separation of church and state

[freediver]

I think an economic union, EU style, is about all that is really necessary. We don't have to play on the same team.

[Curry Muncher]

I think an economic union, EU style, is about all that is really necessary. We don't have to play on the same team.

I'm sure you are right freedivet, I would not want to have relations with sheep.

[JW Frogen]

However, in time, we could all be part of the chinese empire.

I like the food and poetry (the art gets a bit monotonous) and the Communist Party, well, let's just say I would be an insurgent.

As to New Zealand, it is strange, I mave met several Maoris and liked them all. Funny, kind, sexy women.

But white New Zealanders are the most PC, humourless people I have ever met.

They still have that missionary blood in them.

[boxy]

New material please, Frogen

[JW Frogen]

I think an economic union, EU style, is about all that is really necessary. We don't have to play on the same team.

Except these types of unions tend to expand buearcracy, grow and then legislate in areas of national preogative.

The EU is the perfect example.

See what the Irish people thought of that in their last referendum.

[JW Frogen]

New material please, Frogen

Yeah I have been saying that about the Simpsons for quite some time now.

By the way, when is the most boring poster in all of forum history going to come up with any material, thoughtful or funny?

That would be you Boxy.

*I throw the last line in because you just may not get it is you, I know all that time with the sheep may have done some B.F. Skinner conditioning on you.*

[boxy]

Having to explain your jokes is one thing... but having to explain your insults?

Lame.

[JW Frogen]

It is amazing Boxy how just like Aussie and moderation threads, you always show up for the sniping posts. It is like watching salmon swim upstream to make or the gay Queens return to San Juan Capistrono, no, wait, that would be swallows.

“Having to”, in your case, being the key phrase here. Other forums I am on actually discuss such mundane subjects as politics and culture.


Still, like mutton, it is good to eat an old lamb from time to time

[cynik]

The concept of separation of church and state is not intended to remove religion from politics, or vice versa.

"Was" not intended, surely? Anyway, this is horseshit. If the separation of A from B does not remove B from A and A from B, what the fuck is separation?

It is intended to protect the church from a state takover and to protect government from a chuch takeover (both of which have happened in the past).

Uhuh. It is intended by whom, freediver? Is this just random stream of consciousness, or have got some authority to back you up here? See, I thought the separation of church and state had historical precedent to support it, and from that history we might glean the reasons for its contemporary acceptance through cultural assimilation. But what the fuck would I know?

It maintains two separate sources of power, in the same way we have a senate and lower house with different roles, even though they can be controlled by the same party.

If the state has the power to make law, what power falls to the church? And if the church is a "source" of power, do you mean law? Surely, I suggest, you must. The state gets its power from the sovereign right to make law. I presume, given that you claim both church and state are "sources" of power, you intend to convey the idea that they hold similar means of exercising power. That is to say, you claim that the church has a legitimate role creating binding legislation that will be enforced by the crown courts.

Which is, to be fair, more horseshit.

It is only a barrier to insitutionalised connections.

"insitutionalised connections"? Please, it is only a very short sentence. Try to make it sensible. A connection that is "institutionalised" could mean anything from a light socket in a University lab to a prisoner fucking his cell mate. Big words to not adopt special meanings if you use them together at random, freediver. They retain their meanings, and they easily make nonsense. Don't try and hide behind many syllables.

While a person may be both the head of a church and the head of state, they must acquire the church based position via the church's institutionalised mechainsms and the same with the head of state postion.

Uhuh. Whatever you mean by "institutionalised mechainsms", i understand you equate the methods of preselection in state affairs and church affairs to be exchangable. By this I take you mean that either the church elects it leaders in public, or that the parliament is appointed by a select few, in secret. Both these scenarios seem, with respect, ridiculous.

It does not preclude religious laws. It only requires that the religious laws be adopted through a secular process (in our case, democracy).

So what is a "religious" law? Is that a law enforced by religious judges, appointed and financed by a religious body? Or is it a law that deals in some way with articles of faith, like Global Warming legislation? You are confusing the fuck out of me, dude.

It frees the church from the burden of the mundane logistics and bureaucracy of running a state and frees the government from the limitations of theology.

This is a delightful phrase: "the burden of the mundane logistics and bureaucracy of running a state". One imagines the Pope thanking Luther and Calvin for their charitable work, and the AB of C delighting in the good works of the American republic.

Freediver, are you aware that Tyndale was strangled at the stake for translating the Bible into English, at the order of Henry the 8th, and that his last words were "Lord! Open the King of England's eyes."?

In reality, if all or most citizens of a country share the same religion, then the religious beliefs will govern the country despite the separation of church and state.

So what the fuck does the word "govern" mean now?

Look, if you insist in doing violence to language, couldn't you choose one I don't use very much? Out of charitable sentiments for myself, you understand. Because we are friends. I believe you like latin. Go beat up on it for a while. Nobody except me will notice, and I'll say nothing as long as you leave english alone so we can continue to use it as it is.

However, it will still be different people running each institution and people's rejection of dogma will be reflected in law.

So, surely, will their acceptance of dogma be reflected in law?

It removes from those people with the strictest moral codes the temptation and the authourity to impose those moral cocdes by force.

So if you define law as morals enforced by .. well, force, do they hence become law?

Likewise it removes the ability of the government to claim a religious mandate, as there is a separate institution powerful enough to reject the mandate and it protects the church from the fickleness of public opinion.

What?

So who is rejecting the "religious mandate"? Do you even know what a mandate is? It is the fickleness of public opinion, freediver.

Translated into meaningful english, you claim here that the church is able to remove the government's authority to adopt law that reflects public opinion on religious matters because it is powerful enough to "protect" itself from public opinion.

Or, more succinctly, you claim that the church can resist the power of government to make law.

I think you need to read more on the separation of powers in the westminster system, and consider with care the role of the courts. Much of the "power" you attribute to the church is without any basis in fact, and you completely miss the separation of powers between the judiciary and the executive branch of the legislature. Not to mention the non executive parliamentarians, and their upper house colleages who are selected by the most elite families in Westminster society.

It is a good attempt at a thread, but I really think you are too bold with you statements. Maybe you might avoid bold statements in future, and stick to what you know. Nearly everyone can write well if they stick to what they know, and I'd rather hear about the fish in your avatar than get confused about how you see the church. We have to play to our strengths, freediver. That means frogen should stick to grunting when someone throws a banana into his cage, and you should make the tea while the men talk.

[freediver]

If the separation of A from B does not remove B from A and A from B, what the fuck is separation?

You are confusing two separate issues. Consider again my statement:

The concept of separation of church and state is not intended to remove religion from politics, or vice versa.

Note that the church and religion is not the same thing. The church is an institution (in this context at least). That is what is separated from the state, not the people's religious beliefs, or otherwise. You cannot separate religion from politics. It is up to each individual how to mix them.

Uhuh. It is intended by whom, freediver? Is this just random stream of consciousness, or have got some authority to back you up here? See, I thought the separation of church and state had historical precedent to support it, and from that history we might glean the reasons for its contemporary acceptance through cultural assimilation. But what the fuck would I know?

Yes, you can 'glean' that from the history. It's just that many people misinterpret the history to be exclusively the chruch taking over or influencing the state.

If the state has the power to make law, what power falls to the church? And if the church is a "source" of power, do you mean law? Surely, I suggest, you must.

No, I mean power in a raw sense. It is a powerful institution with a large number of members. Religious institutions are the most powerful non-government organisations around. It makes sense to separate those powers.

I presume, given that you claim both church and state are "sources" of power, you intend to convey the idea that they hold similar means of exercising power. That is to say, you claim that the church has a legitimate role creating binding legislation that will be enforced by the crown courts.

Not at all. That's the whole point of separating them.

A connection that is "institutionalised" could mean anything from a light socket in a University lab to a prisoner fucking his cell mate.

Light sockets and other 'connections' are not institutions. Effectively what I mean by a barrier to institutionalisation is that the only means through which the church can wield it's power poltically is via the votes of members in the absense of coercian. Likewise the state cannot set up or adopt an official religion.

So what is a "religious" law?

Thou shalt not lie.

Did anyone else have as much trouble as cynic understanding the original post? The other responses I have gotten seem to indicate that I got the message across.