|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:42 pm
Time for a new topic, methinks, one with which I am ridiculously familiar, and which is practially guaranteed to create controversy.
1. What do you believe is the proper role of religion in government?
2. What role should personal morals, even if sectarian derived, play in a lawmaker's decisions?
3. What do you think of the specific term "The separation of Church and State"?
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sun Feb 10, 2008 12:43 pm
You'll notice that I have not rendered my opinion nor have I voted in the poll. I want to see a couple of replies first. My position is as usual a little complex.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Feb 11, 2008 1:15 am
I'm for seperation of church and state. I was going to post a topic along these lines in relation to the Turkish government allowing women to wear headscarves at university, because I was stunned that so many people would object to this. They say they want to keep Turkey secular, but doesn't that involve not opposing religious practices as well as not supporting them? I say as long as religious practice isn't hurting anyone then it should be allowed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:14 pm
I believe strongly in the seperation between church and state. Religion doesn't belong in the government as much as I'm sure the church wouldn't want government to belong in religion. I was brought up Catholic, however I'm not very religious. I do believe in God, but I don't believe that I have the right to force my religion on to anyone... and neither does the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Feb 14, 2008 7:20 pm
1. What do you believe is the proper role of religion in government? None.
2. What role should personal morals, even if sectarian derived, play in a lawmaker's decisions? None.
3. What do you think of the specific term "The separation of Church and State"? Exactly what it says. It's not that complicated.
Boredom Rant!
Not everything has a complicated meaning or answer. Most people just look for one because of since the answer or meaning is simple they would already know pretty much everything and be bored. Complication is the cure for Boredom.
End Rant.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:53 am
I believe that the Church and the State are inevitably allies. The old maxim, "we rule you, we fool you" is appropriate here. Like it or not, US politics is shot through with religious connotations. The president regularly consults with far-right religious fundamentalists when making politics decisions, as any small amount of digging will uncover.
It is ludicrous to suggest that religious ethics or any other sort of ethics can be removed from lawmakers decisions; people make the law based on their personal beliefs, with very few exceptions. If they did not, they would be seen as weak and populist, and would never win an election.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:38 am
Forsaken_Virgin I believe that the Church and the State are inevitably allies. The old maxim, "we rule you, we fool you" is appropriate here. Like it or not, US politics is shot through with religious connotations. The president regularly consults with far-right religious fundamentalists when making politics decisions, as any small amount of digging will uncover. It is ludicrous to suggest that religious ethics or any other sort of ethics can be removed from lawmakers decisions; people make the law based on their personal beliefs, with very few exceptions. If they did not, they would be seen as weak and populist, and would never win an election. It's very true that in the US [as well as virtually every country and society], the political world is filled with religious connotations. Our money [in God we trust], our judicial system [swearing on the bible], to our lawmaker's speeches [God bless America]... Honestly, things like that don't bother me as much as the idea of prayer in public schools, or teaching creationism. We all know that the New World was colonized by religious fanatics called the Pilgrims... it's a part of our history, and we [as an American society] will never ever change the words to The Pledge of Alliegiance... And I agree, a politician should not base a faith-based political decision. However, there is an ALARMING amount of "lawyers" who are graduating from Evangelical-born-again colleges and are taking major positions in the American government. And I remind you... these are people who believe science is a farce. Over 100 of these lawyers and politicians are currently serving under Bush's administration. [Saw it on a documentary on PBS]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:59 am
The very idea of faith-based education is so silly. It implies that your faith cannot survive the normal education system, that people need some special, rarefied environment to develop their faith. Of course, the reality is that religion can't survive if it is exposed to irreligious perspectives.
On a side note, wow your country is going downhill fast.
Not that we can talk. Did you hear our whole parliamentary system became a farce last year?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 10:14 am
Forsaken_Virgin Not that we can talk. Did you hear our whole parliamentary system became a farce last year? As a matter of fact, I haven't. surprised
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 11:43 am
I don't see the churches and government as being allies at all. Jefferson correctly saw that the churches prosper when separated from government and that the government ran better without churches sticking their nose in there all the time.
However I LOATHE the "separation of church and state" I do not use that. Use the term Soul Freedom, or religious neutrality, whatever, just please don't use SCS. The conservatives dont even start to listen to us because that term was also used in the Soviet law system (supposedly) and so now people who hear that phrase automatically brand you a communist, like it or not. It doesn't help to bridge anything.
I have a somewhat unusual position, being that I am both highly active politically and also a person who is devout but not Judeo-Christian. I happen to be Pagan, which adds a layer since there is so much misunderstanding on the part of Christians towards us.
As for lawmakers using personal beliefs in legislation, it's mised. I don't mind one bit if someone uses, say. the Golden Rule in looking at a bill. General rules like that can serve as a useful way to keep morals in mind. It's when they apply sectarian ideals like the sunday sabbath to legislation (blue laws) that I get mad. Those don't serve anything but the churches, and is not neutrality.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 5:20 pm
rockerpixie Forsaken_Virgin Not that we can talk. Did you hear our whole parliamentary system became a farce last year? As a matter of fact, I haven't. surprised Yeah, we now have three parties (4 in Scotland) which are basically the same. I'll explain - Liberal Democrats: Formed when the Liberal party fused with the SDP, (a Labour splinter), which was a sort of contradiction in ideology from the start. Now a kind of 'radical flavoured' centre-right party. Labour: Used to be socialist. Ran out of old-school workers in the 80s, turned to a sort of centre-right party in the 90s with a kind of vague 'socialist flavour', but not much of that. Conservatives: Used to be conservative. Lost all credibility with British voters through a series of farcical leaders following Thatcher. Reinvented last year by Cameron into a sort of "modern flavour" centre-right party. SNP: Flirted vaguely with leftish policy, but as nationalists they were always kind of right wing. Now in power in Scotland, since last year. And not actively seeking independence. Which was their only consistent policy before the election. "Haggis flavour" centre-right party. SSP: Dissolved. Bloody political left with its stupid factionalism... BNP: Ha ha. Greens: Almost unelectable. Even the Irish parties have stopped killing one another and settled down to some nice centre-rightness these days. And people wonder why no one votes? Give them something to vote for for Christ's sake... Essentially all anyone does now in parliament is make personal attacks on each other. It's pathetic. It's reaction 1, progress 0, and no one wants a rematch. It's enough to make one down tools and move to Venezuela...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Feb 15, 2008 9:23 pm
Oh my god, I just wrote up a whole massive post about New Zealand's recent political/religious controversy and then it failed to submit. Grrrrr. I might try again later tonight (typing it up on Word first, methinks). Ugh.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Sat Feb 16, 2008 8:30 pm
Okay, here goes. Click on the links if you want more details after you've read this 'cause I can't be bothered writing out all the stuff I did last time. Last year the director of the religous studies programme at my university released a National Statement on Religious Diversity, which Helen Clark presented at the third Asia-Pacific Dialogue on Interfaith Cooperation. The first clause in this said that "New Zealand has no official or established religion." Now, I would've thought this was a give in and a perfectly acceptable statement, but Brian Tamaki reacted with this: Quote: Since 2002 the Labour-led Government has been imposing its religion of "secular humanism" on New Zealanders with spectacular success. I agree that the functions of the church and state should be separate. I also believe that freedom of religious choice and expression are fundamental rights of all New Zealanders. But there is no such thing as a religiously neutral country. It's a fallacy to contend that individuals who perform the functions of the state separate their personal belief systems from their politics. The prevailing belief system (or religion) of today determines the culture of tomorrow. Hence, our nation is experiencing a dramatic increase in social carnage I believe is proportionate to a major departure from traditional Christian values, though many wouldn't correlate the two. I've been saying for some time that our nation must recapture its Christian heritage. But the Government has different ideas. Which brings me to what I believe is the underlying intent of the proposed National Statement on Religious Diversity that claims "New Zealand has no state religion."... It is not necessary to deny our Christian heritage to co-habitate and fully function alongside those of different religious persuasions. Nor should we feel obliged to appease those who hold different religious views by minimising our faith. How can these values be passed on to the next generation if they cannot be openly advocated without fear of causing offence? Of course, immigrants who come to New Zealand have every right to pursue their religion of choice. But they should come understanding that New Zealand is a Christian nation and as such, it is their responsibility to respect our nation's Christian founding values. Many other countries are perfectly secure and have no problems stating their religious allegiance. I increasingly perceive there is a political agenda to totally de-Christianise our culture and our country. Despite what Professor Morris and others might say, the National Statement on Religious Diversity is politically motivated. So then, since they have moved to create a national statement on religion, I propose we take it to one step further and officially recognise what we have always been, a Christian nation. I skipped out a whole lot of stuff, so go here if you want to read all of it. This Brian Tamaki guy is the bishop of Destiny Church, a fundamental Christian group which is famous in New Zealand for the Enough is Enough rally against the civil union bill (which essentially allows gay marriage). They also had a political party which ran in the 2005 elections, gaining 0.6% of the vote. Anyway, I completely disagree that New Zealand is a Christian nation. In the 2006 Census 55.6% of our population affiliated with a Christian religion, 34.7% with no religion, and the rest with other religions. The trends in the past few years are Christian religions decreasing and other religions and no religion increasing. Go here for the full report. So what is New Zealand has a Christian heritage? That's not our future, and it shouldn't have an affect on our policies. Bah. That's not as good as what I wrote last night but whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 7:48 am
I love the seperation of church and state idea, but it's never going to happen. Abolish the tax exempt status from religion. Everyone shoud pay taxes.
Or we could just have communism. That would be awesome. Have a country that is a democracy with a communist economy. Think about it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 17, 2008 10:14 am
Ay! A democratic government and communist economy? Will never work.
As soon as the economy went into a tailspin from the people not producing much because of the quotas and government takings, (lack of incentive principle), that government would get voted out, and things would just get progressively more unstable until there was an outright rebellion.
Blue laws, Church taxation laws, divination laws, church siting laws, all of these are used in sectarian ways at some time or another. The reality is that Christians are politically powerful. Ever looked at the religion of most of Congress, aside from a sprinkling of Unitarians, some Jews and one lonely Muslim, everyone else is Christian. That doesn't even begin to represent America, which is at best only 70 percent Christian. What's even worse is that non-religious laws such as disturbing the peace are sometimes used to prosecute non-Christians in some areas.
I realize this is idealistic, but even just getting rid of blue laws and Church tax exemptions would be helpful. Getting Christian legislators to realize that they can't just pretend that we live in a Christian nation would be awesome.
However the law should never be used to antagonize religion. Recently in Moreno Valley, CA a law was proposed that would have made it illegal for churches to build in residential areas or in some commercial zones. Everyone went ape! It was a bad law and actually would have antagonized religion (probably because one of the Council, and I'm not saying who, is secretly an atheist!) Sorry, but that's too far in the other direction. the only time siting laws should be used is some sort of public safety thing like the traffic dangers that New Life Church. Colorado Springs CO poses.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
