Christians suck; world still turns

[Zephyrus]

When the founding fathers drafted the constitution, they had no foresight that there would become large percentages of voting population in the country whose religious beliefs differed from their own English Protestant views. They saw the separation of church and state as acceptable because their form of Protestantism agreed with it more than most forms of Christianity.

They hadn't the foresight that the religious demographics of the nation would come into conflict because of differing views on religion. What became a stable society where separation of church and state was in line with Protestant views, in came tons of Catholic immigrants, who are used to the Church playing a greater role in secular life. Then the Baptist/Evangelical population grew, who held on to creationism even after science had advanced enough to prove otherwise. And from that science came a continually growing percentage of atheists who of course favor the complete mutual exclusivity of religion and politics.

What I'm saying is that the cultural makeup of the country now is vastly different from the environment in which the Constitution was first written. The separation of church and state, along with most of the Constitution, was perfectly in line with the religious beliefs of its drafters. Now as more and more are polarized between complete separation and complete union, the conflict is growing.

 

[skeptik]

Wow dude no shit?

Come on, you don't need to provide such a boringly and drawlingly professed summary of the religious history in America, especially if your entire analysis of it is going to be "the conflict is growing". I hope you realize that these posts that you make which are just large blocks of summary are not helpful in the vast majority of cases and you should stop doing it unless it's clear that it would actually be useful. We all can regurgitate textbooks if we wanted to, but there's no point.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Also most of the founding fathers were deists iirc.

 

[Einherjar86]

No one has freedom from religion in this country. You have the right to choose which religion to practice (and that includes no religion), but you can't "free" yourself from the influence of other religions, if that's what you mean. It's a real fine line we're debating here, because in a sense the separation of Church and State implies a certain freedom "from" religion; but that's not the case. The separation of Church and State encourages the freedom to choose your religion, because if the two were merged we would be faced with the issue of discrimination among the political system (as we truly already are; I don't think Muslims enjoy much love from our current president). If I'm not misunderstanding what everyone is saying, I believe that because of the simple right of freedom of religion (and speech), we can never be free "from" religion. We will always have its influence upon us, but we have the choice to recognize and shun that influence (if even possible). Personally, I think this country fails considerably when it comes to separation of Church and State.

 

[skeptik]

Freedom "from" religion means freedom from government subjection of religious doctrine, not an air-tight, Jeebus-free zone. Nobody said it always works out in practice either. When the Constitution talks of freedom of this and freedom from that, it's talking about the government's obligation to its people, not the people's and other organizations' obligations to each other.

 

[Zephyrus]

Wow dude no shit?

Come on, you don't need to provide such a boringly and drawlingly professed summary of the religious history in America, especially if your entire analysis of it is going to be "the conflict is growing". I hope you realize that these posts that you make which are just large blocks of summary are not helpful in the vast majority of cases and you should stop doing it unless it's clear that it would actually be useful. We all can regurgitate textbooks if we wanted to, but there's no point.

Just because you know everything doesn't mean everybody else should be as smart as you. No wonder you attack everyone and call them dumbfucks, because they haven't read as many books as you.

I sensed that several people here lacked an understanding of the conditions in which the constitutional separation of church and state was legislated.

I wanted to call into question the current meaning of the separation of church and state since the original one that we all stand by is incredibly outdated. The result is that not everyone treats this issue the same way, and therefore it cannot be resolved. The government needs to update and specify the first amendment to reflect the current demographic.

So given the historical background, and noting that it's outdated, I'm posing the question of how we would rewrite the first amendment so it's less vague. People don't just look at history to inflate their intellectual ego, they use it to understand that any piece of literature is a product of the time and place in which it was written. We need to write a new Constitution which reflects our own times, and not the 18th century.

 

[Zephyrus]

No one has freedom from religion in this country. You have the right to choose which religion to practice (and that includes no religion), but you can't "free" yourself from the influence of other religions, if that's what you mean. It's a real fine line we're debating here, because in a sense the separation of Church and State implies a certain freedom "from" religion; but that's not the case. The separation of Church and State encourages the freedom to choose your religion, because if the two were merged we would be faced with the issue of discrimination among the political system (as we truly already are; I don't think Muslims enjoy much love from our current president). If I'm not misunderstanding what everyone is saying, I believe that because of the simple right of freedom of religion (and speech), we can never be free "from" religion. We will always have its influence upon us, but we have the choice to recognize and shun that influence (if even possible). Personally, I think this country fails considerably when it comes to separation of Church and State.

There will never be a clear separation of Church and State until religious people become the minority. Religion is not just a faith system, it's a moral system which dictates how people should live their lives in the real world.

We will never be free from religious influence until the majority of those in power free themselves from religion. That's not going to happen any time soon since politicians, such as Barack Obama, have to appeal to as many people as possible to get elected. Obama in his heart would love to speak out against this issue of pastors preaching politics. He will never do that, though, since that would alienate himself from the majority of people, who look at their religious leaders as equally valid dictators of their lives as those who run the federal government.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

I for one think Obama is actually more of an atheist.

 

[Zephyrus]

I agree, but that won't get him elected. And that's ultimate proof that we can't be free from religion, because a majority of the electorate will be voting based largely on whether a candidate's faith matches their own.

 

[V.V.V.V.V.]

Exactly. It's very stupid. I especially like when Christians try to paint the truth as if the founding fathers were actually Christian...a lot were NOT by any means, and were just being ostensibly religious to get votes.

 

[Mort Divine]

I browsed over the discussion, and I can't for the life of me understand why you guys are comparing homosexuality - a personal lifestyle choice - to christianity - an institution built upon the principle of affecting as many people as possible, whether they want to or not. It seems silly to me...

Just wanted to say lolwut

 

[AchrisK]

You're just fucking dumb, go away.

I don't know why you guys won't just indulge the discussion. Are you interested in the points people make, or in just "winning" an argument? Can you not imagine that you could learn something? That your "open mind" isn't as open as you think it is?

If you guys are so confident in your intellectual superiority, then you should have no fear of answering the question and seeing where the example is going. You're seriously making yourselves look ignorant, immature and fearful.

Maybe his points are valid. Maybe they contain validity. Maybe they are just from a different perspective. Maybe they are crap. But none of that can be discovered with your "He man differing-view hater club" attitude.

 

[skeptik]

His point was really fucking stupid because it's superficial and void of any valuable observation or hypothesis and rests on grave misunderstandings.

 

[AchrisK]

^How do you know? He was never allowed to make it.

 

[skeptik]

Even though trying to make out as though the Constitution has anything to do with your reasoning is laughable,

How stupid do you have to be to think that the Constitution has nothing to do with the country's position on separation of church and state?

1) Freedom of religion was an amendment to the constitution, not a concept it was 'founded on'.

The Bill Of Rights was passed along with the Constitution and was established to inform the citizens of the rights that they have and the obligations that the government owes to its citizens. The Bill Of Rights was absolutely "a concept it was 'founded on'" and thinking otherwise is just pointing out that you don't know what you're talking about.

2) Speaking in terms of the Constitution, the country was 'founded on' the right to keep people in a state of slavery. Does that make it OK?

The country was not 'founded on' the right to keep people in a state of slavery. Slaves were property. Regardless, that is a complete red herring.

3) The country was 'founded on' a strong foundation of racial discrimination, with racial suffrage not being brought in until a much later amendment.

Red herring. One does not discredit the other.

I'm not from the US so really don't care enough about it all to have ever read up in much depth

Really? You really seem like you know what you're talking about.

but I'm sure if I wanted to I could pick holes in the constitution you were 'founded on' just as easily.

And what would that show? That having a separation of church and state is wrong or stupid?

Happy AchrisK? Thanks for making me waste my fucking time.

^How do you know? He was never allowed to make it.

His point was right here:

but I'm sure if I wanted to I could pick holes in the constitution you were 'founded on' just as easily.

He apparently thinks that if he can find elements in the Constitution which are no longer viewed as right today, then obviously the separation of church and state is wrong. He made his point already.

 

[AchrisK]

How stupid do you have to be to think that the Constitution has nothing to do with the country's position on separation of church and state?

Actually he was referring to "your reasoning", not "the country's position".

Happy AchrisK? Thanks for making me waste my fucking time.
...
His point was right here:
...

He apparently thinks that if he can find elements in the Constitution which are no longer viewed as right today, then obviously the separation of church and state is wrong. He made his point already.

Most of what you quoted from him were discussions after he tried to make his point, but before anyone actually indulged his "survey", and before he had a chance to make whatever point he was aiming for with the survey.

Look at the last words of his last post:

So back to actually answering instead of dodging the question with "false points"...

So...?

 

[Zephyrus]

Just wanted to say lolwut

Why?

He apparently thinks that if he can find elements in the Constitution which are no longer viewed as right today, then obviously the separation of church and state is wrong. He made his point already.

So how should it be rewritten for our own time?

 

[Mort Divine]

Why?

Believing it to be a choice is just lol worthy.

 

[Mort Divine]

The point of those parades and shit is to make a deal out of it, to cause controversy, to get them equal rights. The fact that you find homosexuality to be a choice shows only that you ignore all of the psychological and biological research that has been proving otherwise.

 

[Zephyrus]

The fact that it's a biological/psychological predisposition should further substantiate it's need to be tolerated and accepted.