You CAN post in this thread anonymously by logging out and posting in this thread as a "guest". This is one of the only threads with this type of set up. Due to the subject and very passionate emotions people have about it, we have set up the anonymous guest posting to encourage participation from people who might not otherwise feel comfortable.
LOL... Religion is so big it has it's own politics. Obviously it shouldn't play a role in any kind of laws but it obviously does or Gay Marriage would be allowed already.
Letting bogus superstition and hocus-pocus influence important Government policy is utter madness.
There is an aspect that the Government needs to keep their people happy, but it should make efforts to discourage religion from being so important to it's civilians.
Mr Morningstarr wrote: Letting bogus superstition and hocus-pocus influence important Government policy is utter madness.
There is an aspect that the Government needs to keep their people happy, but it should make efforts to discourage religion from being so important to it's civilians.
If you are going to post, do not post in a hateful way. Keep in mind that the majority of the population believes in this 'hocus pocus' and you could offend them. Myself included. Be a little more respectful of anothers beliefs if you expect for anyone to hear yours. And also, if government were to discourage religion, it would be a violation of separation of church and state, government should have no hand in the body of religion.
Government should be secular in its purest form, however, government should be serving the people. Religion has its place in government through the demands of the people. Because God has a place in most American homes, religious will is done through the agenda of the people. I was not perfectly sure on how to phrase that, but I hope I got my point across.
But that's the problem. Religion should have no rule in decisions by the government. Students getting suspended because they won't say the anthem because it has the word god in it. Why?
Why should a muslim, atheist, etc student have to say one nation under god when they don't believe in that? We don't make christian and catholic students give praise to mecca.
It can't be a double standard. Rules for one group must be equal for all groups or your system is highly flawed.
MH0825 wrote: But that's the problem. Religion should have no rule in decisions by the government. Students getting suspended because they won't say the anthem because it has the word god in it. Why?
Why should a muslim, atheist, etc student have to say one nation under god when they don't believe in that? We don't make christian and catholic students give praise to mecca.
It can't be a double standard. Rules for one group must be equal for all groups or your system is highly flawed.Note that it says "Under God". God is the same for every faith: Islam, Judaism, Christianity, Hinduism (they have a trinity system in a similarity to Abrahamic religions). The only faith it really does not generally address is Atheism.
Bere in mind that one does not have to recite the Pledge of Alligence. Even if, this country was birthed through Christian sects. The first settlers here were Protestants, Puritans, Quakers, and the like. I don't care what you might think, but this nation was founded on Christianity. The four fathers made it secular so that those practicing their religions can practice without fear of persecution. And because this nation was founded upon Christianity, there are small clauses like "Under God" or "In God We Trust" in certain areas. I don't really understand how that bothers you, to be honest.
Cole wrote: Bere in mind that one does not have to recite the Pledge of Alligence. ....sthere are small clauses like "Under God" or "In God We Trust" in certain areas. I don't really understand how that bothers you, to be honest.
You HAD to say it in my school or you would get suspended. I got suspended for not saying the pledge one day, granted it was reversed eventually but it should never even happen.
It bothers me because it shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't have to say the pledge (yes this is being discussed and changing... FINALLY). How naive can we play here? One nation under god... do you really, I mean REALLY think that it meant all the other gods and religions as well.
MH0825 wrote: Cole wrote: Bere in mind that one does not have to recite the Pledge of Alligence. ....sthere are small clauses like "Under God" or "In God We Trust" in certain areas. I don't really understand how that bothers you, to be honest.
You HAD to say it in my school or you would get suspended. I got suspended for not saying the pledge one day, granted it was reversed eventually but it should never even happen.
It bothers me because it shouldn't be that way. You shouldn't have to say the pledge (yes this is being discussed and changing... FINALLY). How naive can we play here? One nation under god... do you really, I mean REALLY think that it meant all the other gods and religions as well. Who cares if it means the Abrahamic God (Who by the way is the God of Judaism, Christianity, and ISLAM). It can mean different things to different people. Perspective is everything.
I believe choosing to not say the Pledge would be under freedom of expression? If anything, that bothers me. No one's beliefs should be censored or moderated in any way, shape or form.
I know perspective is everything but do you really think that when our founders and fore fathers wrote this stuff, they really meant for it to be interpreted other than the God for Christians/Catholics?
Again, I think we are talking about exactly what I started this thread for. It should not be mixed at all. Government funded schools should have no religion mixed in IMO. Send your kids to a Catholic school if you specifically want that in your schooling.
Politics should have no religion mixed in either.
Yes you are correct that when the original settlers floated over here on those 3 big boats it was for religious freedom, among other things. But the government that was created later was supposed to have separation between church and state, something that has not happened, but should have.
MH0825 wrote: The reason they shouldn't is because the law says they shouldn't. Religious beliefs should not effect how laws are written but they do.
And which laws are these? None I've ever heard of.
It's a common misconception that Separation of Church and State means to keep religion out of government affairs - this was neither the meaning nor intent nor is it practical.
The term "separation of Church and State" originally appeared in a letter Thomas Jefferson wrote - and it does not appear in the constitution.
Moreover, the original meaning of Separation of the Church and State was reffering to keeping the Government from passing laws restricting the practice of religion - NOT on keeping religion out of the government.
It refered to the following in the second amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . ."
It means not to pass laws on going to X church (such as they did in England) and not on keeping religion out of government.
My first post on this forum and it comes in the “heated debate” area.
Religion always has and always will be in politics. There is no way to separate the two, nor should it be attempted and here’s one of the reasons why.
Laws are based in morality. We create laws to protect each other and to maintain civility. It is morally wrong to kill someone so we make laws against murder. It is morally wrong to be a thief so we make laws against stealing. The point is we govern ourselves based on our collective perception of right and wrong. That perception is formed from our beliefs. We gain our beliefs from our religion. Since the majority of the people in this country claim a Christian faith it is only natural that the law would be influenced by Christianity. To ignore religion in the process of making laws is not realistic.
That's the most reasonable post I've seen in why religion should be in politics. Times have changed though and religion has had less and less influence over time. If religion does keep up a pace in politics, you can kiss all the pro-choice goodbye.
That posts suggests religion is a requirement for morality, so are atheists immoral? No.
Besides this Governments are always acting immoral, morality is subjective claptrap. Governments can decide what is and what is not morally acceptable, as they have the power to enforce whatever morality they see fit. In a democracy the people vote on which morality they prefer.
There is no need for religion to interfere in any of it.
I didn’t suggest nor imply that atheists are immoral. That’s not the point. The point is that if you place a large group of people in one body of government that share the same core beliefs, Christianity, then it is only natural to expect that the laws that are passed are going to be influenced be that religious belief.
If you want to remove religion from government then you will need to remove those in government that believe in religion.
MH0825 wrote: That's the most reasonable post I've seen in why religion should be in politics. Times have changed though and religion has had less and less influence over time. If religion does keep up a pace in politics, you can kiss all the pro-choice goodbye.
Any chance I could get a response to my last post? Or - do you agree?
