Democracy is best served by strict separation of...

honk honk.........that's a goose

HONK HONK HONKY HONK HONK!!! (A gander).

Oh me
Oh my
Love that country pie.

lip smackin good

Lola:-

That was quick.Yeah I know.Meditation tackle.THE MUSE.(See C of Love and etiquette rules).

I was wrong, spendius. Anyone willing to converse in bird language couldn't possibly be pretentious.

wande:-

If I get time I'll look up a few comments on democracy in my library this weekend.I certainly won't have time to construct a coherent essay out of it though.

Lola and I can converse in any style.She has a nice sense of humour and that is quite rare in a lady.It's pretty rare in gents as well these days.

LOL, wande.

This party line argument (the Constitution guarantees freedom of religion, not freedom from religion) we've been seeing so much of is nothing more than a Rovian trick. And it's a good one. It's a good try, but no cigar.

Do you suppose that in ages to come the word Rovian will replace Machiavellian? It's certainly easier to spell and takes less time to type out. It fits well with the new easier, dum downer, more simple turn of political "journalism." In any case, how often have we seen this argument made lately, word for word? They've been out there on the talk shows and in here on the internet threads repeating it like little Pavrovian puppies.

Freedom of religion is exactly why there should be no monuments of the Ten Commandments in a publicly owned buildings (that means owned by all the people, not just some of them, not just the majority). Freedom of religion requires there be no state endorsed religion. And a monument of the Ten Commandments in the courthouse is clearly a bold face attempt to endorse Christianity. Well, if you're a jew, it might include you too......maybe. This new, finely tuned party line almost works, but when challenged, as we've seen here, it doesn't quite make it. So there you are.

Hats off to Rove though.

Below are a few principles of democracy listed by Thomas Jefferson in his first inaugural address (March 4, 1801):
"right of election by the people"
"absolute acquiesence in the decisions of the majority"
"equal and exact justice to all"
"freedom of religion"
"supremacy of the civil over the military authority"
"peace with all nations - entangling alliances with none"

To guarantee these principles, does government need to completely avoid religion?

If liberty and fairness for the people are the goal, then all governments should avoid involvement with religion. What possible benefit can come from combining government and religion in any form?

On the other hand, there is something to be said or the ruthless efficiency of absolute control, so if your goal is not to promote liberty and fairness, but rather, the authority of the bootheel to the back of the neck, then religious governments work great. You not only get the militia of the government to enforce your will, but you get the emotional thrust of the preachers and mullah's and clerics and priests to drive your point into the very heart and soul of the people. Ahhhh, absolute power, what a rush.

And don't forget our 'esteemed' president.

awwwww Ya'll are so sweet!

I hate it when I miss a couple of days, ya'll just keep adding pages and pages!

Oh, and I meant the Bible for Christian doctrine. I was asking how the party, who called themselves Christian, could be secular while following the teachings they were representing.

Well that narrows it down to just about anything. :wink:

hyper:-

What about the secular party?They follow Christian doctrines quite a good bit.Perhaps they don't know but that wouldn't be anything new.

wande:-

Poor old mouldering Jefferson then.He must be whirling in his grave.

spendius,

What did you find in your research at the library? (I used a book on the collected writings of Jefferson to find a definition of democracy.)

wande:-

He was a bit naive was old Tom.I don't know what the population was then and how it was distributed and where the drinking water came from and what the media looked like and what minority rights consisted of or which pensions were any good and how they got from place to place and what time it was and whether the bread came sliced and what happened when it went dark or blew up a big storm and what you did about artereosclerosis and all that stuff.I do know they had no electricity though and gas stations and NFLs and painkillers and terrorists threats of significance and corruption police so I can easily imagine that old Tom was not talking about us lot at all.
I did do a bit of research but it got quite confusing so I may try to condense it down and absract from it what might be important although it is the Cheltenham Festival of National Hunt racing this week and my mind is not entirely on democracy.
Money,money money.Follow the money wande.1st rule of journalism don't you know.That's journalism not what is mostly in the papers.That's mainly the squealing and squeakings of the daughters of well connected gents who have to find them something to do which they feel in not beneath their dignity.

Yes, spendius and wandeljw. And context is important too.

oh, i don't know. I guess it is the same line of thinking as...

is it possible to be religious and secular?

Isn't that a question that applies everywhere? Germany, U.S., Iran, Iraq, India?

hyper:-

I've read somewhere that to disentangle the religious and the secular in Iran and Irag is as difficult as changing the colour of their skin.Cecil Rhodes did once suggest a method of changing the colour of African's skins but I won't repeat it here because a lot of Americans read this stuff and they are a bit sensitive about such things.Suffice to say it would take a long time but it is a fairly humane method.

I not only wonder about religious parties in Iraq and Iran, but also about European political parties with "Christian" in their title.

I was actually born in Germany and I still wonder how German Christian Democrats maintain secularism in government. If we want "under god" removed from the American pledge, wouldn't Germans want any reference to religion removed from the name of their ruling party?