Separation of Church and State

quote:

---

I`ve always thought it odd that a nation founded by, among others, religious groups fleeing persecution by mainstream church/state alliances, should have descendants who want to revive the unholy union as a mainstream. Here we are,the most educated (knowledgewise)generation in the history of the world, and trying to resurrect failed formulas. If it never worked in the past, why bother? Probably because it is all about CONTROL.

---

Then you must become familiar with those religious factions that have no use for democracy nor with the right of every man to think for himself. Shrouded in the cloak of secrecy and walking on pussy feet in hallowed halls, these factions are, indeed, about control and power.
We are, alas, not knowledgeable in such things, believing we are protected by our constitution and our laws. That constitution and laws are being eroded is clear and so is our undereducation.

I'd have no problem agreeing that to some extent they were theocratic. It was a little bit different in that you could hold on to your personal religion. The big problem was public acceptance of the state Gods. So in essence you could practice what you believed as long as you could swear allegiance to their holy symbols.Solutions to civic problems were generally not formulated by theocrats, or appeals to theological doctrines. Indeed that would be hard in a pagan state with so many Gods and do many doctrines.Monotheist theocracies go a bit further in pushing doctrine into govt. So you assert, but it has been shown, even from your own links, that you are the one not in alignment with the common usage. Upon what are you basing your opinion at this point?

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

But that was my point, or do you consider throwing the odd christian or two to the lions as regular saturday afternoon fare? Good for half-time entertainment? Here's my comment after the quoted section: There are different degrees of theocracy, and in the spectrum the {church state} types tend to be the most repressive of other religions, and certainly some muslim countries qualify here even today. Most such are now historical footnotes and apply to any number of religions.The most liberal theocracies would allow you your own faith so long as certain basic elements pertaining to the state endorsed religion were complied with, but they would still hang you or run you out of town on a rail if you didn't. The most oppressive would hang you for wearing your hair the wrong way, based on some arcane interpretation of ancient text.What part about being punished by a government for not complying with a religious reguirement enforced by said government don't you understand?Does it matter if you are hanged by a King or a Priest if the crime is not meeting the requirements of the religion?
crime = religious infraction
punishment = government enforced
---------------------------------
it's a theocracy.Get it?This message has been edited by RAZD, 12*12*2005 08:26 PM

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Hmm... I don't think the government should have anything to do with school period. That includes religious material or anything else for that matter. It seems to me that public schools encroach on our freedoms, waste money in bureaucracy, and provide a venue for state controlled indoctrination (be it religious or other).So let's just abolish public school altogether. Anyone else in favor of that?

Your mistake.There are public schools because an educated society is a far better society. Not at all. Families are free to make private arrangements for educating their children, if they so prefer. Without public schools, you would have far higher crime rates. Have you ever checked the cost of the bureaucracy in the criminal justice system? There shouldn't be any state controlled indoctrination. That's what "separation of church and state" is all about. Terrible, terrible idea.

Do you have public schools in Texas? I thought Gov. Bush put an end to that.

---

Save lives! Click here!
Join the World Community Grid with Team EvC!

I never said, "We don't need no education." Most are not able or willing. Only because we have such a massive welfare system and such crime infested inner city ghettos. We should abolish that while we're at it....I do realize our nation is at a point where none of this immediate change is possible as it would completely destabilize our society. But there is. Furthermore, IMO, school should not be a place devoid of God. But in public schools, God must be purged. The complete removal of God is a form of indoctrination in itself: an indoctrination of secularism. I agree partly. Our nation is so messed up that the changes it needs would cause immediate disaster.... so we'll continue down this road to eventual disaster.

I think you are seriously mistaken.There is no purging of God. If students want to discuss God between themselves, there is no restriction on that. What is not allowed, is for the teachers to advocate a particular religious view.There is no indoctrination in secularism. Such indoctrination would be advocacy, and is not allowed.There have been a few cases where schools have gone too far, and those are usually corrected.The situation is not at all what you describe.

I havent been on for months but I couldn't help but add to this.
Randman you still do what you have always done on here. You argue semantics( The meaning or the interpretation of a word, sentence, or other language form. Definition from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.)
You find one meaning for a word and refuse to conside a world could even ahve adiffernet meaning. Your motto should be "Don't confuse me with facts. My mind is made up."
Lets look at definitions for Theocracy
1. A government ruled by or subject to religious authority.
2. A state so governed.
From The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.

the government has a vested interest in an educated populous. thus, the government has a reason to involve itself in the public school system. since it funds this, it can't sponsor religious education.

This is so naive. The indoctrination is IN secularism by the very fact that it is practiced, that religious instruction is verboten. It's in the unspoken presupposition that education has nothing to do with God, that science has nothing to do with God etc. etc. etc. This is conveyed loud and clear by the mere fact of the silence on God, but beyond that, it's naive in another way if anybody thinks teachers don't preach their own beliefs to their students. I personally got a powerful direct indoctrination in atheism and the religion of secularism, and in fact ridicule of religion in both high school and university. That was a long time ago and it hasn't stopped.This message has been edited by Faith, 12-14-2005 06:03 PM

Abolish public schools? What are you, some sort of communist?Be off with you or I'll have my man thrash you and set the hounds on you.TTFN,WK(Public school boy)

ROTFLApparently your school did a poor job of teaching the meaning of "indoctrination."If the schools gave religious instruction, you would probably find evangelical children being taught catholic doctrine, and catholic children being taught mormon doctrine. Maybe we should try that for a while, so that people would begin to appreciate why we have that establishment clause in the first amendment.You can have religious instruction at home, in your church, at Sunday school. There is no restriction on that.

Fantastic idea. I would love to see that. And every child also become exposed to Hinduism, Buddhism, Islam, Taoism, Shinto, the Teachings of Mencius, Confucius, the Greek Philosophers as well as the wonders of Atheism and Agnostics.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I thought the government was supposed to be made up of the educated populous. "Of the people, by the people, for the people" At least in a republic or conservative democracy. But in a socialistic democracy we're ruled by the mob which is in turn ruled by those with enough power to appease and persuade the mob... but I digress.We as the people have a vested interest in an educated populous, but I think it is dangerous to think of the government as having interests of its own. Of course, you are right in saying it does. We've past that point long ago.This is one reason why schools should not be public. The government's and the people's interests are divided. Many people want their faith a part of their whole lifestyle, which includes school, but the government "wants" to support secular education. When a government's interests are no longer the people's (or the people's interests are shaped by the government to support the government's interests) the government's sole "reason" for increased involvement is to increase its power. I agree.