Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

No matter where on this planet you may travel, and no matter which era of human history you study, one will always find evidence for morality - a social code based upon a set of communal rules.

As for Church and State being separated, this is just another example of one generation coming along and wanting to change the communal rules of the previous generation...and on and on it goes.

0 Replies

0 Replies

The question is...should steps be taken to prevent that, or help it along.

Hey, could anyone give me some countries that are democratic and do/do not practice separation of church and state? If I had the names of the countries, it would be easiers for me to research them. Thanx.

(wow, I am gonna be gone from here untill sun. or mon., PLEASE reply, but not 30 more pages Laughing

)

0 Replies

Quote:

that picture is now two years old...and I've lost a lot more hair and look a lot older.

No you don't Frank. You look handsome and youthful as ever. Folks the man is in amazing shape (for his age...oops) I can never give a compliment without messing it up a bit.

I agree with hyper. Let's see if we can clean it up for Frank so he doesn't feel left out. Everyone works from some hypothetical system of values and defenses. Morality would be impossible if no one was following any set of (hypothetical) rules.

How's that Frank?

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

The question is...should steps be taken to prevent that, or help it along.

Hey, could anyone give me some countries that are democratic and do/do not practice separation of church and state? If I had the names of the countries, it would be easiers for me to research them. Thanx.

(wow, I am gonna be gone from here untill sun. or mon., PLEASE reply, but not 30 more pages )

England is democratic (although it is a monarchy...and it does not practice separation of church and state.

0 Replies

Lola wrote:

that picture is now two years old...and I've lost a lot more hair and look a lot older.

No you don't Frank. You look handsome and youthful as ever. Folks the man is in amazing shape (for his age...oops) I can never give a compliment without messing it up a bit.

What a sweet talker!! :wink:

Quote:

I agree with hyper. Let's see if we can clean it up for Frank so he doesn't feel left out. Everyone works from some hypothetical system of values and defenses. Morality would be impossible if no one was following any set of (hypothetical) rules.

How's that Frank?

I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with people assigning instigation of those hypothetical rules to a god.

Even if a case can be made that we owe some of our morality to scripture...

...we do not know if the injuctions (such as we should stone homosexuals to death for their abominable behavior)...

...came from a god...

...or from humans who put their sensibilities and mores into the mouth of a god they invented.

How's that, Lola? Twisted Evil

0 Replies

related topic:

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=43314&highlight=

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Lola wrote:
that picture is now two years old...and I've lost a lot more hair and look a lot older.

No you don't Frank. You look handsome and youthful as ever. Folks the man is in amazing shape (for his age...oops) I can never give a compliment without messing it up a bit.

What a sweet talker!! :wink:

Quote:
I agree with hyper. Let's see if we can clean it up for Frank so he doesn't feel left out. Everyone works from some hypothetical system of values and defenses. Morality would be impossible if no one was following any set of (hypothetical) rules.

How's that Frank?

I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with people assigning instigation of those hypothetical rules to a god.

Even if a case can be made that we owe some of our morality to scripture...

...we do not know if the injuctions (such as we should stone homosexuals to death for their abominable behavior)...

...came from a god...

...or from humans who put their sensibilities and mores into the mouth of a god they invented.

How's that, Lola?

That's very good, Frank.........and it's not sweet talk, it's true. I just thought the others should know.

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

I have no problem with that.

I do have a problem with people assigning instigation of those hypothetical rules to a god.

Even if a case can be made that we owe some of our morality to scripture...

...we do not know if the injuctions (such as we should stone homosexuals to death for their abominable behavior)...

...came from a god...

...or from humans who put their sensibilities and mores into the mouth of a god they invented.

I can follow that, theists often forget that the soul of the bible may have come from their God, but a human wrote it, and all humans suffer from opinions and prejudices. Glad I'm back? Twisted Evil

0 Replies

I'm glad you're back too.

0 Replies

hyper426 wrote:

I can follow that, theists often forget that the soul of the bible may have come from their God, but a human wrote it, and all humans suffer from opinions and prejudices. Glad I'm back?

Some believe (fundamentalist christians for example) that the Bible is divinely inspired and is imbued with magical qualities which speak to each reader personally. People who view the Bible this way are not deterred by concerns over the physical authorship of the document itself.

It's a tough viewpoint to debate Smile

0 Replies

very true, ros

0 Replies

awww, I am loved Laughing

thanks for the country Frank.

0 Replies

magical qualities, ummm, I have heard pot smokers use that reference, any connection to those radicals (sorry, no offense intended for any foot-washers out there)

0 Replies

Quote:

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

School and State.

http://honestedu.org/

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

School and State.

http://honestedu.org/

That's a wierd site. Thier ideas don't seem very well thought out.

0 Replies

The basic idea is simple enough: you've seen how welll the government performs its various other functions; why would you want them educating your children?

Other than that, English is at best a quasi-phoenetic language. Granted that even that is vastly better than trying to teach kids to sight-read which has obviously failed, I am amazed that in all this time nobody has ever proposed redoing the English language in terms of its use of the Roman alphabet, which is a disaster. I'd rate English about an 80 on a scale of 100 at best. Russian I would guess is around 95% phoenetic and German probably more like 98 or 99%. If you see a German word written you know how to pronounce it, and if you hear it, you know how to spell it, the only exceptions being borrowed words.

0 Replies

gungasnake wrote:

The basic idea is simple enough: you've seen how welll the government performs its various other functions; why would you want them educating your children?

Well, if the argument is as simple as "we've seen how bad the government does things"... then why would we want them doing anything for us? And clearly we do want them to offer some services, so it doesn't necessarily follow that we should wipe out government sponsored and funded education.

I'll be the first to agree that the government could make a rainy day worse, but I'm not sure that a sweeping generalization of "we've seen how bad they can be" disqualifies them by default as a solutions provider. It's a little more complex than that.

0 Replies

More fun stuff: Supreme Court allows inauguration prayers

This is where things get hazy. Perhaps surprisingly, I agree with the court on this decision, despite my general support for church and state separation.

In this case, I see this as a personal choice by the President on how he wants his innauguration performed. To me, this is not an endorsement by the state itself on general theology, or of any specific theology.

0 Replies

Ros writes

Quote:

Well, if the argument is as simple as "we've seen how bad the government does things"... then why would we want them doing anything for us?

Hear, hear!!! Amen and Amen. (Okay, I think you meant this statement sarcastically but it is nevertheless a lyric from a song I have been singing for a long time.)

I personally think we would be so much better off if the Federal government restricted itself to its constitutional mandated resonsibilities of protecting our inalienable rights, defending us from our enemies, domestic and foreign, issuing and regulating our currency, and making sure the states don't beat up on each other. In other words, I advocate that the federal government do only those things that cannot be done more efficiently, economically, and/or effectively by the states and/or private sector. We would then not need the government to otherwise 'do' anything for us.

That all by itself would take care of any separation of church and state issues.

0 Replies

Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know