separation of church and state
Forum rules
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
Don't poop in these threads. This isn't Europe, okay? There are rules here!
- freediver
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
- Contact:
separation of church and state
The concept of separation of church and state is not intended to remove religion from politics, or vice versa. 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). 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. It is only a barrier to insitutionalised connections. 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. It does not preclude religious laws. It only requires that the religious laws be adopted through a secular process (in our case, democracy). 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. 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. However, it will still be different people running each institution and people's rejection of dogma will 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. 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.
- boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: separation of church and state
Arn't you trying to rewrite the history of an idea here, freedriver. The American constitution's view of the separation of church and state was done to prevent the govt from telling people what to believe (which goddy, god, god rules their conscience).
No thought crimes! It's blasphemy
No thought crimes! It's blasphemy
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
- freediver
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: separation of church and state
I'm not rewriting it. That's how it was. I don't see any contradiction between what the founding fathers of the US had in mind and what I wrote. If the government told the people what to believe, it would take over the role of the church.
- boxy
- Posts: 6748
- Joined: Sat Dec 15, 2007 11:59 pm
Re: separation of church and state
The contradiction is in your assertion that religious mores can be lawfully instituted if done so through democratic means. While this is true to some extent (in a very general "what is good" sense), there are limitations to what can be mandated through democracy and still remain true to the "separation of church and state" ideal. Forcing all citizens to join the "state's religion", for example, is not consistent with the idea of church/state separation, even if 90% of the population vote for it.
"But you will run your fluffy bunny mouth at me. And I will take it, to play poker."
- freediver
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: separation of church and state
The contradiction is in your assertion that religious mores can be lawfully instituted if done so through democratic means.
But they can be. I think 'lawfully' was the wrong term to use there. Anyway, I see your point.
But they can be. I think 'lawfully' was the wrong term to use there. Anyway, I see your point.
- freediver
- Posts: 3487
- Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 10:42 pm
- Contact:
Re: separation of church and state
Also, if the government dictated a 'state religion' that would effectively be a state takeover of the church. It institutionalises the connection by giving political leaders control over the church and/or church leaders control over state institutions like law.
- JW Frogen
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:41 am
Re: separation of church and state
Boxy demands a separation of Church and State because his love life would die out if there were not one.
What religion condones Ewe-Sheep-Man love?
Even Pan went for human females.
What religion condones Ewe-Sheep-Man love?
Even Pan went for human females.
Re: separation of church and state
"What religion condones Ewe-Sheep-Man love?"
A kiwi one , i thunk.
A kiwi one , i thunk.
- JW Frogen
- Posts: 2034
- Joined: Fri Apr 25, 2008 9:41 am
Re: separation of church and state
Tell me more of this intriquing religion known as Kiwianity.
New Zealand truely was the right place to film Lord of the Rings.
New Zealand truely was the right place to film Lord of the Rings.
Re: separation of church and state
Kiwianity - I think NZ is still on the statute books as being part of NSW. trans tasman union will never happen as oz is the number one enemy on any sporting field. (i can imagine the relationship would be similar to the US/Canadian one.)JW Frogen wrote:Tell me more of this intriquing religion known as Kiwianity.
New Zealand truely was the right place to film Lord of the Rings.
However, in time, we could all be part of the chinese empire.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 28 guests