State-Church Separation

[So Boerd]

I used to understand that viewpoint, however I don't anymore. I imagined myself in Saudi Arabia, with crescents and Islamic imagery everywhere and asked myself how much it bothers me. Doesn't. Let people vote if they want a nativity scene or not.

[Vortex]

Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean other minority's don't like it. The problem with voting is that the majority wins and the minority will still be offended. Better to just remove all relgious monuments no matter what relgion it belongs too.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

So Boerd said
I used to understand that viewpoint, however I don't anymore. I imagined myself in Saudi Arabia, with crescents and Islamic imagery everywhere and asked myself how much it bothers me. Doesn't. Let people vote if they want a nativity scene or not.

How about letting people keep their nativity scene? lol.

[So Boerd]

Vortex said
Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean other minority's don't like it. The problem with voting is that the majority wins and the minority will still be offended. Better to just remove all relgious monuments no matter what relgion it belongs too.

Why? It's not the government's job not to offend you. We put all kinds of potentially offensive but materially inconsequential things to a vote, why should religious displays be any different

[Vortex]

Example of this supposedly offensive material? And anyhow chances are that religion will be more offensive to people, especially since religion is a dominant factor in most peoples lives.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Vortex said
Example of this supposedly offensive material? And anyhow chances are that religion will be more offensive to people, especially since religion is a dominant factor in most peoples lives.

Supposedly offensive materials? How about nakedness being everywhere? If we should be expected to avert our eyes from that, then the other people should better avert their eyes from the things that matter, like the Cross, Nativity Scenes, and things that are symbolic of something that's wholesome, holy and very Providential for them.

[Vortex]

Kind of hard when it's In a Public place. You know where you pass it every day? Look I'm in Australia so it's probably different but I don't see naked people walking down the street.

[ActRaiserTheReturned]

Vortex said
Kind of hard when it's In a Public place. You know where you pass it every day? Look I'm in Australia so it's probably different but I don't see naked people walking down the street.

Ah, well, maybe I am slightly exaggerating. I'm talking about a lot of cleavage. . . people being models out in the malls, that sort of thing.

[So Boerd]

Vortex said
Example of this supposedly offensive material? And anyhow chances are that religion will be more offensive to people, especially since religion is a dominant factor in most peoples lives.

Anything can be offensive. I found the decision of the school to show the idiotic "Story of Stuff" or as I like to call it, "Economics for dummies by an even bigger dummy" very offensive, and we did not even get to vote on that!

[Vortex]

ActRaiserTheReturned said
Ah, well, maybe I am slightly exaggerating. I'm talking about a lot of cleavage. . . people being models out in the malls, that sort of thing.

Look, I have a lot of friends from many different faiths (not surprising as I'm in Australia) and some of them are fundamentalists, and they don't find Cleavage offensive.

Anyway what kind of shopping center has a model in it!?

So Boerd said
Anything can be offensive. I found the decision of the school to show the idiotic "Story of Stuff" or as I like to call it, "Economics for dummies by an even bigger dummy" very offensive, and we did not even get to vote on that!

I've never heard of that video. And if it's "educational" should we not show it?

[The Nexerus]

Vortex said I've never heard of that video. And if it's "educational" should we not show it?

It's a documentary that's relatively infamous for its left-wing bias and general anti-American brand of negativity. It gives a lot of just plain old misleading and/or false information, too.

Vortex said
Just because it doesn't bother you, doesn't mean other minority's don't like it. The problem with voting is that the majority wins and the minority will still be offended. Better to just remove all religious monuments no matter what religion it belongs too.

Why does it matter if the minority is offended? The entire basis of democracy is majority rule. The rights of a citizen do not end where the feelings of another citizen begin.

[Vortex]

Ahh welcome Nexerus! I expect us to have colliding opinions once again!

The Nexerus said
It's a documentary that's relatively infamous for its left-wing bias and general anti-American brand of negativity. It gives a lot of just plain old misleading and/or false information, too.

I'm fairly cautious when you say Left wing bias and Anti America. Example of this heresy?

The Nexerus said
Why does it matter if the minority is offended? The entire basis of democracy is majority rule. The rights of a citizen do not end where the feelings of another citizen begin.

It matters because that's not equal? I thought America promoted equality for everyone no matter how minor they are?

[The Nexerus]

Vortex said
Ahh welcome Nexerus! I expect us to have colliding opinions once again! I'm fairly cautious when you say Left wing bias and Anti America. Example of this heresy?It matters because that's not equal? I thought America promoted equality for everyone no matter how minor they are?

Equality means that people are all represented proportionally. Minorities being given entitlements or special treatment merely on the basis that they are minorities is inequality. If Group A represents 2% of the population and Group B represents 80% of the population, Group A and B should not have equal representation.

[Vortex]

That may be your opinion, I however Believe that equality means that everyone is treated equally, hence that is why i am a communist.

[The Nexerus]

Vortex said
That may be your opinion, I however Believe that equality means that everyone is treated equally, hence that is why i am a communist.

Everyone being treated equally means proportional representation, Vortex. People don't get special privileges for being different. In perfect equality, everyone gets their share, and every group gets the appropriate level of representation.

I'm surprised that someone who's self-avowedly communist would argue with that. I'm practically quoting Marx here.

[Vortex]

Don't get me wrong Nexerus, I agree people should not get bonus just for being a ethnic minority but the thing is in America and Australia (Heck the rest of the world) this is not so.

I would argue more but I have to go. I will continue ue this tommorow

[So Boerd]

Google the "Story of Stuff". It is not educational.

[The Nexerus]

I never even mentioned ethnicity, and we were talking about religion, but okay.

[gamer5]

0. Religious organizations - by those I mean organizations or individuals which hold great, almost all or all influence over a single religion right the Vatican Church, lead by the Pope, has over the Roman Catholicism.

1. Religious organizations relay on the dogmas of their religion being accepted to enforce it's will over large masses of people. It should be noted that dogmas usually are just beliefs they don't hold any notion of realism, trough it is not rare to be a influence of the real world situation in which the religion formed.

2. Religious organizations hold great power, even if not clearly seen, in the countries where they are greatly dominant. Power corrupts people.

3. Religious texts can be interpreted in many ways but religious organizations insist that their dogmas about such texts are the right ones. The fact that those higher in the religious organization can bend the dogmas to their liking is also common in religious organizations.

4. If you give religious organizations actual power or rule over the state it means that they hold even more power - leading to a faster and more widespread corruption.

5. If you are corrupted and have power you want both to keep and increase you power. So you remove all opposition and sent missions to bring your religion to pagans - or take their lands from their cold death arms if they refuse to do so.

END. Religious organizations are in the end mostly meant to give power to those which rule over them and for that sake are ready to do anything, even kill and erase from history. They impose a fixed social order, try to quell anything that would threaten their dogmas and generally are not positive, naturally there are exceptions to this to but they were and remain rare.
If they are given a influence (not to speak about practical rule) over a state it usually leads to even worse things as the possibility of their actions being stopped by the state to decrease. So nobody sane would want a union of state and a religious organization it usually leads to nothing good.

[So Boerd]

You are conflating religious influence on the state with the state's influence on religion. Once Caesaropapism ended, religions could go back to their proper role. Religion was still influencing government in the 1700s and the 1800s for the better (Colonialism was a matter of material concerns, and would have happened, atheist or not [for proof, see USSR],) as government had taken a passive role in religion. Compare the experience of the French Revolution vs the American Revolution. The atheist one was much bloodier. Freedom of religion does not protect the government from religion.

And I return again to Communism if we're going to keep up this consequences argument. Show me one communist (as in, professing communism, I'm not interested in No True Marxist fallaces) government, exactly ONE, which did not quickly devolve into mass murder and wide scale universal repression. Communism is worse, yet I don't hear you decrying it or wanting to have a separation of Communism-State.

Now, I'm going to make a controversial statement, and the only reason I give fair warning is that I want the rest of my points answered. So just because I am going to make a point many will disagree with, doesn't mean I want the rest to get ignored, since evidently that's the trend.

Religion is a part of the human spirit. It's biological. If you quash religion in its benign forms, which let's face it, most religions are very benign, it will spring up somewhere else. It will spring up in the Church of Science (different from real science, these are the "Toxins-Juice Cleanse-Gluten Free-MSG causes cancer-Vaccines cause autism" idiots), where the Bible is replaced by "studies" they read in tabloids. Or it will spring up as mentioned earlier in the form of Communism or a similar system, itself every bit a religion. Mother-Earth environmentalism is a possibility to. You simply cannot crush the human belief in something he cannot prove. Take Mr. Atheist himself, Richard Dawkins.

Another controversial point coming, don't ignore the rest.

He believes there is no God, and has no evidence of that. Obviously, that does not prove there is God, but it does show he is being irrational. The only strictly rational position is, "I don't know.", and anything beyond that is faith. Could there be an invisible incorporeal unicorn sitting in front of your screen right know? There could be. I don't know, and neither do you.