Hey there don't forget Australia! We have zealots and Chruch fanatics as well you know!
Nevis said
No, there are literally plenty of people who literally actively work (and publicly advocate) the US becoming-officially-a Christian state.
Nevis said
. is worse, though I question those numbers. Still, the point stands.
mdk said
This is the part where I say "Let's see some."EDIT: Well, besides Westboro I guess, because we all hate them. But for whatever reason (maybe cuz the dude's dead now) I wasn't really thinking of them, so I'll give you one.
ShonHarris said
Separation of Church and State can arise in more than just the blatant declaration of a nation following a deity, it can also be reflected in making major decisions largely due to ties to a faith-community. These two things are not necessarily the same, and may look very different. A political leader can be a part of a faith without allowing their personal beliefs to be the major force behind a decision. Said leader could also push harder for certain areas simply because they subscribe to a certain faith. While everyone may have their own personal motivations, for an elected official, ideally, they should be working with the needs of the people first. If the people declare their concerns and the leader's faith blocks them from validating and moving on those, Church and State are clearly not separated. That all said, didn't Vice just do an episode a week or two ago about a major Christian organization pumping tens of millions of dollars to support Israel obtaining the land that's currently Pakistan? Much of that goes toward lobbying and pushing the US Government to support their ideals, and so far isn't really losing. So say money from religious groups leads a nation to make certain decisions. Is that really Separation of Church and State? Is that not an example of a group, obviously significant considering they put more money than actual Jewish organizations toward this cause, guiding a government to make decisions based on religious ideals above all else? I guess my real point here is that money fuels many votes. Some might like to think the US Government is growing all the more secular, but I'd say that as long as our government's decisions correlates to the will of those forking over the money, that's probably not the case. America is a country of convenience with a majority of its population identifying as Christian. Many may not be active in the faith, some may praise with intense passion, but a good chunk shows its belief through money. We're not talking about a poor minority that has suffered under the boot-heel of the US. I mean, seriously, we're talking about a massively rich faith-community that had direct impact on the laws of the land and the established status-quo.
mdk said
sorry. Just my way of saying this isn't really a controversial topic anymore, and hasn't been for 250 years or more; everybody agrees, and setting it up as an argumentative topic is a fallacious premise. Nobody wants a conjunction of church and state. I'd wager that anybody still wanting to talk about it has an axe to grind.Closing a post with awkward-silence ellipses is my way of denoting sarcasm, for future reference. Forced grammatical errors too.
mdk said
Maybe if we count atheism, but who does? I think this is a flawed perception. You see, say, a cross on a hill in a national park, and you want to take it down because separation of church and state, but people disagree with you and don't want to take it down. Your first reaction is to say, 'well they must NOT want a separation of church and state,' because that's how you're interpreting the situation and your perspective alters your perception. Maybe people just want to say 'merry christmas' and not get sued.
Jorick said
Oh, well then, my bad on missing the sarcasm. That's a very odd use of ellipses, as it typically means just a trailing off, but whatever works I guess. We really need some kind of punctuation that officially denotes sarcasm in text to avoid these kinds of silly misunderstandings.
I wouldn't count that sort of thing as people trying to force a union between church and state, but that's not at all the upper limit of what some fringe nutters try to push. They're a tiny minority so far as I can tell, but there are indeed people out there who want their country to quite literally adopt the laws of the Bible as the laws of the country, basically as a Christian version of Sharia law. Oh, and there's also the hardcore Muslim folks who try to advocate for real Sharia law being implemented in placed like England and such. It's really a non-issue in most countries, but these people do indeed exist, which is what I think Nevis was trying to say in the thing you quoted.
Vortex said
You would be surprised how many people want the church in more areas of Goverment, or at least in my town, and I wager that if people in my town want it to happen then there has to be somebody like that in the inter webs.
So Boerd said
Better question, why should there be any particular insulation from religion? Hypothetically here in the US, a school could distribute Communist Manifestos but not have a moment of silence for prayer. What exactly is the practical difference?
So Boerd said
Better question, why should there be any particular insulation from religion? Hypothetically here in the US, a school could distribute Communist Manifestos but not have a moment of silence for prayer. What exactly is the practical difference?
So Boerd said
We could always make this a discussion of sonething controversial. For example, the Arabs had stolen Judea from the Christians. In effect, they started the religious wars and the Christians were retaliating. Why do we not equally vilify the conquests of the Rashidun or the subsequent caliphates?
So Boerd said
Better question, why should there be any particular insulation from religion? Hypothetically here in the US, a school could distribute Communist Manifestos but not have a moment of silence for prayer. What exactly is the practical difference?
The Nexerus said
Because criticizing Islam or Muslims is racist.
So Boerd said
Lol, History? Add all the crusades up, multiply the body count by 9. That is the body count of ONE communist leader. Namely, Mao. Communism is just as fanciful as any religion. Replace God with Proletariat, Heretics and Heathens with Counter-Revolutionaries.
Brovo said
How about the Taiping rebellion? Twenty million deaths.My point isn't to defend the communist manifesto, it's to tell you why religion and government don't mix. The middle east is a perfect example of that right now. Sharia law is a perfect example of it. So on and so forth.There is an inexhaustible amount of evidence showing why mixing the two is just a bad idea flat out.Besides, in American schools, I don't think teachers could hand out Communist Manifestos and not get chewed up for it. Not even if they did it to teach what's wrong with the theory and how it doesn't account for human nature.
ActRaiserTheReturned said
Most religions and governments don't mix. If people could understand that, Christianity does, then the world would be a much better place.
Brovo said
What's that one line in the Bible again? "Give unto God what is God's, and unto Caesar what is Caesar's." I don't remember specifically what it is but I get the idea of it, Jesus saying to give to God what is his and to the state what is theirs.