Official Church and State Discussion

Hey everybody, I might be breaking in here, sorry, but I just wanted to state my opinion on this.

I believe that the church should be totaly seperated from the state. Some people say that this country was based on Christianity. If our country was based on Christianity then why did they put "seperation fo church and state" in the constitution. I think that this country was based on common morals THAT HAPPEN to be in the holy book of Christianity. Sorry, but not stealing, not lying, and not killing aren't Christian morals. Their morals that all religions share. Even nonreligious people share. Those are morals all people share, not just Christians. Yes people used to teach religion in school, but just because we've been doing something doesn't mean it's right. So we eventually realized that that was against our constitution. Also, when we put the ten commandments on a court house, how do you think people of religions that don't have the ten commandments feel? Not only that, but the reason they're up there really isn't for dictating morals to people but rather pure religion. Otherwise they have thought to take out "keep the sabboth holy" or "Thou shalt not have any other gods but me." That particular line is totaly inappropiate for America, that was built on seperation of church and state. It is also really insulting for polytheistic realigions. Saying you should only have one God.

More than that I don't think that upholds to "all men are created equal" if you basiclly say "as long as you belive in one God and uphold the ten commandments." These need to be taken off the court house.

Ok, let's talk about prayers in school. Forget the fact that this country was built on the seperation of church and state and eventually took out prayers in schools for that very reason. Let's talk about pure morals, and what is right. How do you think a muslim kid feels if he's forced to learn Christian prayers? That can apply to any religion. But honestly, does it seem right to force anybody to belive in your way? Simple morals. No need to debate about the constitution so much as it's simply the right thing to do.

 

Are there public schools that force students to learn Christian prayers? If you're refering to private schools, yeah, that would be par for the course, but the person enrolling would know this up front.

How do you feel about compromise?

What about schools that have an undefined "moment of silence?" (or as some call it, "moment of reflection")

If a person wants to pray during that time, fine. If they want to mentally review an upcoming quiz, fine. If they want to daydream about the OC, that's fine too.

Or what if some athletes want to pray before a big game. If one doesn't want to participate, don't participate, but isn't there room for a balance?

 

Aumgn,

I agree with your assessment of creationism. But I think what several of these other guys here are trying to point out is that mocking the creationists is not at all productive or beneficial to the discussion here.

There are basically 2 views you can have:
1) Creationists are wrong, but there's some chance of convincing them that they're wrong
2) Creationists are wrong, and they'll never be convinced they're wrong

If you believe 1, then mocking the creationists is certainly not going to put them in a mood to pay attention to the actual facts of your argument; you'll just make them angry and make intellectual conversation that much more difficult.

If you believe 2, then mocking the creationists accomplishes nothing more than allowing you a smug satisfaction at your own superiority in knowing fact from myth. And if you have any sort of scientific perspective you'll know that NOTHING (this includes ID) is impossible, just highly improbable. I don't mean this as a defense of ID; I'm just trying to warn you away from arrogance.

 

Are there public schools that force students to learn Christian prayers?

All I was saying is that I don't believe in mandated prayers. I didn't say there were mandated prayers in public schools, or that you couldn't pray on your own seperately. I simply said I didn't believe in mandated prayers.

 

I think cries of "Christian persecution" are somewhat premature.

For example, are not almost all Christian holidays federal holidays as well?

How many Jewish ones are? Muslim ones?

Peace,

V-03

 

How come all moderator emeritus mods have to have red colors?

I noticed your, Vaderize03, didn't used to be red.

 

Only one, and you could make a secular case for that one.

Population-wise, the US is a predominantly Christian nation. Even among those who are not religious, the vast majority celebrate Christmas, and were it not a holiday most would be requesting the day off. Because (for psychological reasons alone) holidays are almost essential to the well-being of your workforce. By declaring a day where the majority would be requesting the day off, it makes the administrative side a lot easier.

Kimball Kinnison

 

I think it should be creationism in private schools, and science and evolution in public schools. Government/state should be strictly secular.

 

Good, now have a cookie.

 

So, I took a look at the link Voija provided and LO and BEHOLD we see the "science" that goes into the "theory" of "Intelligent" Design:

"The word 'dinosaur' was not invented back then, but in Job 38, there's two large creatures, behemoth and leviathan," said Carter, director of the Littleton-based Biblically Correct Tours, as he prepared to give his first tour of the school year.

Either or both creatures were probably dinosaurs, he said.

There it is. That's it. Uh huh. Yep.

But there's more!

"They're fossilized from the flood!" Cameron exclaimed. "So maybe the dinosaurs became extinct because of the flood?"

The biblical flood fossilized dinosaurs, Thorne said, but dinosaurs made it onto the ark - all the animals did. He suspects Noah brought baby dinosaurs (because who would want an adult tyrannosaur around?), and the creatures succumbed to overhunting or climate change.

Wow. Look at the incredible research. It's amazing.

 

I think the point Mr. Vaderize was trying make, Mr. Kinnison, was that it is rather difficult to claim persecution by denying, say, public school prayer when in fact you proved the point for him that the US is predominantly christian by population.

However, I would be curious to see just what percentage of "christians" consider themselves "fundamentalist", or how many of them believe that the US is a "christian nation", and therefore not secular.

E_F

 

I don't know why I'm red, I never really gave it much thought.

Interesting thoughts, Kimball, although I think that Earl_Ferrell raises some interesting points.

You make a good secular argument for allowing Christian holidays.

Peace,

V-03

 

I don't know why I'm red, I never really gave it much thought.

But as an emeritus, do you have the power to make it another color? Every moderator emeritus I've seen has had red colors.

 

A group can be in the majority in a population, and yet still be persecuted.

Consider Iraq, where the Shi'ites were a clear majority, and yet were persecuted and oppressed under the Sunnis (including Saddam).

Consider also South Africa, where blacks were an overwhelming majority, and yet they were persecuted and oppressed under apartheid.

Majority or minority status is neither a qualifier nor a disqualifier for being persecuted. Persecute simply means that you oppress or harass someone, not that they are a minority.

I am not saying that Christians are persecuted in the US, but I'm not saying that they are not either. I am simply addressing the logical fallacy of claiming that they can't be persecuted because they are not a minority.

Kimball Kinnison

 

Damn, you get to have your cake and eat it too!

How's it taste?



Squ33k!

 

I certainly would say that the second view is correct. The creationist objection to evolution is faith-based, not fact-based, which is why we don't see atheistic scientists signing on to creationism. As such, facts will not change the mind of a creationist, as their worldview is by definition not shaped by facts. Theoretically, you could engage them in a discussion on how the fact of evolution is compatable with their general mythology, but 1)I don't think it is, and 2)trying to jimmy facts into ancient mythology, as though evolution was predicted by Genesis all this time, is as insulting to science as the simple creation/evolution 'debate'. The validity of evolution is a fact whether or not it can be read into Genesis, and it's the believer's job to sort that out, not the rational person.

As for what it accomplishes, you make a good point that it allows smug satisfaction, which is a plus. But beyond that, it correctly denies the creationist their debate, and their degredation by equation of scientific fact.

And of course, I know that anything is possible, but labelling creationism or the existence of Santa Claus as 'highly improbable' would just be splitting hairs in day-to-day language.

 

Care of The Times:

_________________________________________________________________
Societies worse off 'when they have God on their side'
By Ruth Gledhill, Religion Correspondent



RELIGIOUS belief can cause damage to a society, contributing towards high murder rates, abortion, sexual promiscuity and suicide, according to research published today.



According to the study, belief in and worship of God are not only unnecessary for a healthy society but may actually contribute to social problems.

The study counters the view of believers that religion is necessary to provide the moral and ethical foundations of a healthy society.

It compares the social peformance of relatively secular countries, such as Britain, with the US, where the majority believes in a creator rather than the theory of evolution. Many conservative evangelicals in the US consider Darwinism to be a social evil, believing that it inspires atheism and amorality.

Many liberal Christians and believers of other faiths hold that religious belief is socially beneficial, believing that it helps to lower rates of violent crime, murder, suicide, sexual promiscuity and abortion. The benefits of religious belief to a society have been described as its ?spiritual capital?. But the study claims that the devotion of many in the US may actually contribute to its ills.

The paper, published in the Journal of Religion and Society, a US academic journal, reports: ?Many Americans agree that their churchgoing nation is an exceptional, God-blessed, shining city on the hill that stands as an impressive example for an increasingly sceptical world.

?In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy and abortion in the prosperous democracies.

?The United States is almost always the most dysfunctional of the developing democracies, sometimes spectacularly so.?

Gregory Paul, the author of the study and a social scientist, used data from the International Social Survey Programme, Gallup and other research bodies to reach his conclusions.

He compared social indicators such as murder rates, abortion, suicide and teenage pregnancy.

The study concluded that the US was the world?s only prosperous democracy where murder rates were still high, and that the least devout nations were the least dysfunctional. Mr Paul said that rates of gonorrhoea in adolescents in the US were up to 300 times higher than in less devout democratic countries. The US also suffered from ? uniquely high? adolescent and adult syphilis infection rates, and adolescent abortion rates, the study suggested.

Mr Paul said: ?The study shows that England, despite the social ills it has, is actually performing a good deal better than the USA in most indicators, even though it is now a much less religious nation than America.?

He said that the disparity was even greater when the US was compared with other countries, including France, Japan and the Scandinavian countries. These nations had been the most successful in reducing murder rates, early mortality, sexually transmitted diseases and abortion, he added.

Mr Paul delayed releasing the study until now because of Hurricane Katrina. He said that the evidence accumulated by a number of different studies suggested that religion might actually contribute to social ills. ?I suspect that Europeans are increasingly repelled by the poor societal performance of the Christian states,? he added.

He said that most Western nations would become more religious only if the theory of evolution could be overturned and the existence of God scientifically proven. Likewise, the theory of evolution would not enjoy majority support in the US unless there was a marked decline in religious belief, Mr Paul said.

?The non-religious, proevolution democracies contradict the dictum that a society cannot enjoy good conditions unl

 

How can you possibly ever honestly 'debate' a matter of faith in a scientific context?

There can never be an intellectual winner. Creationism is an aspect of Christian faith, so if you shoot creationism down you are also necessarily shooting down the fundamental basis of their Christian faith aren't you? Can a Christian accept evolution and reject creationism and still maintain their Christian faith?

 

I haven't really looked into it deeply, but two comments on the study:

1. Despite the alliance between Christian conservatives and big business on the political right, the represenative member is not a combination of the two. Frankly, Fundamentalist Christian sects (like fundamentalist Islamic movements in those countries, etc) tend to have more traction in areas where people are poor. Poverty correlates with all those negative things for a number of obvious reasons. I think it may well be a lurking variable here.

2. The claim for the necessity of acknowledging God to have success was never meant to be a literal one. The teaching originated when Christians were still a fringe minority in the Roman Empire that was under persecution. Clearly then, the argument wasn't to mean that there was no way to material success outside of Christianity. It's very much a theological position--not one of practical policy. For the study to have treated it as such seems misguided.

 

Can a Christian accept evolution and reject creationism and still maintain their Christian faith?

Depends on your denomination's reading of the Bible. The Jesuits who taught at my Catholic high school acknowledged evolution, because they held to a contextual (non-literal) view of the Bible's creation tale.

As long as you don't hold the Biblical creation narrative to be historical fact, evolution and creationism can go together by saying that God created the universe, including the evolutionary process.

 

Kimball, that analogy of yours might be convincing, except the majorities in Iraq and South Africa weren't in power and were actively supressed. Christians here aren't persecuted, supressed, or out of power. In fact, they wield a great deal of power in this country. But I guess you didn't say Christians were persecuted here.

 

I'm Jewish. It never really bothered me that we had Christmas off and not Channukah or Passover because, like others have stated before, the majority of Americans are Christian. Also, many Jewish holidays have rituals that take place in the evenings. There are two holidays every year that I have to miss school for, but other that that it's not much of a problem.

I have one friend who is very Christian. She wants to be allowed to pray in school. The thing is, though no one is stopping her. Before the bell rings, she can say her prayers if she wants.

 

At the risk of sounding pedantic, it's eat your cake and have it too. Think about it.

I'm going to echo JKH's sentiment(s), because I don't see how you can take the Bible "literally" with creation but ignore the part about owning slaves and whatnot. I that your faith can accomodate such an admission; after all, couldn't you ask yourself what caused evolution and give the Old Guy thumbs up?

E_S

 

I've always heard 'Have your cake and eat it too', which got 233,000 Google hits versus 16,200 for the variant you cite. Grammatically, I don't see how it makes a difference, as the actions described occur simultaneously.