Questioning Society discussion

Are you Enlightened???
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

THE LEADERS AND IDEAS OF THE CHURCH AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SEPARATE.

I agree, religion and government should be seperated if. They have their own beliefs nad they shouldn't be tampered with.

I also agree, for that and because in most religions, you have the freedom of choice, they don't force you to follow the lord, they try to help you follow the lord. If religion and government were combined as one, everything in your belief (if that was the ruling religion) would be law.

just for the fun of it, I'm going to disagree.

I disagree because religion can help keep the overnment stable. When the chinese emperors started spreading neo-confucianism, it helped the government remain stable and revolts didn't occur.

Well, we aren't chinese.

True, but can't we learn from them?

Yes, I still disagree the government and religion are two different things.

I did disagree, but what Aqua said does make sense.

two very different things. They aren't ment to be together anyhow. Why?
Cause religion is your belief. and government is your society. if they were combined, there wouldn't be catholics, and lutherens, and buddist, it would all be one religion, one of the many, you wouldn't have the choice, you would have to be what your government was.

But they're are differenr types of goverments also such as democracy and monarchy.

But just because we have religion in government doesn't mean everyone has to believe it. Everyone in America has religious freedom.

Yes, but our pledge says "One nation under God." Not everyone believes in the same God.

True that Aliya, true that. And we don't really have a choice whether to say it or not.But I mean at school if a kid didn't say the pledge and was like I don't believe in God what would his teacher do? They can't force him to believe in God.

no they cant

First: If religion and government were one, there won't be freedom of religion, and that is what this statement is saying.
second: Our pledge was made before other religions other than those who were christian were apart of our nation, therefore, when the people made it, it was a way of saying we were all united under the highest power.
third: If you can recall from your consitution test, you can sit, or ignore the pledge. it is not required to say. Schools do it every morning out of respect for our nation.

But still, if religion and government were combined would the president say, 'You must believe in God, or leave America.'

Yes, but everyone who says the pledge aren't necessarily in school. They wanna be Americans for freedom and religion is one of the freedoms. Take Obama for example, he used to be Muslim, and now he's Catholic. But some people still hate him because he used to be Muslim. And most people tie muslim to Saddam Hussain and they think it's a very bad religion. Most people don't fell like they have religious freedom they still feel caged in a box.

didn't you pass the test? I myself got one wrong, and that was because i was a day off of the day the started to write the bill of rights. I was sad, and angry cause of that.

What test?

Well some people are prejudiced against certain religions, but all Americans don't generalize Muslim and Saddam Hussain.

that is because they have little or no knowledge of the muslim religion, but as you will learn in history next year, they are a christain religion. But when you don't know something or anything of something and you experiance a tramatizing event, it will cause you to judge things in an unfair way, and it's not really your fault.

Aliya said: What test?
The consitution test silly.

Ohh... yeah. I passed it each time I took it but I got B-'s and C's each time.

yes, well you don't have to say the pledge or burn a flag if it touches the ground.

That's not what I meant as long as "God" is in the pledge it says something.

No it doesn't, because of what HISTORY used it as,plus, a few years ago they tried to make the pledge mantitory, but it was against the bill of rights. They've thought to chance it, but can't make everyone happy, so no agreement ever came. Like I said, Our pledge was made before other religions other than those who were christian were apart of our nation, therefore, when the people made it, it was a way of saying we were all united under the highest power, not that we all belive in god.

Exactly so no matter what religion is in the government, we can't be forced to follow it.

They aren't forcing you into it though.

Yeah, that's what I was saying.

to a small extent, but not very clearly-no offense.

I strongly agree with this even though I am a Christian. I am what some people call an "Anticlerical Calvinist" although it is a bit redundant. John Calvin argued that religion and state should not be joined because they were in separate spheres, and politics and power from one quickly tainted the other (as a leader of both the Church and one of the leaders of Geneva he knew what he was talking about.) It is very difficult for a cleric/church official to maintain his neutrality without letting a political agenda taint his preaching and vice versa. Religion, he believed, should be kept out of politics because it promoted the development of a power hungry structure like the pre-Reformation Catholic Church.

Exactly.

Yes, I was about to bring in John Calvin, we learned about him in history class.

♥ Bella♥ {Hold Me: I’m a Fermata} wrote: "Are you Enlightened???
Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

THE LEADERS AND IDEAS OF THE CHURCH AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SEPARATE."


The government, in one country, is the same... but the church in one country is different; you have christianity, buddhism, catholic... etc. You can't compare the two, and can't say that they have the same ideas and leaders.

yes, i agree. Though, there isn't always a large range of different religions in a country.

well, except for america

yes. america is always an exception.

i agree they are both to hugely different matters.

Faith-based government funding is against that principle.

I agree religion should not effect government because not all people are the same rreligion. Government and religion should each stay in their own little world

Yeah, even though they don't match, it still is combined. Some people even chose the president based on his religion, politics and religion are two different things.

I also agree that politics and religion don't match. There is probably almost every religion in the world right here in the United States. No president is a member of every religion in the country, nor will he ever want to be. Therefore, he knows nothing about a lot of religions in America. If he were to pass laws and make executive decisions strictly based on his religion, a large number of Americans would be displeased, because it doesn't include parts of their religions. This can cause a rift between church and state, as well as members of each different religion. It just doesn't pay to bring them together.

No matter how much we don't want then to combine they always will be

Theocracy, anyone? :)

well said Perpendicularandi

Lauren wrote: "Theocracy, anyone? :)"

Sorry but no Lauren. It just doesn't seem right. I don't like the idea of theocracy.

I agree. The leaders and ideas of the church and the government should definitely be kept separately. If they put the ideas together, that won't be fair to some religions. Some people might think that you should worship God. Some might think we should worship multiple gods. Some might think we should worship Buddhas. Some people might not use incense, some might. I also think that when someone dies, they might do their funerals different depending on the religion. It wouldn't be fair, because the government might say we have to live according the religion they tell us about.

Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? Why or why not?

THE LEADERS AND IDEAS OF THE CHURCH AND THE GOVERNMENT SHOULD BE SEPARATE.

Yes. Who gets to decide church based ideas should govern? If you lived in a country run by the church, it would suck to be you if you didn't support that church. Personally, I'm not that interested in traveling to Afgahnistan all that soon. I find the religious beliefs that run that country offensive. By the same token though, many people of that country would find killing me a perfectly viable option for my religious beliefs.
This is not to say I don't believe in civil law. I do and I believe it's absolutely necessary for society to exist.
But rather than organizing a country and the people within it on the concept of do it this way because God said so. I believe would should do it this way because if you don't there are consequences to your actions. For example: Don't Murder. Not because God said so but because the government you live in will put you in jail if you. Only marry one person not because God said so but because the government said so. I believe in a majority vote. Personally I'm pro-choice but if the majority of the people in this country do not support reproductive choice than I'm out of luck. I better get out there and vote if I don't want my country to resemble Afgahnistan.

Lauren wrote: Theocracy, anyone? :) Appearently not. I don't Think Theocracy would ever really be truely sucessful to were it lasts a really long time.

It makes anything justifiable.

to an extent.