Religion in government

Message boards : Politics : Religion in government
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 8 · Next

AuthorMessage
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729405 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 4:17:47 UTC - in response to Message 1729402.  

I disagree.
This country was FOUNDED to allow people to exercise their free exercise of any and all religions. I don't see that the government endorsing one without any moneys being used or time expended on it's behalf is a problem.

And, the money says..........in
God we trust. It does not endorse any specific God or religion.
Just...God. Kinda like the Pope, LOL.


Putting "in God we trust" on currency endorses the idea of the existence of God, which is the root of a most religious concepts. That alone means it should not be put on currency created by a Government whose mandate is that they shall not endorse religion.
ID: 1729405 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1729409 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 4:25:03 UTC - in response to Message 1729405.  

I disagree.
This country was FOUNDED to allow people to exercise their free exercise of any and all religions. I don't see that the government endorsing one without any moneys being used or time expended on it's behalf is a problem.

And, the money says..........in
God we trust. It does not endorse any specific God or religion.
Just...God. Kinda like the Pope, LOL.


Putting "in God we trust" on currency endorses the idea of the existence of God, which is the root of a most religious concepts. That alone means it should not be put on currency created by a Government whose mandate is that they shall not endorse religion.

Refresh me.
Where does it say that the separation of church and stats disallows the government to acknowledge that there is such a thing as God or religion?
Acknowledgement of same is not specifically endorsing or enticing one to participate in such religion....only stating that yes, we know there are some, and you are allowed to practice any you so believe in.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1729409 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729412 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 4:30:09 UTC - in response to Message 1729409.  

Refresh me.
Where does it say that the separation of church and stats disallows the government to acknowledge that there is such a thing as God or religion?


I would think it is self-evident. Endorsing the idea of the existence of God when not all religions believe in a God biases that government in favor of those religions that do.

Acknowledgement of same is not specifically endorsing or enticing one to participate in such religion....only stating that yes, we know there are some, and you are allowed to practice any you so believe in.


Are you assuming religion means the different sects of Christianity alone? So long as the government doesn't endorse any one sect it is ok? So what about those religions that don't center around the concept of a god?
ID: 1729412 · Report as offensive
Profile Gary Charpentier Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 25 Dec 00
Posts: 30608
Credit: 53,134,872
RAC: 32
United States
Message 1729442 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 4:57:54 UTC - in response to Message 1729412.  

Refresh me.
Where does it say that the separation of church and stats disallows the government to acknowledge that there is such a thing as God or religion?


I would think it is self-evident. Endorsing the idea of the existence of God when not all religions believe in a God biases that government in favor of those religions that do.

Acknowledgement of same is not specifically endorsing or enticing one to participate in such religion....only stating that yes, we know there are some, and you are allowed to practice any you so believe in.


Are you assuming religion means the different sects of Christianity alone? So long as the government doesn't endorse any one sect it is ok? So what about those religions that don't center around the concept of a god?

Unfortunately, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aronow_v._United_States this appears to have been decided as just empty words without any meaning. I wonder if the issue is the plaintiff wasn't the right one; someone who could prove being deeply offended by the concept of a single god, such as a polytheist follower.

In any case this sub-discussion is getting off the topic of the coming government shutdown(s) by assailing the lack of intelligence of the members of an intoxicating plant brew drinking party.
ID: 1729442 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 1729448 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 5:04:40 UTC

Government has to ALLOW religion.
Their acceptance of that fact is what 'in God we trust' is about.
They are simply acknowledging the fact that the people are free and able to worship A God. Not a specific God.
"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 1729448 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729451 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 5:09:49 UTC - in response to Message 1729448.  

Government has to ALLOW religion.


Agreed. Allow it, but do not endorse it.

Their acceptance of that fact is what 'in God we trust' is about.


No, putting "in God we trust" is not an acceptance of the allowance of religion, it is endorsement of those religions that center around the concept of a god.

They are simply acknowledging the fact that the people are free and able to worship A God. Not a specific God.


Again, what about those religions that don't have a god? Acknowledging the existence of a god biases the government with the religions that center around such a concept.

But as Gary said, we are getting off topic from the government shutdown. You should probably start a new thread if you want to continue the discussion.
ID: 1729451 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1729508 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 11:31:35 UTC - in response to Message 1729405.  

Putting "in God we trust" on currency endorses the idea of the existence of God, which is the root of a most religious concepts. That alone means it should not be put on currency created by a Government whose mandate is that they shall not endorse religion.

Endorsing a root concept that is common in many religions is not the same as endorsing religion itself. You can have God without religion and you can have religion without God. Of all the actual things that diminish the seperation between church and state, putting 'In God We Trust' on your money is the least interesting and important.
ID: 1729508 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729555 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 15:06:45 UTC - in response to Message 1729508.  

Putting "in God we trust" on currency endorses the idea of the existence of God, which is the root of a most religious concepts. That alone means it should not be put on currency created by a Government whose mandate is that they shall not endorse religion.

Endorsing a root concept that is common in many religions is not the same as endorsing religion itself.


Of course it is.

You can have God without religion and you can have religion without God.


Sorry, but no. You can have God without organized religion, and you can have organized religion without God, but you cannot have God without religion. Either way, to have a God is to have religion, and invoking the name of God on public currency from a government that has a mandate against endorsing religion shouldn't have God printed on that currency.

Of all the actual things that diminish the seperation between church and state, putting 'In God We Trust' on your money is the least interesting and important.


I'm only giving my views on the matter because the subject was brought up.
ID: 1729555 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1729621 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 20:26:06 UTC - in response to Message 1729555.  

Of course it is.

I fail to see how endorsing A automatically means I also endorse B through Z. God is a concept, an idea, a very popular idea. Religion is a set of ritualistic behaviors that may relate to a God. Often they go hand in hand, but its very much possible to separate the two.

Sorry, but no. You can have God without organized religion, and you can have organized religion without God, but you cannot have God without religion. Either way, to have a God is to have religion, and invoking the name of God on public currency from a government that has a mandate against endorsing religion shouldn't have God printed on that currency.

Well okay, so your argument is that the act of believing in God or any kind of cosmic order is religion? You run into a few problems if thats your definition of religion. For one, then every thought about how humanity fits into the universe is a religion, with the result that even things like science and Atheism become religions. It robs the word religion of meaning if used in that way.

If thats your definition of religion, then it also no longer matters for the separation of church and state. Note the word church there, which implies not just religion, but organized religion. Talking about God is then okay, it would only be a problem if the money said 'In Jesus we Trust' as then we are clearly talking about the Christian concept of God and therefor the Christian organized religion.
ID: 1729621 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729641 - Posted: 27 Sep 2015, 22:02:50 UTC - in response to Message 1729621.  

Of course it is.

I fail to see how endorsing A automatically means I also endorse B through Z. God is a concept, an idea, a very popular idea. Religion is a set of ritualistic behaviors that may relate to a God. Often they go hand in hand, but its very much possible to separate the two.


God the Idea does not exist outside religion. It is a religious concept, and acknowledgement of that concept is to endorse religion.

Well okay, so your argument is that the act of believing in God or any kind of cosmic order is religion?


No, that is not my definition of religion.
ID: 1729641 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1729743 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 8:46:03 UTC - in response to Message 1729641.  

God the Idea does not exist outside religion. It is a religious concept, and acknowledgement of that concept is to endorse religion.

Yes it does. There are plenty of people who believe in God without being part of some religion, myself being one of them.

No, that is not my definition of religion.

Well then I'm having trouble following you. If the act of believing in God is not religion, then how is it possible that believing in God automatically means you are religious, and endorsing the idea of God is endorsing the idea of religion?
ID: 1729743 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729756 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 10:17:46 UTC - in response to Message 1729743.  

God the Idea does not exist outside religion. It is a religious concept, and acknowledgement of that concept is to endorse religion.

Yes it does. There are plenty of people who believe in God without being part of some religion, myself being one of them.


Not belonging to a religious sect while still believing in a God does not mean you are not religious. Again, you are confusing religion with belonging to a group.

No, that is not my definition of religion.

Well then I'm having trouble following you. If the act of believing in God is not religion,


No, the act of believing in God is a religion.
ID: 1729756 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1729760 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 11:55:12 UTC - in response to Message 1729756.  
Last modified: 28 Sep 2015, 11:55:46 UTC

Not belonging to a religious sect while still believing in a God does not mean you are not religious. Again, you are confusing religion with belonging to a group.

In which case, my orgininal criticism stands. If religion is simply the act of believing in God, or acknowledging the concept of God, its not a breach of the separation of church and state, which is aimed at keeping organized religious influence out of the state and preventing the state from adopting some sort of official state religion.

'In God we Trust' is a far to vague a statement to be connected to any one type of organized religion. Its therefor not a separation of church and state issue.

No, that is not my definition of religion.

Well then I'm having trouble following you. If the act of believing in God is not religion,


No, the act of believing in God is a religion.

But when I said: "Well okay, so your argument is that the act of believing in God or any kind of cosmic order is religion?"
You said that wasn't your definition of what a religion is. So what is it?
ID: 1729760 · Report as offensive
Profile Sarge
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 25 Aug 99
Posts: 12273
Credit: 8,569,109
RAC: 79
United States
Message 1729764 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 12:22:56 UTC - in response to Message 1729743.  

God the Idea does not exist outside religion. It is a religious concept, and acknowledgement of that concept is to endorse religion.

Yes it does. There are plenty of people who believe in God without being part of some religion, myself being one of them.

No, that is not my definition of religion.

Well then I'm having trouble following you. If the act of believing in God is not religion, then how is it possible that believing in God automatically means you are religious, and endorsing the idea of God is endorsing the idea of religion?


Unfortunately, unless you are scrupulously engaging in some activity of intense interest to you, according to Merriam-Webster's dictionary, Ozz is correct.

As for religions without gods, I take issue with that: some sects of Buddhism make this claim, but as it is an offshoot of Hinduism and seeking for individuals to escape the Samsaric cycle, one must admit in its original conception Buddhism had gods.
ID: 1729764 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729791 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 14:46:41 UTC - in response to Message 1729760.  

Not belonging to a religious sect while still believing in a God does not mean you are not religious. Again, you are confusing religion with belonging to a group.

In which case, my orgininal criticism stands. If religion is simply the act of believing in God, or acknowledging the concept of God, its not a breach of the separation of church and state, which is aimed at keeping organized religious influence out of the state and preventing the state from adopting some sort of official state religion.


Nope. It is aimed at keeping all religion separate from state, not just organized religion. The idea being that personal beliefs should not get in the way of Law for a fair and just society.

Well then I'm having trouble following you. If the act of believing in God is not religion,


No, the act of believing in God is a religion.

But when I said: "Well okay, so your argument is that the act of believing in God or any kind of cosmic order is religion?"
You said that wasn't your definition of what a religion is. So what is it?


I rejected the statement because you tacked on "or any kind of cosmic order". Believing in the supernatural without evidence is the very crux of religion. Therefore, believing in a god is a religion, even if that religion has a populous of one believer.

Believing in some kind of cosmic order (which I do not necessarily subscribe to), based upon observations of spatial and general relativity would most certainly not be considered a religion.
ID: 1729791 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1729877 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 19:23:45 UTC - in response to Message 1729764.  

As for religions without gods, I take issue with that: some sects of Buddhism make this claim, but as it is an offshoot of Hinduism and seeking for individuals to escape the Samsaric cycle, one must admit in its original conception Buddhism had gods.

Well there are dozens of new age religions/cults that don't really have a God. Certain humanist groups don't have a god but are quite clearly an organized religion. I would even classify some atheist groups as being an organized religion. Of course, most of these are just small groups of people. All the big religions do have a God somewhere in there.
ID: 1729877 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1729882 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 20:00:38 UTC - in response to Message 1729791.  

Nope. It is aimed at keeping all religion separate from state, not just organized religion. The idea being that personal beliefs should not get in the way of Law for a fair and just society.

Well thats a problematic statement. First, not mentioning God is in itself also a statement about God and your personal beliefs. Indeed, the idea that personal beliefs should not get in the way of the rule of law and the aim of creating a fair and just society is a personal belief. Actually, as I've argued before, all laws and rules made by humans and that rule society are based on someones personal beliefs.

Second, clearly the idea of a secular government does not mean that all personal beliefs should be kept out. There is no requirement that people who enter public service have no personal beliefs, people aren't supposed to be atheists when they run for government office. Instead, the aim is to keep religious organizations out of the government. Its designed basically to make sure the pope isn't the one that rules the country.

Do keep in mind that the issue of separation of church and state has always been a fight between the state as a separate institution from the church, rather than an extended bureaucracy of the church. It is in this way that the whole idea of separation of church and state makes sense. If you extend it to include 'religion' or 'personal beliefs' the whole thing becomes contradictory and makes no sense.

I rejected the statement because you tacked on "or any kind of cosmic order". Believing in the supernatural without evidence is the very crux of religion. Therefore, believing in a god is a religion, even if that religion has a populous of one believer.

Believing in some kind of cosmic order (which I do not necessarily subscribe to), based upon observations of spatial and general relativity would most certainly not be considered a religion.

Hmm, you could have just stated that you rejected the later half of my statement but agreed with the first bit. That would have been a bit easier :P

Also, I think you misunderstood what I meant with 'cosmic order'. I meant stuff like believing aliens created life on earth, or helped build the pyramids. It refers to stuff like theosophy, the belief in Atlantis and Lemuria or following the teachings of Thelema. Those things don't necessarily involve God but they are definitely religions in their own right.
ID: 1729882 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 1729915 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 21:47:33 UTC

Conversation moved from Government Shutdown.

Nope. It is aimed at keeping all religion separate from state, not just organized religion. The idea being that personal beliefs should not get in the way of Law for a fair and just society.

Well thats a problematic statement. First, not mentioning God is in itself also a statement about God and your personal beliefs.


Not really. If, for example, the idea of God was never invented, we wouldn't think twice about not including such verbiage and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Second, clearly the idea of a secular government does not mean that all personal beliefs should be kept out. There is no requirement that people who enter public service have no personal beliefs, people aren't supposed to be atheists when they run for government office.


No, the expectation isn't that they are supposed to be Atheist when they run for office. The expectation is to not allow their personal belief system to influence their governance so much so that it excludes others, including minority groups such as paganism and atheism and the like. Otherwise you end up with a tyranny of the majority.

Do keep in mind that the issue of separation of church and state has always been a fight between the state as a separate institution from the church, rather than an extended bureaucracy of the church. It is in this way that the whole idea of separation of church and state makes sense. If you extend it to include 'religion' or 'personal beliefs' the whole thing becomes contradictory and makes no sense.


I'd argue that the entire thing makes no sense if taken from your perspective. Religious beliefs are very personal and should be kept as such.

I rejected the statement because you tacked on "or any kind of cosmic order". Believing in the supernatural without evidence is the very crux of religion. Therefore, believing in a god is a religion, even if that religion has a populous of one believer.

Believing in some kind of cosmic order (which I do not necessarily subscribe to), based upon observations of spatial and general relativity would most certainly not be considered a religion.

Hmm, you could have just stated that you rejected the later half of my statement but agreed with the first bit. That would have been a bit easier :P


But then I couldn't have played opossum with you and guided the conversation exactly where I wanted it to go. ;-)

Also, I think you misunderstood what I meant with 'cosmic order'. I meant stuff like believing aliens created life on earth, or helped build the pyramids. It refers to stuff like theosophy, the belief in Atlantis and Lemuria or following the teachings of Thelema. Those things don't necessarily involve God but they are definitely religions in their own right.


No, I didn't misunderstand. I'm quite aware that you can have religion without God, but my argument is specifically that you can't have God without religion, and thus making acknowledgement of it is to bias yourself against those that don't, such as the examples you brought up here.
ID: 1729915 · Report as offensive
Мишель
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 26 Nov 13
Posts: 3073
Credit: 87,868
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 1729923 - Posted: 28 Sep 2015, 22:07:38 UTC - in response to Message 1729915.  

Not really. If, for example, the idea of God was never invented, we wouldn't think twice about not including such verbiage and we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Yeah but we live in a world where that idea has been invented, so I don't think your example is relevant.

No, the expectation isn't that they are supposed to be Atheist when they run for office. The expectation is to not allow their personal belief system to influence their governance so much so that it excludes others, including minority groups such as paganism and atheism and the like. Otherwise you end up with a tyranny of the majority.

Well then you are expecting that people working for the government follow the law and that the law treats people as equals. Thats not necessarily what the separation of church and state is about. I mean, such a doctrine also covers things like racism and sexism, and you don't hear anyone calling that an issue of separation of church and state.

Again, you only really see it when an organized religion tries to impose its view on others through the government.

I'd argue that the entire thing makes no sense if taken from your perspective. Religious beliefs are very personal and should be kept as such.

Yes, it should. But from time to time, various churches have disagreed with that notion. Its then when the separation between church and state becomes an issue.

But then I couldn't have played opossum with you and guided the conversation exactly where I wanted it to go. ;-)

Well played good sir.

No, I didn't misunderstand. I'm quite aware that you can have religion without God, but my argument is specifically that you can't have God without religion, and thus making acknowledgement of it is to bias yourself against those that don't, such as the examples you brought up here.

Hmm fair enough, I see your point.
ID: 1729923 · Report as offensive
Profile Es99
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 23 Aug 05
Posts: 10874
Credit: 350,402
RAC: 0
Canada
Message 1730124 - Posted: 29 Sep 2015, 15:59:02 UTC

Our favourite pope has weighed in on the issue.

Govt. workers have right to refuse gay marriage licenses: pope
Reality Internet Personality
ID: 1730124 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · 3 · 4 . . . 8 · Next

Message boards : Politics : Religion in government


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.