The recent death of Jerry Falwell has triggered debates about the impact of his policies on the American government. My question is, what purpose (if any) does religion have in the running of the country? Should there be Jefferson's "wall of seperation" between church and state, or should religious groups like Focus on the Family and the Christian Coalition play a role in government?
-
"I'm all in favor of keeping dangerous weapons out of the hands of fools. Let's start with typewriters."
- Frank Lloyd Wright -
Re: Church and State
Any time someone wants to argue for the involvement of church in matters of state, I say "Which church"?
Do you give every faith, religion, cult and church some direct representation in government? Seats in the house? Based on what? Number of worshippers? Some incredibly misguided idea that there is actually one -right- church to whom the state should listen?
Or should church groups have to be like every other lobby group that exists, and simply have the same rights as any citizen to petition the government to listen to the desires of the constituants empowering that government? -
Re: Church and State
Here's an idea. Let's get the hell rid of government. Marxists complain that when power and money are in the same hands it results in chaos, Secularists argue that when religion and power are in the same place it results in chaos, Free Market Capitalists argue that when power and intervention combine it results in chaos; AND EVERY SINGLE ONE OF THESE THINGS IS TRUE!
You can either continue complaining about something which is broken by definition and build elaborate systems around the problem, or you can just get rid of the problem. Is this really such a crazy idea?Comment
-
Re: Church and State
Hate to keep it short in CT, but I think any religion shouldn't be a part of any government. At least, not the US government, considering we're supposed to be free and aren't forced to believe in anything.Comment
-
Re: Church and State
No group/religion should play a role in its government.
And the fact that sooooo many companies and churches get such direct input is the reason why I can understand why anarchists are who they are.
The democracy should be run by the people, not by some group, not by a religion.
There are some good principles that should be applied to government from groups and religions, but that doesn't mean they should run it.
If the majority of people agree with these principles, then it should be implemented. But churches and businesses should not get special treatment or more say because they have the money to get their way.
The decisions of a country's leaders should also not be based on any duty/bribe to these organizations.
That is NOT the way this country was founded and it should never have turned into what it is now. I think we should start over quite frankly.
Comment
-
Re: Church and State
The democracy should be run by everybody.
And it's only naive to think that "the people" don't belong to churches and organizations; you can't separate the person from his beliefs and affiliations.
Religions don't run America as is. They influence people, sure, but there's neither anything wrong with that nor any way to stop it.
--Guido
Originally posted by GrandiagodComment
-
Re: Church and State
Religion is such a big controversial thing. I just wish that the creators of every religion could meet each other in one big room and peacefully debate until one universal religion could be established. I know people think I'm crazy for a universal religion, but I bet if these people had met one day, they would have created the better version of the religion I always think about. Aside from my crazy thoughts, I don't believe that religion should even think about tangling in government. It's atleast legitimate to base yourself off of religion, but religion itself in government is out of the question. The seperation of Power and money (Marxist) and separation of religion and money (Secularists) have the right intentions. Unless every single person in the world agrees on how to use money and religion, no person or group should have extreme power. I know that the government always seems to be trying to destroy society because of the people in it, but think about the way these people are elected and what the government's intentions are. Even if the government seems to or even tries to destroy society at times, its intention is to peacefully debate for solutions.Last edited by Master_of_the_Faster; 05-18-2007, 06:11 PM.Comment
-
Re: Church and State
A properly functional democracy only insures that the smallest possible minority will bear the cost of humanities stupidity. And there's never been a properly functional democracy.Comment
-
Re: Church and State
What do you think people consist of? Everybody is the same as 'the people'. Unless you think dogs and cats should have a say?
I said 'if the majority of people agree with principles of churches and organizations, then and only then, should it be integrated into the ideals/laws of our government.' That doesn't at all say anywhere that 'the people' do or don't belong to churches and organizations.
And yes of course religion influences people and I guess some of that is a good thing, some of it bad, but everyone in an organization or church isn't going to have a unified outlook on life. The church getting a say in the government when the people who might belong to it get less isn't fair. Churches don't speak for the people. That's what a government is supposed to do. It's supposed to represent its people's decisions/ideals/morals/rights.Comment
-
Re: Church and State
Ultimately the problem is the Government doesn't do a good job either. The further away from an individual that choices are being made, the less likely it will benefit any given individual or group of individuals.Comment
-
Re: Church and State
if we get a president that is very reliogues he should be removed. If he belives strongly in a group that is racist to a other racist or more he should be removed. If we dont remove these type of ppl there will be more chaos the uaslly there and we dont need more chaosComment
-
Re: Church and State
And who determines what constitutes "Too religious" or "Too Racist"?
Is someone who crosses the street when ten big burly black men are walking towards them at night a sufficient racist to be forcibly removed from an elected position?
What's too religious? Going to church on sunday? Praying? Believing in God at all?
I mean, the extreme extremes are really easy to identify, but you can't start advocating the "removal" of undesireables when there is a very slippery slope involved in your definition.Comment
-
Re: Church and State
Well, theres where I see the problem.
To get their ideals realized and have some say about how the law treats them, people make or join groups, then rally / protest / whatever to get their views known. The larger that group gets, the less it starts listening to the individual member and the more it listens to group leaders. Eventualy, what was a group that represented a smaller portion of people's beliefs now is controlled by a few high-up members that usualy pay little attention to the average person.
Personaly, I would have no problem with religion being involved in government if this where an all-christian country. Not necessarily christian, but I'm sure you see the point - if the country is an all-whatever religion-country, then everyone would understand and follow religious laws, and the need for an actual government would be very small. However, there is not a single country on Earth made up of all one single religion. As long as we have diversity, I think no group should hold influence over the government.Comment
-
Re: Church and State
Religion should have NO hand in the government.
I'd almost like most leaders to be Agnostic or Atheist, to be frank.
Each religion has it's ups and downs, but if one religion could control of government, there would be a LOT of backlash; I'd almost say it would be a 2nd Civil war for America.Comment
Comment