Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Okay, thanks for cleaning up your language Frank, and anyway, a new idea for all of you to eschew: Should any politician use his or her religion as a crutch to make decisions for the public?

Or are problems in the Middle East and Africa stemming from no separation of church and state? Hey Fox, do these ideas trip your trigger?

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, I am saying that the inclusion of the phrase in the official pledge of loyalty to my country...is a de facto infringment on my rights...our rights...not to have the govenment take a position on religion...whether between competing religions...or by deciding there is a god that has to be recognized.

That is not a function of government.

If I could isolate one valid point, it would be this one.

But they should not intrude their simplistic beliefs in things that belong to the general public....like the pledge of allegiance.

wandeljw wrote:

Frank Apisa wrote:

In any case, I am saying that the inclusion of the phrase in the official pledge of loyalty to my country...is a de facto infringment on my rights...our rights...not to have the govenment take a position on religion...whether between competing religions...or by deciding there is a god that has to be recognized.

That is not a function of government.

If I could isolate one valid point, it would be this one.

In fewer words, I thought this one about summed it up.

Frank Apisa wrote:

But they should not intrude their simplistic beliefs in things that belong to the general public....like the pledge of allegiance.

hyper426 wrote:

And think about this....the people who believe in a god need that belief, athiests don't. Can't you see that because of this, the athiests should have the strength to ignore that phrase, because the religious people don't have the strength to be without it?

I haven't really participated much in this thread, primarily because I've seen all the arguments before. Running across a new argument in the church-state debate is about as likely as running across a yeti ordering lottery tickets at the local convenience store.

So it was with a mix of both surprise and excitement that I read the argument above. If I understand it correctly, hyper is arguing for some kind of religious affirmative action: just as handicapped persons, for instance, need the government to step in and mandate special parking spaces and ramps, so too do the religiously afflicted need the government to step in and permit them, feeble as they are, to rely upon the crutch of faith in public places. A monument to the Ten Commandments in a courthouse, then, would be little different from a wheelchair-accessible bathroom: in both cases it would be an accomodation for handicapped.

Atheists, under this theory, would be comparable to the able-bodied general public. Not requiring special accomodations themselves, they have no right to complain about those who, crippled by their own religiosity, are unable to make their way in the world without government assistance. In other words, that creche in front of city hall isn't a public endorsement of any particular creed or religion, it's the government's attempt to reach out and help those special-needs constituents whose fragile faith amounts to nothing less than a disabling condition.

Congratulations, hyper, I think you've correctly diagnosed the situation: religion isn't the cure, it's the disease.

Okay...so you find me to be a dumb ass.

You certainly are not the only one to come up with that.

I'll tell you what I tell them:

Don't read what I write.

Not only do I think a politician should use his/her religion to make decisions...but I would expect them to do so.

I also would expect them to use whatever other phisosophical sensibilities that are part of their make up.

To do less....would be to ask them to be hypocrites.

If the government shouldn't be biased in terms of religion, then should preachers and other religious persons be allowed to voice their opinion on politics when preaching?

In going with the above theme, I would say yes, in repy to my own query. But then should religious institutions be allowed to back political parties or candidates, not an individual preacher, but an entire institution. I know this can't be incorporated very well in the debate, but I thought it was an interesting idea.

Separation of church and state - shouldn't it go both ways?

Trying to prevent the influence of religious organizations on politics is the flip side of the coin of trying to prevent the influence of higher educational institutions, a huge bucket of worms that is best left alone.

I have a question that I want a reply from from both fox(or supporter), and frank(or supporter)...

...how can a government not have views on religion, when it is made up of people, and all people have religious views, even if those views are to not believe in a specific religion?

Also, what is best, a tyranny of the majority, or a tyranny of the minority?

for the most part, like I said, I wanted both opinions on this...and even though no tyranny is best, I asked because when one looks at the question pragmatically, one has always existed, and will almost certainly always exist. I am still alittle fuzzy on the point of view thing, though. If someone admits to having certain views, that influences if they are elected or not(majority rules), and proves that their views are, for the most part, accepted and supported, right?

If the government shouldn't be biased in terms of religion, then should preachers and other religious persons be allowed to voice their opinion on politics when preaching?