Issue: Religion: Separation of Church and State: Politics and Religion

[jimmyjamsslo]

Just a thread starter. I presume that Dr. Paul is right on when it comes to this issue. Personally, I've been an atheist in the past, then had personal experiences with G*D , but still follow no religion. But I believe separation of Church and State is of the utmost importance on a variety of levels, and across the spectrum of ideologies that influence people.

I think that radicalized religion drives the Bush administration in their quest for geopolitical dominance. Many of his coterie are 'Apocalyptic' Christians who believe that by ushering in WWIII that they will assist in the return of the Christ, thereby earning brownie points with the Messiah.

Elsewhere, I see religious morality present in misguided and wasteful efforts such as abstinence programs, which fail to acknowledge basic biological and hormonal realities. I also see religion as a main factor behind the prejudice against the homosexual community.

That's my input for now, Jimmy

[cujothekitten]

I don't think many Christians understand the danger of mixing government and religion.

[mrapathy]

theres a reason the US is considered the great satan. we have occult,masonic and satanic symbols everywhere in this society. flip over the $1 see the triangle? make a 6 sided star and watch the word MASON spelled out. did you know that was there?

no need to go into theory just stick with facts. dont know if it is all sinister and evil conspiracy. if so they probably want people ignorant of it. but its easy to rise to embarrassing folly of theory with no substance which makes finding info tough. for final conslusion something needs to substantiate theory.

corporations use all sorts of symbols and non english names with meanings you have to really search to fine the definition often not english.

Separation of Church and state look for Thomas Jefferson's Letter

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

no government religion needed but a atheist government that tries to destroy freedom of religion is not needed either. got too much government secrecy and its getting harder to challenge government and politics as if things are becoming sacred.
look at Global Warming and controversy with government silencing scientist from disenting opinion. www.FAS.org Federation of American Scientist.

its not just christians that want to usher in Armegeddon but Satanist want to recreate Babylon(Iraq) as well bring about the antichrist. a one world government or dominant power. pretty disgusting the US went into Iraq to enforce UN resolutions same time bankers and corporations are profiteering of it wastefull spending.

dont like the christian and catholic churches dont trust them myself. bible mentions false prophets and teachers,churches losing there way and flocks astray(not necesarily bad as might be avoiding false prophet and teachers). read the bible though some may have false teachings either poorly translated or just false. also try to read other religious writings of other faiths. set of morals,guides and laws are good.

most of this is tough to discuss as it challenges there paradigmal thought of the world. world view. makes them think too much of a world or reality they couldnt handle so they harbored generalizations to rationalize it. few people seem to be able to handle multadigmal view of the world yet stay realistic it goes off into theory and possibility but coming back and fitting close to reality is kinda healthy not always healthy.

[Bob Cochran]

I don't think many Christians understand the danger of mixing government and religion.
But athiests, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Bahaiists, Buddhists, Hindus all understand it perfectly well?

[Bob Cochran]

I think that radicalized religion drives the Bush administration in their quest for geopolitical dominance.
The quest for geopolitical dominance is an ancient phenomenon. It springs from humanity's primal urges and cuts across all religious boundaries.

Many Christians disagree vehemently with Dubya. Wrongheadedness is wrongheadedness, and it doesn't matter much to me what the person's religion or worldview is.

Our current Prez is a swaggering, mentally challenged fellow with a few endearing qualities that are unfortunately outweighed by an unquenchable lust to exercise military force and pour gasoline on bonfires. He is extremely unwise in who he surrounds himself with and takes advice from. I won't even get started here on his ruinous economic policies. His reign marks a tragic chapter in our great nation's history.

It's a good thing he is a Christian. He needs a savior as badly as anyone.

[NewEnd]

What people believe many times has very little to do with how they act.

Ever meet an asshole who is a staunch atheist?

[Bob Cochran]

What people believe many times has very little to do with how they act.

Ever meet an asshole who is a staunch atheist?
Several, you bet.

I kind of enjoy telling athiests that they subscribe to a faith, whether they think so or not. It's called "The Church Of The Universe Just Sorta Happened". Some jump ship to "The Church Of The Self".

If one believes the universe, with all of its organization, structure, and complexity "just happened", they believe something that in my worldview would take a great deal of faith to believe in.

But don't tell athiests they are the people of greatest faith. They hate that.

[cujothekitten]

But athiests, agnostics, Jews, Muslims, Bahaiists, Buddhists, Hindus all understand it perfectly well?

No, not even close. Atheists always talk about taxing churches and running out religious symbols. I've been discussing this with many of them and I think they're starting to get why it's a bad idea as well.

How stupid does an atheist have to be when they say we should tax a church? And here I thought they wanted religion out of government.:rolleyes:

[cujothekitten]

What people believe many times has very little to do with how they act.

Ever meet an asshole who is a staunch atheist?

LOL, all the popular ones on youtube are HUGE assholes.

[Bob Cochran]

No, not even close. Atheists always talk about taxing churches and running out religious symbols. I've been discussing this with many of them and I think they're starting to get why it's a bad idea as well.

How stupid does an atheist have to be when they say we should tax a church? And here I thought they wanted religion out of government.:rolleyes:
They don't get the "government out of religion" part.

[NewEnd]

that's right.

You go to church, and sing old boring songs.

I'll sit at home, smoke pot, and listen to satanist death metal.

When we meet eachother on the street, we say hello and smile.

Aint america great?

[cujothekitten]

Several, you bet.

I kind of enjoy telling athiests that they subscribe to a faith, whether they think so or not. It's called "The Church Of The Universe Just Sorta Happened". Some jump ship to "The Church Of The Self".

If one believes the universe, with all of its organization, structure, and complexity "just happened", they believe something that in my worldview would take a great deal of faith to believe in.

But don't tell athiests they are the people of greatest faith. They hate that.

First you're kind of right. Logically speaking we take our atheism on faith... and I'm talking about mathematical logic i.e. you cannot define something by what it's not, which is someone that lacks a belief in god.

I'm an agnostic atheist that meaning I cannot prove god but I don't believe in one. You're an atheist when it comes to Zeus.

Second atheists don't think something "just happened". The general answer is "I don't know" meaning they have no idea what caused the big bang.. same with science. I'm confident that we'll figure it out someday if we don’t destroy ourselves first.

[NewEnd]

I dont even believe in the Big Bang, I think it's kind of ridiculous, but Solid State isn't popular anymore...

...anyways... um, Go Church of the Big Bang.

:D

[Bob Cochran]

I'm an agnostic atheist that meaning I cannot prove god but I don't believe in one.
I understand that point of view.

One could argue that the universe was created by a committee of baby gods or adolesecent gods who really screwed it up.

One could argue that we exist inside a raindrop within another, much bigger universe, which itself exists inside a raindrop...etc.

I CHOOSE to believe in a single Holy God who DOES allow His creations to exercise true freedom of choice, for good or for ill.

How can a good and loving God allow intense suffering on Earth? Maybe if an eternity in paradise follows...it's ultimately fair?

Maybe our human concepts of fairness and holiness are just wrong. Do we really think we could handle God's job? Some of us like to think our standards of fairness and holiness must surely be better than God's...we wouldn't let all those kids be orphaned because of AIDS...etc....

Who gets into heaven, if one does believe in heaven? I don't know. God alone decides that. Lots of Christians try to play God and tell you who's going to heaven and who's not, but they don't know.

[Phil M]

How stupid does an atheist have to be when they say we should tax a church? And here I thought they wanted religion out of government.:rolleyes:

My answer as an atheist would be to treat everyone equally by giving every organization those same tax benefits.

However, for atheists who do not subscribe to my libertarian ideology it makes quite a bit of sense to tax churches. They are an organization like any other, and they should be treated the same. The argument against taxing churches (libertarian musings aside) makes the assumption that they work only for good. However, I think that real world example prove that secular charitable organizations are just as efficient, if not better. An infamous example is Mother Teresa (and I don't mean to offend anybody by dissing her, sorry): for every dollar she spent helping the poor, she literally spent another dollar building monasteries and building up the Catholic infrastructure. Say what you will about any spiritual benefits of monasteries, but as far as I'm concerned they don't put food on the table for anyone. I think that similar things can be said about churches: when I put a dollar on the collection plate, some of it will go to advancing the interests of the church instead of actually helping people. If I give that same dollar to a nonreligious organization, I can be certain that as much of that dollar as possible will go to helping others.

[Bob Cochran]

...it makes quite a bit of sense to tax churches. They are an organization like any other, and they should be treated the same. The argument against taxing churches (libertarian musings aside) makes the assumption that they work only for good...
No, assuming churches only do good is NOT the reason we don't tax churches. We do not tax churches because churches ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY, just as GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SUPPORT CHURCHES IN ANY WAY.

You want separation one way, but not the other.

In some countries (Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria and some parts of Switzerland), EVEN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ATTEND CHURCH MUST PAY TAXES TO SUPPORT CHURCHES. Did you know that? Would you prefer it?

[Bob Cochran]

...when I put a dollar on the collection plate, some of it will go to advancing the interests of the church instead of actually helping people....
And if you tax churches, some of your gift in the collection plate will go TO THE GOVERNMENT to help PAY FOR WARS. Is that what you mean by "actually helping people"?

Are you an expert in how churches spend their money? My church spends an enormous amount of money helping people. Food, clothing, medicine, clean water, basic education for children. Good stuff like that. How is that not helping people?

[Bob Cochran]

Say what you will about any spiritual benefits of monasteries, but as far as I'm concerned they don't put food on the table for anyone.
Oh yes they do. They put food on the table for the monks in the monastery.:D

[cujothekitten]

No, assuming churches only do good is NOT the reason we don't tax churches. We do not tax churches because churches ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY, just as GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SUPPORT CHURCHES IN ANY WAY.

You want separation one way, but not the other.

In some countries (Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Austria and some parts of Switzerland), EVEN PEOPLE WHO DO NOT ATTEND CHURCH MUST PAY TAXES TO SUPPORT CHURCHES. Did you know that? Would you prefer it?

BINGO!

If you tax churches they lose their exempt status and can become as involved in the government as they want... the government can, in turn, become as involved in the church as it wants (say goodbye to straight pastors). The system we have in place isn't a libertarian system but a system that supports religious freedom.

[Bob Cochran]

If I give that same dollar to a nonreligious organization, I can be certain that as much of that dollar as possible will go to helping others.
You mean, like United Way, something like that? So you can enrich the corrupt management of that organization?

I like my approach much better -- be intimately aware of where my church spends its money by knowing the head pastor, finance director, pastor of missions...board members...and give my money to that organization instead of entrusting it to strangers.

[Phil M]

No, assuming churches only do good is NOT the reason we don't tax churches. We do not tax churches because churches ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SUPPORT THE GOVERNMENT IN ANY WAY, just as GOVERNMENTS ARE NOT EXPECTED TO SUPPORT CHURCHES IN ANY WAY.

You want separation one way, but not the other.

I totally agree with you. I'm just arguing from the perspective of a nonlibertarian atheist who sees a church as just another organization. My personal beliefs are that, as the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law, all organizations should be treated the same regardless of what their goal is-- whether it's a secular charity, Scientologist charity, pastafarian charity. The two choices would be to tax them all or not tax them at all. I personally would choose not taxing them.

[cujothekitten]

I totally agree with you. I'm just arguing from the perspective of a nonlibertarian atheist who sees a church as just another organization. My personal beliefs are that, as the Fourteenth Amendment provides equal protection under the law, all organizations should be treated the same regardless of what their goal is-- whether it's a secular charity, Scientologist charity, pastafarian charity. The two choices would be to tax them all or not tax them at all. I personally would choose not taxing them.

If atheists want a secular government it is in their best interest to not tax churches.

[Phil M]

You mean, like United Way, something like that? So you can enrich the corrupt management of that organization?

Once again you quote me out of context. I was comparing something like Mother Teresa, who had a 50% efficiency rate, with something like the Red Cross, which has about a 99% efficiency rate (in fairness, I believe the Salvation Army also has about a 99% efficiency rate)

[Phil M]

Are you an expert in how churches spend their money? My church spends an enormous amount of money helping people. Food, clothing, medicine, clean water, basic education for children. Good stuff like that. How is that not helping people?

I'm not arguing with that. I'm simply saying that churches have an incentive to build up their churches in addition to helping people -- whether that is good or not is a different argument that is irrelevant to what is at hand. Buy my organization of choice gets taxed, while yours doesn't.

[Bob Cochran]

You need to build up a church before you can help people, kind of like you have to keep yourself fed to be able to feed your children. Good churches, and there are many, are incredibly powerful and efficient agents of good in this world. I wish more people could see up close and personal what gets done. Take Hurricane Katrina, for example. When the gov't was on its butt, just barely getting mobilized to help, Christian organizations were already pouring in with help. Does stuff like that get noticed in the mainstream media? Not really.

[Bob Cochran]

Buy my organization of choice gets taxed, while yours doesn't.
See how cool choice is?

So some of your donation money goes, or has gone, to bombing kids -- albeit inadvertently -- in the Middle East. Cool...that's really helping people. And not very efficient, either. If you believe in spending money efficiently, you surely can't suggest giving ANY of it to the government, can you? How much money did Mother Theresa spend in financing wars, I forget, refresh my memory on this...?

[Phil M]

See how cool choice is?

So some of your donation money goes, or has gone, to bombing kids -- albeit inadvertently -- in the Middle East. Cool...that's really helping people.

Exactly, that's why I'm arguing that all charitable (and come to think of it, businesses too) organization should get that same exemption. And I won't donate to a religious organization for the same reasons that you might not donate to an Islamic charity. So I'm pretty screwed either way-- unless there are some black market charities out there.

Only on a Ron Paul forum will we have a discussion on whether secular charities contribute to bombing children :D

[Bob Cochran]

Have you really checked that the organizations you're giving to are taxed or not? There are 28 types of tax exempt (501(c)(x)) organizations.

E.g., prominent 501(c)(3) organizations include:

American Red Cross
Goodwill Industries
Habitat for Humanity
Mayo Clinic
Planned Parenthood
Salvation Army

If you're giving to any of those, they aren't taxed.

[Phil M]

Have you really checked that the organizations you're giving to are taxed or not?

Actually, I'm arguing from the hypothetical-- I'm a highschool student with no form of income. I'll keep that in mind for the future, though, thanks.

[Bob Cochran]

You're welcome. My son is graduating from high school this week. He is still continually astonished as he learns the world does not work quite as he thinks. ;)

Good luck Phil.

[jimmyjamsslo]

As I mentioned before, I used to be an atheist, and used to defend that stance with the full force of my intellect until my mid-twenties. During that time I had a series of experiences that convinced me of a greater design to life than just mere 'happenstance'. I still don't accept any religion, however, because what I experienced was too profound to codify into words, although there was a consistency and 'science' to what occurred to me.

As far as the separation issue, I do believe that it should work BOTH ways, as Bob pointed out. I must admit that I don't understand all the economic aspects of the taxation issue. Economics always seems like such voodoo science to me.

I would also point out that I do distinguish between open-minded Christians who approach faith with an individual perspective, and the fundamentalist sorts. And I understand that many Christian organizations provide vital charitable works.

http://i94.photobucket.com/albums/l107/jimmyjamsslo/paul_dees.jpg

[Bob Cochran]

Love the pic!

[jimmyjamsslo]

I got that from Rense.com, which is a largely left-leaning, conspiracy-oriented site.