Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

Church and State

Discussion in 'The Lounge' started by gauder, Apr 3, 2006.

  1. gauder

    gauder Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    done
    First off: Please let's behave here

    Who thinks that the separation of Church and State works? If so why, if not why?

    This comes about from learning about the new language in court where you only "affirm" to tell the truth. Some criminals are religious zealouts and that is about the only thing they take seriously, now if they do not have to swear on an object they think is holy I would think they would be more adept to lie. Or how about an atheist, if they don't think that there will be any consequences in the afterlife because they don't believe in it, would they be more likely to lie?

    Mods: Please remove this if it is too out of line.
     
  2. 4by4bygod

    4by4bygod 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Nov 13, 2003
    Posts:
    3,859
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    With My Tinfoil Hat
    Here's my take on the second part of the question:

    I've always thought that asking whoever takes the stand to swear on a bible was really more of a formality to demonstrate our faith as a nation in the soverign God of the Bible.

    Whether or not it actually compels anyone to tell the truth up there is debateable. You could ask a guy to swear on the head of mickey mouse, and the honest guy will still tell the truth, and the liar will still lie, regardless of belief system.

    Tom
     
  3. Can Can

    Can Can Pusher Man Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    15,552
    Likes Received:
    136
    Location:
    Cochrane, Alberta, Canada
    Thanks, Ryan. I was a little bored tonight- now I have something to keep me occupied........:tongue1:

    :wink1:
     
  4. mikey_d05

    mikey_d05 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2004
    Posts:
    10,453
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    You COULD dig up a Canucktion :deal::p:

    As for the question, I agree that you can make someone take whatever oath you darn well please and an honest man will continue to be honest, and liar will continue to lie.

    Also, as much as seperation of church and state have worked, I don't believe you can do it 100% just because of political platforms and the beliefs of the common citizen.
     
  5. 3 on the tree

    3 on the tree 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    3,970
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    gunnison colorado
    The seperation is not working. Churches are tax exempt. Our money has God on it. Our pledge of Allegiance refers to God. All the sodoomy laws are a result of what is written in the Bible. Same sex marriages are illegal for the same reason.
     
  6. gauder

    gauder Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    done
    Someone has to stir the stink up with HiPi gone.:D
     
  7. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    14,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High velocity, Low altitude
    I have watched countless people swear on a bible and then lie. You would be stunned if you were in court several days a week.
     
  8. gauder

    gauder Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    done
    I have no doubt about that either. Although I would think that a fanatical muslim would have a tough time swearing on the koran and then telling a lie.
     
  9. cbbr

    cbbr 1 ton status GMOTM Winner

    Joined:
    Jul 17, 2004
    Posts:
    14,681
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    High velocity, Low altitude
    They wouldn't swear on it in the first place - blasphemy IIRC.
     
  10. gauder

    gauder Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    done
    Would it be blaspheming if you swore on it and told the truth though?

    • [SIZE=-1]
    • blasphemous language (expressing disrespect for God or for something sacred)
    • profanation: blasphemous behavior; the act of depriving something of its sacred character; "desecration of the Holy Sabbath"
      wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn[/SIZE]
      [SIZE=-1]
    • Blasphemy is the defamation of the name of God or the gods, and by extension any display of gross irreverence towards any person or thing deemed worthy of exalted esteem. In this broader sense the term is used by Sir Francis Bacon in the Advancement of Learning, when he speaks of "blasphemy against learning". Many cultures disapprove of speech or writing which defames the God or gods of their established religions, and these restrictions have the force of law in some countries.
      en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blasphemy[/SIZE]
      [SIZE=-1]
    • In the sense of speaking evil of God this word is found in Ps. 74:18; Isa. 52:5; Rom. 2:24; Rev. 13:1, 6; 16:9, 11, 21. It denotes also any kind of calumny, or evil-speaking, or abuse (1 Kings 21:10; Acts 13:45; 18:6, etc.). Our Lord was accused of blasphemy when he claimed to be the Son of God (Matt. 26:65; comp. Matt. 9:3; Mark 2:7). They who deny his Messiahship blaspheme Jesus (Luke 22:65; John 10:36).
      www.godweb.org/blT0000600.htm[/SIZE]
      [SIZE=-1]
    • Swearing in the name of God, denying the existence of God, saying evil things about God, asserting incorrect beliefs about God, etc. One religion's affirmation of their God is another religion's blasphemy about their God.
      www.religioustolerance.org/gl_b.htm[/SIZE]
      [SIZE=-1]
    • Speech, thought, or action manifesting contempt of God.
      www.stsams.org/dictionary.html[/SIZE]
      [SIZE=-1]
    • Words that are spoken against God.
      re-xs.ucsm.ac.uk/cupboard/exam/examsupp/dloads/cp/cp35.htm[/SIZE]
     
  11. Corey 78K5

    Corey 78K5 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    13,055
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Humboldt County, CA
    Think about it. If You could strap on a dynamite belt buckle and kill innocent people You could probably tell a little white lie.
     
  12. gauder

    gauder Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    done
    No, I really don't think they would lie after swearing on their own holy book. The crimes they commit are in the name of Allah. Seems to be the only thing they hold any value for. Why else would they make such a big deal out of it when their koran was allegedly mistreated by their captors.
     
  13. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    I disagree. The Koran/Quran has a negative moral standard regarding lying or swearing oaths. It allows a devout follower to swear any oath for the sake of deceiving "infidels" and non-believers. It especially allows lying and deception if it is done to the detriment of the non-believers and the benefit of the believer. There are several passages about this, more than ten I think, but I can't pull any off the top of my head. It's easy enough to google if you're interested in it, though.
    *edit: Muhammeds own followers expressed moral problems with lying, and he told them it was ok, they should relax and not feel guilt about it. He even said it's ok to swear off Islam in front of infidels, as long as you stay true to it in your heart, for the sake of deceiving non-believers.

    I also disagree with this, but you should clarify it. It sounds like you mean Separation is not occurring, rather than it is not working.
    Additionally, there are plenty of organizations that have nothing to do with God that are tax exempt, so I'd hardly call that out. The money and the pledge have vague references to God, an entity or concept that is universally accepted regardless of a particular faith's perception and description of "God" (including atheism's disbelief). If same sex marriage being illegal is a result of the bible, what is marriage a result of? Isn't marriage itself an institution that was a religious binding of two "souls"?
    There are some things that can be over-nuetralized for no gain.



    My feelings on the 1st amendment Separation of Church and State are that it's fairly clear in the constitution.
    "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"

    This was written by men who'd studied the history of governments that intertwined religion and used it as a governing tool. They had also just shaken off the rule of the English monarchy, which was ruled itself quite a bit by the Church, although by then the church was it's own political entity, using religion to compel men. The founding fathers saw the oppression in the name of religion and wrote this to safeguard against it happening in their new government.
    At the same time, they were guarding the private citizens religious freedom. The government could not tell you what/who to worship, and it could not tell you what/who not to worship. Please note the exact words are "Establishment of religion". This is referring to known, accepted, established belief systems, not an arbitrary group of yahoos who get together to worship David Koresh...

    The way I read that, it doesn't prevent an elected official from being openly religious and making policy decisions that may lean in his preferred religious direction, but are not laws compelling a person to observe a rite or practice of a religion. If we elected a muslim president, we'd be in some $hiznit, but congress couldn't pass any laws forcing anyone to observe Islam until the first amendment were amended out.
    One of the great protections and at the same time freedoms provided by our country and constitution is the ability of the President to Pray, or quote the bible, and it not be the government compelling or endorsing any religion on it's citizens. Citizens are free to walk away, smoke a cigarette, read a book, have a conversation while the President observes his religious rites.
    I often hear things like "The boy scouts violate separation of Church and State by having references to prayer and God while they meet in a public school gymnasium at night", and I have to laugh at these people. When the boy scouts are the US Congress, and meet in a gym to pass laws saying all citizens must pray to Jesus at least once a day, I'll agree with them.

    Some things are moral common sense. If you want to insist that something regulated in the bible is an endorsement of religion becuase it's also regulated by law, then you might as well insist certain medical practices be considered doctors endorsement of Judaism simply because they were practiced by jews before any other culture. Or, insist that certain architecture is an endorsement of the ancient roman culture, which accepted slavery and all sorts of other bad stuff.
    Just because certain moral common sense came from the bible (or "appeared" in the bible, to humor some of you) doesn't mean it's inherently religious and therefore should not be regulated.

    It's interesting to note, though, that some of the very basic functional principles of our government are based on the governing practices of the Presbyterian church of the 1600/1700's.
    It's also interesting to note that most major historic governments (Roman, Egyptian, etc) began their decline and collapse coincidentally with decaying moral codes and structure. It's interesting to note how so many of today's hot issues could be considered moral-based and a drive to loosen moral codes.
     
    Last edited: Apr 3, 2006
  14. gauder

    gauder Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    done
    Thanks Ratch. I have learned a bit about the muslim faith, but was unaware about the provisions in which lying is o.k.
     
  15. 3 on the tree

    3 on the tree 1/2 ton status

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2004
    Posts:
    3,970
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    gunnison colorado
    I would not categorize "In God We Trust" as a "vague reference".
     
  16. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    I would. Nothing about the statement gives you any idea of what faith it's referring to, if any.
    What makes you sure it refers to a specific God or religion, and which religion would you say? Bible-based Christianity? Catholocism? Islam (well I know that's not it, but it could technically apply)?

    Not that it matters terribly, but constitutionally, "In God we trust" is not a law that congress has passed with respect to an establishment of religion anyway.

    Besides, my bank and credit card company don't say anything about God when I buy online then pay electronically.

    Anyway, I'm not trying to argue, just wanted to lay out some fodder. In honor of my sig, I'm not going to post again in counterpoint unless asked...
     
  17. gauder

    gauder Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Posts:
    1,613
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    done
    "This is referring to known, accepted, established belief systems, not an arbitrary group of yahoos who get together to worship David Koresh..."

    But it does apply to whackos who want to worship aliens or whatever the fock those Scientologists worship?
     
  18. Can Can

    Can Can Pusher Man Staff Member Super Moderator

    Joined:
    Feb 17, 2000
    Posts:
    15,552
    Likes Received:
    136
    Location:
    Cochrane, Alberta, Canada
    Howdy, my name's Paul. :whistle:
     
  19. newyorkin

    newyorkin 1 ton status

    Joined:
    May 8, 2001
    Posts:
    16,555
    Likes Received:
    157
    Location:
    Los Estados Unitos
    I would say it doesn't apply to them, since they're not established religions. I suppose if they were around for some time and gained a big following, they'd be considered established, but I think there's actually a registry of religions, you can't just make up a set of beliefs and expect the governement to acknowledge it.
     
  20. Resurrection_Joe

    Resurrection_Joe 1 ton status

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2002
    Posts:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Gettysburg, SD
    I don't really mind it, as long as it doesn't dictate what we do through law, in any real form. On the money, sure why not, it's a part of history, you can only change a denomination of money every 25 years anyway.

    So, laws based on the Bible or such, no. Bible stuff floating around, fine. Justification solely through the bible, no. Ten commandments on a rock somehwere, eh whatever.

    There's a fine line between being opressed by religion and being a whiney bitch.

    I just always wonder what will come after Christianity for the new religion. A lot of what was religion is oday mythology. The things it though, this day in age, it's hard to kill off or segregate by natural means the followers of one religion. Land distance doesn't count for much these days.
     

Share This Page