Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[Meriweather]

ou were very specific as to what the constitution says,,

either you can back it up or you cant,,

how about you retract your claim or you drop the subject,,

cause it makes no sense having a conversation based on a lie,,

people make laws not religious or private groups,,
and theres nothing in the constitution that says that person cant be a preacher or a leader in a church

Do you understand the separation of Church and State? Do you understand all citizens' involvement in a Democratic/Republic? In the first a religious organization is not part of the federal government. In the second, anyone (yes, even a bishop) can be elected to office. Why is this so confusing to you?

 

[progressive hunter]

Do you understand the separation of Church and State? Do you understand all citizens' involvement in a Democratic/Republic? In the first a religious organization is not part of the federal government. In the second, anyone (yes, even a bishop) can be elected to office. Why is this so confusing to you?

I understand that it doesnt exist anywhere in our founding documents or any other federal document since our founding,,

and we are a constitutional republic not a democratic republic,,

I know that because its the constitution that guarantees us a republic form of government,,

ie a constitutional republic,,

 

[Meriweather]

Gentle disagreement. The Constitution does not in any way prohibit a priest or Pope or Deacon or minister or anybody else involved in the Church, who is a citizen of the United States and meets the residency requirements, from running for, being appointed to, or otherwise holding any public office. Many ordained ministers and at least two Catholic priests in fact have served in Congress.

I AM NOT SAYING AND NEVER SAID THEY DID! I am talking about the laity's duty to be involved in social matters--including politics. So, there is no disagreement, gentle or otherwise. I am not talking about priests, bishops, ministers, popes, etc. I am speaking not of the right for religious laity to be involved in social matters (including politics) but their duty.

Maybe we should create another thread about priests/ministers in public office.

Actually, I am not even speaking of laity in public office, but the laity being an influence on social/political issues instead of standing quietly on the sidelines. People can say what they want about Evangelical support for President Trump, but at least they are not standing quietly on the sidelines.

 

[Meriweather]

and we are a constitutional republic not a democratic republic,,

True. Thank you for the reminder.

 

[progressive hunter]

True. Thank you for the reminder.

so is the rest of it,,

 

[Donald H]

Actually they had a majority rule when it came to officially sanctioned faith

What did you intend to say?
I'm suggesting that there was no reason to separate the church from the state before the 19th. century. Then at some date it became necessary when the church's beliefs could no longer be consistent with the reality needed to run a country.

The church's fictional beliefs clashed with science and reality in too many ways. Thus was born the need for modern society to choose.

They 'did' choose! But beliefs of little importance to modernity continued to be permissible as long as those beliefs didn't clash with reality in ways that would have (major) negative consequences to modern society.

In other words, there are no negative consequences if a few Christians continued to believe stories such as living in the belly of a big fish.

So when specifically?

 

[Foxfyre]

I AM NOT SAYING AND NEVER SAID THEY DID! I am talking about the laity's duty to be involved in social matters--including politics. So, there is no disagreement, gentle or otherwise. I am not talking about priests, bishops, ministers, popes, etc. I am speaking not of the right for religious laity to be involved in social matters (including politics) but their duty.

Maybe we should create another thread about priests/ministers in public office.

Actually, I am not even speaking of laity in public office, but the laity being an influence on social/political issues instead of standing quietly on the sidelines. People can say what they want about Evangelical support for President Trump, but at least they are not standing quietly on the sidelines.

If I misconstrued your post to exclude religious leaders from being an influence on social issues--which those in government definitely do--I apologize. But I don't separate those leaders from the laity when it comes to national sociopolitical policy. All are citizens with a vote and a voice and should not be prohibited from using it.

I don't want my priest or minister taking partisan positions from the pulpit, but that priest or minister absolutely should be speaking out on what is good, just, beneficial, moral, profitable when it comes to the sociopolitical life of the people. As should the laity.

And yes, a government of, for and by the people (laity included) will choose the sorts of leaders they want who will promote and inspire the kinds of society we want to have.

But the Constitution intends for the people--all the people--to create the sorts of societies they want to have and specifically prohibits the federal government from dictating what sorts of societies the people will have.

 

[rightwinger]

What did you intend to say?
I'm suggesting that there was no reason to separate the church from the state before the 19th. century. Then at some date it became necessary when the church's beliefs could no longer be consistent with the reality needed to run a country.

The church's fictional beliefs clashed with science and reality in too many ways. Thus was born the need for modern society to choose.

They 'did' choose! But beliefs of little importance to modernity continued to be permissible as long as those beliefs didn't clash with reality in ways that would have (major) negative consequences to modern society.

In other words, there are no negative consequences if a few Christians continued to believe stories such as living in the belly of a big fish.

So when specifically?

Actually, communities at those times had major religions that dominated local politics. They could make their own rules and if you were of another faith, it was your problem

 

[Meriweather]

Actually, communities at those times had major religions that dominated local politics. They could make their own rules and if you were of another faith, it was your problem

Exactly! Ask those of us who had Quaker ancestors can testify.

 

[Donald H]

Gentle disagreement. The Constitution does not in any way prohibit a priest or Pope or Deacon or minister or anybody else involved in the Church, who is a citizen of the United States and meets the residency requirements, from running for, being appointed to, or otherwise holding any public office. Many ordained ministers and at least two Catholic priests in fact have served in Congress.

Conditional on them not taking actions according to their Christian beliefs that would clash with the reality of modern science.

Leave the existing non-spoken agreements alone that are intended to resolve the disagreements temporarily at least.

The other option is to either abandon religious beliefs or modern science.

Is it incorrect to say that the MAGA movement is raising the issue on abandoning modern science partially, in favour of Christian beliefs?

 

[Donald H]

Actually, communities at those times had major religions that dominated local politics. They could make their own rules and if you were of another faith, it was your problem

Yes, that's correct and so I'll wait for somebody to tell us when that changed?

Or did it go unannounced and partial/slow change came about?

 

[Meriweather]

But the Constitution intends for the people--all the people--to create the sorts of societies they want to have and specifically prohibits the federal government from dictating what sorts of societies the people will have.

The government/bureaucracy has been 'dictating', which is why the call for all people to become involved in government rules, regulations, and mandates--not just those with the loudest voices. Ever think about who is really running the government: Is it our elected officials (of the people, by the people, for the people), or is it run, more and more, by bureaucrats?

This is a religion/ethics forum, so I am asking all to think how they are involved in social/political issues. Yes, voting is important, but being involved should be much more than voting every few years.

 

[Donald H]

And so to conclude, the day must come for America when the final choice will be made, to abandon all religious fantasies.

In a modern world there's no way that superstitious beliefs can be permitted to clash with modern science and reality.

As long as religions are tolerated, even on the back burner, there can be no end to wars, but finally peace in the world. [\b]

 

[Foxfyre]

Conditional on them not taking actions according to their Christian beliefs that would clash with the reality of modern science.

Leave the existing non-spoken agreements alone that are intended to resolve the disagreements temporarily at least.

The other option is to either abandon religious beliefs or modern science.

Is it incorrect to say that the MAGA movement is raising the issue on abandoning modern science partially, in favour of Christian beliefs?

There is no constitutional prohibition from anybody pushing for the law to support their Christian beliefs such as no adult bookstores or strip clubs or bars near a school or tax exemption for not-for-profit churches and organizations that benefit society in many ways. Laws prohibiting public indecency, public drunkenness, prostitution, certain profanity and such all arise out of Christian beliefs and values.

Our Constitution allows people liberty of thought, beliefs, ideas, concepts and principles. You are free to believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is an immediate and certain existential threat to life on Earth as we know it and you are free to believe that the CO2 religionists are using that dishonestly to control all of society. You have a constitutionally protected right to believe whatever passages in the Bible are true or to believe it is all garbage.

MAGAs promote that constitutionally protected liberty and the right of people to be as religious or non religious as they choose. And MAGAs promote the idea that only when people have the liberty to question and explore science as they see it can science even exist. To dictate what people MUST believe re science is not science but dogma/doctrine/totalitarianism.

 

[Donald H]

The government/bureaucracy has been 'dictating', which is why the call for all people to become involved in government rules, regulations, and mandates--not just those with the loudest voices.

They are the people's choices that are elected to do what they are doing.

Change can happen. Specifically by eliminating the stigma of them needing to pretend to believe in the god.

You see, the Maga movement is intent on making the belief in an imaginary god a condition of being elected to govern.

And so you're back to square one with no complete and adequate separation of ...........................

 

[Foxfyre]

The government/bureaucracy has been 'dictating', which is why the call for all people to become involved in government rules, regulations, and mandates--not just those with the loudest voices. Ever think about who is really running the government: Is it our elected officials (of the people, by the people, for the people), or is it run, more and more, by bureaucrats?

This is a religion/ethics forum, so I am asking all to think how they are involved in social/political issues. Yes, voting is important, but being involved should be much more than voting every few years.

I agree. Which is why I am so encouraging people to stop with the silly insults and defamation tactics in politics and instead do the hard work of looking at what policies are beneficial and edifying for the people and what policies are the opposite. Of course Christians will be guided by their own sense of morality and what is beneficial and edifying.

As just one of many many examples, I can't imagine Christians or religious Jews seeing vulgar entertainment in parades or children's programs or sexually explicit material in young children's books as being okay. Any who do not speak out and push back and do what they can to eliminate that are not behaving as Christian in my opinion.

In my opinion, good laws would prohibit unacceptable things like that or at least allow a society to reject and eliminate it when the majority chooses to do so.

And I think people focused on the actual cause and effect of various government policy and action will speak out on that too and cast their vote accordingly in November.

 

[Donald H]

There is no constitutional prohibition from anybody pushing for the law to support their Christian beliefs such as no adult bookstores or strip clubs or bars near a school or tax exemption for not-for-profit churches and organizations that benefit society in many ways. Laws prohibiting public indecency, public drunkenness, prostitution, certain profanity and such all arise out of Christian beliefs and values.

Our Constitution allows people liberty of thought, beliefs, ideas, concepts and principles. You are free to believe that CO2 in the atmosphere is an immediate and certain existential threat to life on Earth as we know it and you are free to believe that the CO2 religionists are using that dishonestly to control all of society. You have a constitutionally protected right to believe whatever passages in the Bible are true or to believe it is all garbage.

MAGAs promote that constitutionally protected liberty and the right of people to be as religious or non religious as they choose. And MAGAs promote the idea that only when people have the liberty to question and explore science as they see it can science even exist. To dictate what people MUST believe re science is not science but dogma/doctrine/totalitarianism.

You're at least starting to direct your thoughts to the question!

quote: ............people MUST believe re science is not science but dogma/doctrine/totalitarianism.

Of course all the people MUST believe in science!

If the question is brought out to the front burner then there will be trouble caused that isn't absolutely necessary at this point in time.

But if religion interferes with modern science in a way that is harmful to humanity the a court of law will settle the question in favour of science.

Example: Religious believers pushed it on Intelligent Design and got their as-es kicked by the Dover School Board.

 

[BreezeWood]

I don't want my priest or minister taking partisan positions from the pulpit, but that priest or minister absolutely should be speaking out on what is good, just, beneficial, moral, profitable when it comes to the sociopolitical life of the people. As should the laity.

funny because that is what they relish most of all whether directly or using the congregational code they all live by ...

equal time for the politicians and atheists at the pulpit would resolve that issue with a healthy perspective and should be added to the 1st amendment.

or - as celibates fighting abortion rights to make everyone as miserable as they are has been working for centuries including their alternative horseplay as their example of religious freedom.

 

[surada]

still waiting to see where I can find your claim in the constitution,,

you were very specific what it said so it shouldnt be hard to back it up,,

Jesus said Render unto Caesar....

 

[Foxfyre]

You're at least starting to direct your thoughts to the question!

quote: ............people MUST believe re science is not science but dogma/doctrine/totalitarianism.

Of course all the people MUST believe in science!

If the question is brought out to the front burner then there will be trouble caused that isn't absolutely necessary at this point in time.

But if religion interferes with modern science in a way that is harmful to humanity the a court of law will settle the question in favour of science.

Example: Religious believers pushed it on Intelligent Design and got their as-es kicked by the Dover School Board.

So who decides what is the 'right' science. During the COVID pandemic we saw Science doing what science has always done, i.e. trial and error to get closer to a final truth out there somewhere. And Science got it wrong every bit as much or more than they got in right.

Who gets to dictate what is real science and what is politically or socially motivated science? Or should that be something left to the people to work out?