other laws, so bigamy, child marriage, a sacrifice and  animal cruelty  etc are illegal 

However, theoretically, a school could have satanic prayers and ceremonies, if the parents approved them and attendance was voluntary  . They certainly have Christian, Muslim, Jewish and other ones. 

Today there are over 50 countries' with a state religion Some are not democracies but others, like Great Britain, are .

There are only about 30 countries which have officially declined to  establish any religion (including America,  France, and Australia,  each of which treats the separation  of church and state in a different way )

 

Ps, you gave a good answer to my question.

That is one way a religious population could allow for a secular state,  but i suspect that it's laws would still reflect many of the values and beliefs of it's population. People don't like being/living,  TOO out of kilter with their core vales and beliefs. 

So, until recently, there has been little or no public transport in Israel over their Sabbath .

As opinions change, this has altered a little 

 

quote

Israel is well-connected with buses, trains and trams but the Jewish state upholds unique religious restrictions. Public transport is seriously reduced on the Sabbath, or Shabbat, and many Jewish parts of the country shut down completely.

Broadly enforced since the country’s founding, the policy has been fiercely defended by traditionalist rabbis. While majority Muslim towns and religiously mixed municipalities, such as Haifa, have separate rules, Jewish majority areas have long upheld the policy.

Now, and for the first time, public transportation is available on the holy day of rest – nightfall Friday to nightfall Saturday – in Tel Aviv, the epicentre of secular Israel, where residents have been demanding a change for decades. A limited service began in late November with free buses connecting Tel Aviv with satellite cities surrounding it.

A recent survey found 60% of Israelis were in favour of public transport services on Shabbat, as long as their routes avoid areas where there is a religious or ultra-Orthodox majority. Some 97% of ultra-Orthodox respondents were opposed.

https://www.theguardian.com/cities/2019/dec/28/secular-israel-sabbath-buses

Edited by Mr Walker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
10 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

and indeed its the fundamentalist  in America who argue most strongly for the separation  of religion (church)  and state because they fear state interference in their religious beliefs and practices.

Not fundamentalists generally in the USA, but characteristically SDA. Many of them have a recurrent fantasy that there is a bill pending in Congress to make Sunday the national day of worship. Here's a more-than-usually progressive SDA source discussing the situation:

https://atoday.org/are-sunday-laws-coming/

(Meta-note: you sometimes seem surpised that your readers know that you're an SDA apologist. Partly it's remarks like the quoted one, that reflect what can only be an SDA view of the world.)

Some secular libertarians (like me) believe that church-state separation is a factor explaining why religion is still such a strong  political and social force in the US compared with other developed countries worldwide. If so, then fundamentalists ought to be boosters of separation, since that supports their interests. But, people don't necessarily agree with other people about what's in their best interests, and even when they do, they don't necessarily act that way.

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Mr Walker
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, eight bits said:

Not fundamentalists generally in the USA, but characteristically SDA. Many of them have a recurrent fantasy that there is a bill pending in Congress to make Sunday the national day of worship. Here's a more-than-usually progressive SDA source discussing the situation:

https://atoday.org/are-sunday-laws-coming/

(Meta-note: you sometimes seem surpised that your readers know that you're an SDA apologist. Partly it's remarks like the quoted one, that reflect what can only be an SDA view of the world.)

Some secular libertarians (like me) believe that church-state separation is a factor explaining why religion is still such a strong  political and social force in the US compared with other developed countries worldwide. If so, then fundamentalists ought to be boosters of separation, since that supports their interests. But, people don't necessarily agree with other people about what's in their best interests, and even when they do, they don't necessarily act that way.

 

Actually both my   political  studies and  modern sources show that most American Fundamentalists want to retain separation, for the same reasons it was instituted ie to protect THEM from  govt influence and control  If the y thought THEY could form the church/state it might be different, but hey know they cant  eg which brand of fundamentalism or which church would become the state ? 

What they have long sought to do ,without challenging the separation  is to make American LAWS reflect their own ethical /moral positions  Due to their dominance   demographically the y have had some successes, particularly in states but less so at the federal level  eg you dont have to have a state religion to ban or restrict abortions 

I dont know what the SDA position is on this   It has great concerns about  a religious state evolving in the US, and world wide, but i think modern sociological trends make this unlikely. 

ps Sunday laws always existed, and continue to exist  (despite serous reductions)  even with the separation of church and state,  because of tradition and other factors like  working hours being set by law. 

In Australia  there is a greater protection If your religious beefs require a certain days rest or other restrictions this cannot be used to discriminate  against  you in employment 

So, from Adventist, to Jew or Muslim,  to catholic to aboriginal/indigenous,  your cultural/religious beliefs are protected 

And no, you don't KNOW any such thing. You are making judgements based on beliefs which are false  You are then making false statements in an attempt to discredit anything I post  Once upon a time i thought you were a better person than this but you are like many others, allowing your prejudices and beliefs' to taint your posting 

Ive explained outlined all this before, but for your own reasons you choose to believe i am lying. Only when you appreciate that EVERYTHING i post here is as true as i can make t will you understand me, and my views  

Personally, I like the SDA lifestyle eg vegetarian, exercise,  the importance of literature and good health  , no drugs or alcohol, but i don't follow it's religious beliefs( eg i am an evolutionist )  I am not a member of their church and haven't attended  any church  (of any denomination) for religious purposes, for over 30 years.

  I live with god.

i don't need a religion, theology, belief or a faith, to connect with god :)   

Edited by Mr Walker
  • Like 1
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
Posted (edited)
7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

If the y thought THEY could form the church/state it might be different, but hey know they cant  eg which brand of fundamentalism or which church would become the state ?

In some states, it is perfectly clear that fundies have the organization and base numbers to get what they want and care about from those states, were it legally possible for them to do so. That's especially relevant to education, which is largely a state-level (or in some states, local-level through high school) enterprise. Health care is currently in flux between state and federal dominance, but a good deal of regualtory power still resides at the state level.

Yes, all coalition politics has the problem of dividing up the spoils within the coalition. Doubtless, come the day of Jesus's victory over secularism, denomiation A will squabble with denomination B

.That doesn't stop other coalitions from forming and pushing compromise agendas, why should religious coalitions hesitate? Massachusetts managed an establishment in which any Protestant denomination could be (and one of them must be) tax supported according to local option. That system survived for more than a generation after statehood was achieved - God can sort these things out, apparently

7 hours ago, Mr Walker said:

And no, you don't KNOW any such thing

Well, forum rules forbid gambling propositions, which is too bad, 'cause this is a sucker bet.

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.