Jeff...

I happen to BE a Christian. However, a long time ago, I was given a bit of insight that I have grown to believe is the basis of the problems we have here on earth:

"God created faith. Man created religion".

It is not God's problem that man has decided to use the idea of "religion" in many cases as a means of control. To me, true faith includes the acceptance that I will never understand ther mind of God. IMHO, those who think they have a direct line are probably the most disillusioned souls of all.

As for murder done in the name of religion (although it is really about other things), Northern Ireland comes to mind. I am sure there are other historical situations of a similar nature, but I like to think that things in the Christian camp is better than even in the not-so-distant past (30 years ago) where a Catholic young man was denied the right to be "best man" at his buddy's Baptist wedding.

I agree with everything you say, Bob. Man was bound to make a mess of it, and we have done a damn fine job.

I'm not so sure Northern Ireland is as much a religious problem as a nationalist problem. It's really more about the invading English than anything else. Yes, they brought their Protestantism with them in the deal, and it adds to the strife. I do think the strife and violence would be there, however, even if the English elbowing their way in were Catholic.

Ahhh -- But since this thread started on Christianity, Jesus did not "accept anyone's views of god, versions of the bible and lifestyle without rancor, judgement". He accepted anyone -- true. But in the case of the women caught in adultry for example - he specifically told her to "go and leave your life of sin", so he was obviously making a judgment that her previous actions had not been acceptable. He also took serious issue with the lifestyles, actions and beliefs of people like the Pharasees. But that didn't mean that he condemned all of the Pharasees as people -- Joseph of Arimathea being one prominant exception. And let's not fail to mention Jesus's reaction to the the tax collectors and money changers who cheated people out of their money. And his cousin and advance man -- John the Baptist, had more then a few things to say about Harod's lifestyle.

I would agree that he didn't seem too interested in setting public policy.

The point? It is very important for people to judge the beliefs, lifestyles and actions of others in so much as they/we have to chose to adopt them or not. You're doing it yourself right now. But fundimentally, it is critical that whatever conclusions we draw, that we need to be sure to still love the person as a valuable being in their own right. Nobody is trash. But their ideas may be.

Interesting how this read with just a few words changed-

Exactly, When I referred to "country" in my above post, immediately it was equated to the a certain country. Wrong. All "countries" have a set of "laws" of which they must promote as the correct one (or else why would anyone ever join?), therefore they are at odds with the next "country" with different beliefs. This is true of all countries, although they all don't resort to violence every time.
Truth is all organized countries are by nature bigots and promote separation. Otherwise they would accept anyones views on law, versions of the freedom and lifestyle, etc., without rancor, judgment, or trying to set public policy (laws).

This statement is true no matter which viewpoint you happen to take. I totally agree.

Mike

Yes, we all make judgements (decisions),I'm not against that. But we should not force those decisions on others using religion as the reason. No public policy should be based on religious reasoning (there's an oxymoron!). And yet this is exactly what religions do.

"Thou shall not murder" and "Thou shall not steal" are religious directives. Does this mean that they shouldn't be instilled in public policy?

They are also secular objectives that run contrary to the necessary stable functionings of our society. The logic that drives them exists independent of religious decree.

Morality <> Religion, or more correctly (as someone succinctly put it the other day), Religion != Morality.

Religious institutions have NO monopoly on morality or "correct" codes of behavior. They are good for suggesting what MIGHT be good rules of behavior, but have no business either claiming that they are absolutely correct, nor for attempting to etch such rules into policy through the secular political process.

All social organizations have had to formulate "rules to live by". This is true of every social organization, religious or not. Morality has been successfully developed by many non-religious groups as well as all different types of religious groups from Wiccans to cannibals.

They were secular directives long before they were religious directives.

Mike

Seems to me that atheism is increasing with time, and older cultures were far more religious than those of today. I'd say that separation of church and state had to be established because prior to that there was no separation.

And the problems of mingling secular government with religious dogma were so well-known, so ubiquitous and so inescapable that it took something truly revolutionary like the establishment of a new nation with new visionary founding principles to finally break the cycle of stupidity, corruption, manipulation and deceit that had existed for centuries before in EVERY society where religious objectives had been able to manifest themselves through laws and policy.

Sorry, but ANY implication that the doctrine of separation of church & state is incorrect or misguided will draw my greatest ire, criticism and attacks. This principle MUST be defended as one of the core principles of our society and our way of life - if it is weakened or eliminated we will unquestionably slide down the slippery slope towards the ignorance, intolerance and misguided stupidity that all those generations before us were condemned to live under, by virtue of the fact that they lived before our visionary founding fathers dragged us up out of the muck and established a system with a shread of dignity, honor and legitimacy to it.

The Declaration of Independence acknowledges "The Creator" as the source of each individual's "inalienable rights" Our form of government is based on individual sovereignty. Government was to derive it's power from "The People".

Like other perversions of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, religion was to be protected from government, not vice-versa. The perverted concept of "Separation of Church and State" has been perpetuated by those who would drive traditional religious concepts, that were at the heart of our country's founding, out of existence.

The perpetrators of such perversions have a simple agenda. If you remove the source of individual sovereignty, namely "The Creator", you can move more swiftly toward collectivism and control by the government.

That leaves us hurdling toward a much different form of government where people have such freedoms as are granted by a totalitarian government.

Oh wait, that's pretty much where we are already.

So, good luck with that.

"Like other perversions of The Declaration of Independence and The Constitution, religion was to be protected from government, not vice-versa. The perverted concept of "Separation of Church and State" has been perpetuated by those who would drive traditional religious concepts, that were at the heart of our country's founding, out of existence.

The perpetrators of such perversions have a simple agenda. If you remove the source of individual sovereignty, namely "The Creator", you can move more swiftly toward collectivism and control by the government."



This is simple tripe. Sorry, any reading of the exact words in letters and diaries of the majority of our Founding Fathers clearly indicates they want total separation of church (any "church") and state. This is not any form of deconstructive history, it is simple truth in their own words.

Well said. The American ideal of power vested in the people, and rights inherent in the individual, is based upon a creator having made all men equal. This is at odds with the European and British fantasy of "breeding" determining social class.

One cannot ignore the influence of state run churches at that time, either. They represented another old world concept that our founding fathers were carefull to distance themselves from in the formation of this new nation. They were very much aware of the need to protect the church from the state. They saw no need to protect the state from the church.

The church has no official role in our government. It shouldn't. Many folks seem to confuse the role of church members in government vs. the church's role in government. It is to be expected that folks will vote for their representatives based at least somewhat upon their moral convictions. That appears to be alright with the disingenious that vote their own moral convictions (however derived) but recoil at the thought of anyone voting theirs, if those convictions happen to be religious in any way.

Jeff wrote:
"One cannot ignore the influence of state run churches at that time, either. They represented another old world concept that our founding fathers were carefull to distance themselves from in the formation of this new nation. They were very much aware of the need to protect the church from the state. They saw no need to protect the state from the church. "

This is not true. The Founding Fathers knew full well the horrors of mixing religion with politics and choose not to in both ways. No state supported single church AND no single church supported state. You were granted the right to practice any religion and the freedom to ignore all religions. First time in recorded history. And the best idea they had.

RPKESQ, what is the source of the individual's inalienable rights garunteed in the documents drafted by our founding fathers?

I think we are kind of saying the same thing. The Founding Fathers did not give any church an official role in government. With that foundation, there was no need to protect government from the church. There is simply no way for any church to encroach upon government under such a system. Hence, no need to protect government from them.

I think what is happening today is that folks are confusing representative government with church interference. Members of various churches get elected to public office. One would expect them to champion their beliefs by way of writing and voting on laws that support their ideals. Same with any other office holder; if a community elects a gay representative, one would hope he or she whould work for the rights and values held by gays. When a minority candidate wins, one would expect them to have and promote a greater interest in minority rights. We elect representatives that will promote what we think is right; it's how a community voices its wishes in our system.

In this system, the only voice that some would label as off-limits today is the religious voice. They base their assertions on a foggy missunderstanding of the nature of the separation between church and state. The intent was never to keep people from voicing their desires through their representatives, no matter from whence those desires originate, even from within the church. Again, everyone bases their values upon something; to exclude those that base theirs upon religious tenets is certainly not what the Founding Fathers had in mind.

I see the modern Liberal movement as miss-representing the nature of this separation to their advantage. Some of them know better; the cynical strategists mapping their course. It is a very effective way to quel opposing argument; claim their is no place in the debate for a religiously based position because our Constitution forbids it. Bring it one step further by labeling any or most opposition as "fundementalist Christian", and therefore out of bounds, and they then own the debate. The rest of them, the less astute followers, gobble this up. They don't know any better. "Separation of church and state" means no more or less to them than what their leadership tells them it means. Again, that is not the intent. No one, no single value system, is excluded from the debate and the decision making process. Liberals would love to push Christians out, and this is one of their tactics to do so.

Jeff wrote:
"In this system, the only voice that some would label as off-limits today is the religious voice. They base their assertions on a foggy missunderstanding of the nature of the separation between church and state. "

I think there is a fundamental (no pun intended) difference between religious voices in government and the others. For the most part, religious voices are demanding some restriction of freedom (mostly sexual in nature, that seems to be their primary interest) which would restrict non-religious people in their way of life. While other non-religious voices are only asking two things; 1) don't force me to obey your religion in my life, and 2) don't force your beliefs (intelligent design, etc.) on the public intitutions (like public schools or courts). What religious people want to do is make there values everyones values. That is not, nor was ever the intention the Founding Fathers. Again read their own words.

You haven't read much of Thomas Jefferson's views on this subject, have you? He is the one who coined the phrase "separation of church and state" and I think it is safe to say that he did not view this concept as a perversion. It is pretty clear that our founding father's were ensuring that religion did not permeate government, not the other way around.

A quote from Jefferson:

"Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society.
We have solved ... the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries."

It is relatively clear in this one quote that Jefferson's intentions were to protect government from religion - not the other way around.

Mike