Kho said
I do enjoy being smug, I must admit it is an art to maintain such an insufferably smug and condescending tone, don't you think?

Considering I do it by accident sometimes, I'd call it more of a deeply entrenched character flaw that literally warps one's perspective of the world.

Brovo said
Considering I do it by accident sometimes, I'd call it more of a deeply entrenched character flaw that literally warps one's perspective of the world.

I admit I've been reading enough of your posts the delivery style has even started to rub off on me.

Brovo said
Considering I do it by accident sometimes, I'd call it more of a deeply entrenched character flaw that literally warps one's perspective of the world.

Perhaps it is more deeply entrenched than I suspect, but I only ever bring this smugness out in a debate like this which requires one to keep a certain level of detachment and a facade of superiority and disinterest <-- officially my favourite, smuggest smiley of all time.
Come RP with me sometime and you'll find me to be very unsmug and uncondescending.

Kho said
Perhaps it is more deeply entrenched than I suspect, but I only ever bring this smugness out in a debate like this which requires one to keep a certain level of detachment and a facade of superiority and disinterest <-- officially my favourite, smuggest smiley of all time. Come RP with me sometime and you'll find me to be very unsmug and uncondescending.

Busy with my own, but thanks. :p

Brovo said
Considering I do it by accident sometimes, I'd call it more of a deeply entrenched character flaw that literally warps one's perspective of the world.

Brovo is a good guy when you talk to him, but you need to accept a certain level of smugness and condescension. Tbf, that's probably my fault, I tend to bring the worst out of people. It's my rippling, moist biceps. and my lardful thighs.

The way I see it:

I'm going to start off by saying that a society like the USSR did not so much 'kick religion to the curb' so much as decide to start an atheist theocracy. Which, makes sense. No totalitarian state is going to want to share power with any church. As such, the USSR is actually very antithetical to separation of church and state.

Anyways, back to how I think separation of church and state should be handled:
1. The Church is not God. A Christian preacher's job is to recruit more Christians, for God's sake. A Christian plumber's job is to fix people's pipes, for God's sake. Neither job is more holy.
2. Do not let the government control the church. Otherwise, they'll twist the church into propaganda tool for any political agenda they like.
3. Do not allow the church control the government. Otherwise, they'll become obsessed with political power rather than spiritual enlightenment.
4. Yes, the government should work for God, in a sense. No organization should try to wholly separate itself from God. Especially not Government. God is the ultimate statesman, and has jurisdiction that transcends our plane of existence.

The intended result of these principles are this:
The state must be founded on concepts such as natural laws and God-given rights. Exactly what this means is up for debate, but they are principles that should be in any law maker or voter's minds. For similar reasons, nobody should refuse to turn something into law because it has religious inspiration. That the bible says "Do not murder" does not mean that murder should be legal. Also, it's fine for government officials to do things like have "In God we trust" written on coinage. However, this has to apply equally to all religions. There can be no law forbidding muslims from posting "In Allah we trust" on coinage, either, if they can get enough support.

However, the other caveat is that government should not try to take over church duties. For example, the government cannot do things like outlaw pornography or gay marriage. It's the job of the church to render them a non-issue through nonviolent means.

Protagonist said
The way I see it:I'm going to start off by saying that a society like the USSR did not so much 'kick religion to the curb' so much as decide to start an atheist theocracy. Which, makes sense. No totalitarian state is going to want to share power with any church. As such, the USSR is actually very antithetical to separation of church and state.

No USSR had a pseud-religion based around the ideas of Stalin's own little Cult of personality and many things stolen from Tsaric Russia and the Russian Orthodox Church. Stalin did his best to get rid of the Russian Orthodox Church because that organization always had significant political power in Russia - he was merely getting rid of his political enemies. After Stalin was gone USSR had somehow weakened the strain on the Russian Orthodox Church. Nothing new nothing old - Tokugawa did this in Japan since he feared that Christianity was an invitation for foreign powers.

Protagonist said Anyways, back to how I think separation of church and state should be handled:1. The Church is not God. A Christian preacher's job is to recruit more Christians, for God's sake. A Christian plumber's job is to fix people's pipes, for God's sake. Neither job is more holy.

Agreed. All occupations are equal and should be treated as equals in all possible views.

Protagonist said 2. Do not let the government control the church. Otherwise, they'll twist the church into propaganda tool for any political agenda they like.

Agreed. Just take a look at what did the government of Imperial Japan did to Shinto.

Protagonist said 3. Do not allow the church control the government. Otherwise, they'll become obsessed with political power rather than spiritual enlightenment.

I think that this also pretty obvious and has been given more then enough examples in favor of this trough the thread.

Protagonist said 4. Yes, the government should work for God, in a sense. No organization should try to wholly separate itself from God. Especially not Government. God is the ultimate statesman, and has jurisdiction that transcends our plane of existence.The intended result of these principles are this:The state must be founded on concepts such as natural laws and God-given rights. Exactly what this means is up for debate, but they are principles that should be in any law maker or voter's minds. For similar reasons, nobody should refuse to turn something into law because it has religious inspiration. That the bible says "Do not murder" does not mean that murder should be legal. Also, it's fine for government officials to do things like have "In God we trust" written on coinage. However, this has to apply equally to all religions. There can be no law forbidding muslims from posting "In Allah we trust" on coinage, either, if they can get enough support.However, the other caveat is that government should not try to take over church duties. For example, the government cannot do things like outlaw pornography or gay marriage. It's the job of the church to render them a non-issue through nonviolent means.

I have to disagree - I would be troubled to live under a government which clearly states that it is working for God - Any Government Should Firstly Work For The Benefit Its Citizens. Nothing else should be more important to a leader of a country then it's people.

The statesman thing - if you take a look at how your alleged "God" is displayed in most religious texts then he is a tyrannical ruler which apparently doesn't care for us except when he wants some quick amusement by us showing blind displays of faith in him.

The state should be formed from the people wishes to rule over themselves and the principles of human rights not from beliefs.

Most religious text have common shows of contradicting themselves in the way that they treat murder. There are many reasons why murder should be forbidden outside of religious texts.

It should be vice versa - coinage should not favor a single religion in any way - "In God we trust" is a clear show that the government favors Christianity. Trough to be true this was decided to be made in a time period much different then today and became more of a traditional custom than religious message. On the other hand if there is enough people which want to outlaw pornography in the populace and manged to pass such a law trough an referendum then this is just the will of the nation. That is probably the greatest and worst part of Democracy - majority rules. If Church took the role of forbidding things we would be back in the medieval age for history's sake, it is up to the people themselves to decide what will be allowed and what will be forbidden - that is the meaning of Democracy.

On the other hand if there is enough people which want to outlaw pornography in the populace and manged to pass such a law trough an referendum then this is just the will of the nation.

So basically, exactly what he said. The religious people can vote in accordance with their beliefs. Kthnx.

So Boerd said
So basically, exactly what he said. The religious people can vote in accordance with their beliefs. Kthnx.

No he said that the Church should use non violent methods to make people not watch porn, not that it should encourage, and only encourage not threat with banishment from the Church, to vote in accordance with Church dogmas. Non-violent methods might include psychological pressure, threats, on purpose isolation and so on. From the contest and way he voiced that last part of his post it sounded like he wanted the Church to choose what is right and what is wrong.

Also religion is not the only reason why one might want to ban porn or anything else.

Ok there's really nothing I can add to that last part which gamer hasn't covered except for one thing and that's Pornography.

I look at porn like this, is it harming anyone? No.
-> Note: I mean actually harming, not offensive in situations like "You watching Porn offends me".

Porn is also simply appeals to sexual drives/hormones which we as a human species evolved to have.
There is nothing wrong in taking pleasure in one of the main things that makes us human and alive.

There isn't any bad effects to porn (Except obsession, but this applies to anything that exists), and I don't count any thing like "It puts ______ in weak/lack of power position" or anything like that. It's Porn, there's many kinds of it that's meant to appeal to peoples kinks and interests. If anything, porn's helped people be smarter/wiser about their sex lives cause it acted as a way to fill their curiosity, release their sex urges and in cases where Sex Ed is lacking, somewhat educate themselves on the topic.

And note this is all coming from someone who has never bothered to watch porn growing up cause I never found much reason to personally. So I'm not even going at this from a "Don't you touch my porn!" perspective. :P