Separation of Church and State?

[Accountable]

Far Rider wrote: OK, hmmm. Dang good point to make me think.



I think there needs to be a total seperation of church and state. by that I mean no one single denomination should be prefered over another, but independent religious ideas should be allowed to be lived out in the men and women who are in our government or are associated with our government. For instance I don't expect our President to stop praying simply because 24/7 he's on duty to the american people. And at his peragative he should be allowed to express his religion or his moral fortitude in explaining why he comes to a decision. We all, are after all people of internal passions of all sorts. Agreed.



Far Rider wrote: If the church proper (many denominations) did what they were called to do, (pure religion is to minister to those in need) then there would be no need for food clothing and assistance to the people of NewOrleans, and all our government would have had to do is rebuild.
Exactly. We've allowed the churches and charities to cede their responsibility to the gov't, and the politicians are more than happy to have another bureaucracy to throw our money into and call it progress. Everybody sat back and waited for someone else to take charge rather than getting off our collective asses and getting to work. I daresay that we would have done much better if not for our dependence on gov't claiming our responsibility.



Far Rider wrote: If the majority of individuals decide they dont want to recognize marriage and that morally its important enough to them to make a law and they follow due process, then that is the moral choice for the land. I see nothing wrong with that. many times the behavior of a few is recognized not so much by what a parent allows, but by what the normative is in society. Some children grow up more moral that their parents because of the societal influence they live in. I don't want to take away the enforcement side of the moral fiber of a majority of persons.
Marriage is already irrelevant. Some people only get a civil ceremony; some only get a church ceremony without a license; some do neither and call it "common law" marriage. The churches should support and promote whatever their definition of marriage is. That's enough for society if they would be more active. The gov't only perpetuates it because voters would be angry about losing the tax break.



Far Rider wrote: The problem rests with the people who say they have moral fiber, sitting on their arses and not doin a darn thing to either express it or put into action. I think folks dont consider themselves part of the solution and thinking themselves incapable or worse refusing to help at all, they don't contribute to the everyday community effort of living life.



That sets the burden of making a differnce on too few people to get the job done.



Somewhere in there is my point, good luck finding it.
The gov't wants it that way! If everybody thinks themselves incapable, nobody will resist as the powermongers pick our society apart. This is a consequence of what we and the churches have done.



Churches teach individual responsibility, a value our society disregards and allows to decay. It's time they pick up the slack again.

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: Accusing me of anti-Semitism is a joke? You'll need to explain that punchline because I don't get it.


I apologize. The anti-Semitic comment I was thinking of came from somebody named Eddie Rex, not you. Sorry about that.

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: I apologize. The anti-Semitic comment I was thinking of came from somebody named Eddie Rex, not you. Sorry about that.Accepted.

[Accountable]

Far Rider wrote: Ya know bud, I had a point when I started this not sure where it went. I think its too late to move back to the church doing what it should do. Even in my own church, which I think is a fantastic center for worship containing some very dynamic believers, we still are too short sighted to think outside our own church body.



Another reason it wont happen is folks dont want accountability which comes with the handout from a church. When it comes from a government entity it is easier to consider it owed to them.
But that goes against the separation clause, imo.

[Accountable]

Far Rider wrote: I dont follow you?
The phobics are so busy trying to eliminate the church from society, they've given moral authority to the gov't. That's exactly what the separation of church & state clause was supposed to prevent.

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: The phobics are so busy trying to eliminate the church from society, they've given moral authority to the gov't. That's exactly what the separation of church & state clause was supposed to prevent.


There are morals that are commonly accepted by nearly everyone, such as you shouldn’t murder, steal, cheat someone, injure someone, pollute, ect... These type of morals can be found in the Old Testament but aren't really religious morals -- they're more ethical and civic morals and we have laws to enforse them.

Religious morals are things such as abortion, gay marriage, birth control, prayer in schools, ect...

The problem is, we have a government that is trying to legislate religious morals and THAT is why we have all the animosity towards religion today. The Bush administration has given billions of dollars to religious organizations that promote abstinence. Most of us don’t want to see our tax dollars wasted like that.

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: There are morals that are commonly accepted by nearly everyone, such as you shouldn’t murder, steal, cheat someone, injure someone, pollute, ect... These type of morals can be found in the Old Testament but aren't really religious morals -- they're more ethical and civic morals and we have laws to enforse them.



Religious morals are things such as abortion, gay marriage, birth control, prayer in schools, ect...



The problem is, we have a government that is trying to legislate religious morals and THAT is why we have all the animosity towards religion today. The Bush administration has given billions of dollars to religious organizations that promote abstinence. Most of us don’t want to see our tax dollars wasted like that.
Take a deep breath and I think you'll realize you agree with me. I can argue that laws against murder, theft ect is not for morality but for protection - protection of citizens' rights of life, property, etc.



The churches trying to foist their responsibilities of promoting morality onto the gov't is exactly the thing I'm talking about. Politicians have no credibility when it comes to representing morality. Churches do, despite the miniscule representation you listed earlier. But rather than doing the tough job of persuading people to behave morally and ethically, churches are trying to force morality by dictating it. It can't work that way. Laws were made to be broken.



I judge the gov't legislating morality as wrong as judges legislating from the bench.



And in the future, unless you have a list of people you're representing, speak for yourself.

[Accountable]

Far Rider wrote: Got ya, well the Humanist Manifesto 1 and 2 set the stage for the take over of nonreligious morality of our government long ago.



But actually I see the religious side fighting back now. For a long time most christian types sat back and all they did was vote on the issues, they never tried to change anything, now they are hgihly organized and actively campagining to reverse some of the things the humanists have set the moral tone on.
But they're trying to force morality using immoral tools. They're taking tithes and offerings given in faith and using them to bribe politicians to do the job they should be doing themselves. You can't legislate morality.



Far Rider wrote: I dont really see a moral government if we have one, I see a liberal morality in our government. Very humanistic and anti God, generally speaking.
Exactly the reason the church needs to take the mantle of moral leader back, rather than paying the gov't to try harder.

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: But that goes against the separation clause, imo.
There is no such thing in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment contains "The Establishement Clause" and "The Free Exercise Clause."

The 1st Amendment's protection to freedom of religion that states Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion" is known as "The Establishment Clause."

The 1st Amendment's protection to freedom of religion that prevents Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion is known as "The Free Exercise Clause," oddly enough.

That's one of the stumbling blocks in this debate. Some say it's semantic gymnastics, but it's one of our more sacred documents. We should treat it accordingly.

[ChiptBeef]

Accountable wrote: That's exactly what the separation of church & state clause was supposed to prevent.
There is no "separation of church and state clause" in the Constitution. As a matter of fact, the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the Constitution. That is an urban myth that has grown since the Supreme Court's interpretive case in 1947. The term "separation of church and state" grew from an 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut that was explained early on in this thread.

[Bothwell]

Surely the point of the articles was to make sure there was not a "National" religion, i.e. the USA would not become exclusively Catholic, protestant etc etc. I am not excatly and expert on your constitution so dont beat me up too bad if my analysis is wrong

[Accountable]

ChiptBeef wrote: There is no such thing in the Constitution. The 1st Amendment contains "The Establishement Clause" and "The Free Exercise Clause."



The 1st Amendment's protection to freedom of religion that states Congress shall make no law "respecting an establishment of religion" is known as "The Establishment Clause."



The 1st Amendment's protection to freedom of religion that prevents Congress from "prohibiting the free exercise" of religion is known as "The Free Exercise Clause," oddly enough.



That's one of the stumbling blocks in this debate. Some say it's semantic gymnastics, but it's one of our more sacred documents. We should treat it accordingly.
I'm using that phrase because it's easier & quicker than typing out the entire explanation. I think I address Bothwell's comment here as well.





Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
My point is that we are prohibiting and limiting the free exercise of religion left, right, and center. The phobics seem to think that placing a doll on a pile of straw on a winter's day will somehow disable their own ability to disbelieve. But let's not get distracted. There are consequences for such unconstitutional action.



Kids look to their parents or other trusted adults for guidance, including moral guidance - clues as to how to behave in certain situations. Adults don't know everything (big shock) and likewise need to look somewhere for clues as to how to behave in a new situation. If it is a moral situation, who can they look to? That is the role of the church in our society.



Politicians cannot possibly fill this role. Politicians support and represent the rule of law, and law has no place in morality. In law, whatever is not illegal is permissable. That means that if somebody can think of a new way to cheat that hasn't been addressed yet, it's legal to do it!



In the courtroom, lawyers give lip service to morality, but can't truly use it. If a defense attorney purposely loses a case on moral grounds, he can go to jail. A trial is a debate contest; both sides are required to do whatever they can legally (not morally) to win. We hope that justice and morality wins, but we know damn well it isn't always the case.



I've been hearing lately about conservatives being appointed to the Supreme Court suddenly acting 'too liberal.' In my view, they are doing exactly what they were hired to do: interpret the law as written rather than trying to force morality into the equation.



Lawmakers are hopefully guided by good morals when making laws, but it isn't always so. In my admittedly jaudiced, skeptical view, politicians' number one priority is to get re-elected. To do that they promise, vote, and write laws not necessarily to promote morality (though it is sometimes a nice coincidence) but to make the voter happy. Morality doesn't always make us happy. Morality sucks sometimes.



Morality is separate from law and should be - it must be.



So now everybody is dissatisfied with our society's moral decay. They respond by looking to the gov't to make amoral laws to dictate morality. Do I have to point out the oxymoron?



We need churches. We need them to remain separate from government. We need them to influence politics and politicians through teaching and example, not through political donations or action committees.



Marginalizing churches and giving moral authority to gov't is creating a de facto "national religion."

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: My point is that we are prohibiting and limiting the free exercise of religion left, right, and center.
That’s how O’Reilly and Limbaugh have been spinning it, anyway. Nobody’s trying to outlaw religion or prevent religious or private organizations from displaying religious icons. The only thing I’ve seen is people don’t want government sponsored religious displays. I stand by my statement that “most of us,” meaning the majority of the people in the United States, don’t want our tax dollars going to religious organizations, or used for religions displays or promotion. I’ve seen polls that validate that statement.



Accountable wrote: Kids look to their parents or other trusted adults for guidance, including moral guidance - clues as to how to behave in certain situations. Adults don't know everything (big shock) and likewise need to look somewhere for clues as to how to behave in a new situation. If it is a moral situation, who can they look to? That is the role of the church in our society.
That’s BS. If you need the church to dictate your morals, you have no real morals. Our prisons are filled with people who get their morals from religion.

Here is another example of why the church shouldn’t be dictating morals:

SEATTLE, Feb. 1 — The Roman Catholic Diocese of Spokane, Wash., one of three in the country to have filed for bankruptcy in the aftermath of the sexual abuse scandals, agreed Wednesday to pay nearly $46 million to settle claims by 75 people who allege abuse by priests, lawyers involved in drawing up the settlement said.
Do we really want these perverted priests dictating our morals? I don’t think so.

There is probably a place for the church in communities, though. It provides a social venue and enhances the sense of community. If you know you’re going to have to face your neighbor in church over the weekend, it may provide a something of moral compass and deter you from committing a shameful act, but it’s more the social connotations than anything else. People don’t want to be ostracized from the community. But that’s another problem with the church: they do ostracize people, often for simply being a little different, for not acting the way they’re “supposed” to act, or because they don’t look the way they’re “supposed” to look. That kind of mindset begets racism, prejudice, hatred, and sometimes violence.

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: That’s how O’Reilly and Limbaugh have been spinning it, anyway. Nobody’s trying to outlaw religion or prevent religious or private organizations from displaying religious icons. The only thing I’ve seen is people don’t want government sponsored religious displays. I stand by my statement that “most of us,” meaning the majority of the people in the United States, don’t want our tax dollars going to religious organizations, or used for religions displays or promotion. I’ve seen polls that validate that statement.







That’s BS. If you need the church to dictate your morals, you have no real morals. Our prisons are filled with people who get their morals from religion.



Here is another example of why the church shouldn’t be dictating morals:



Do we really want these perverted priests dictating our morals? I don’t think so.



There is probably a place for the church in communities, though. It provides a social venue and enhances the sense of community. If you know you’re going to have to face your neighbor in church over the weekend, it may provide a something of moral compass and deter you from committing a shameful act, but it’s more the social connotations than anything else. People don’t want to be ostracized from the community. But that’s another problem with the church: they do ostracize people, often for simply being a little different, for not acting the way they’re “supposed” to act, or because they don’t look the way they’re “supposed” to look. That kind of mindset begets racism, prejudice, hatred, and sometimes violence.
So what is your alternative to such unmitigated evil?

[Jives]

Benjamin wrote: The Bush administration has given billions of dollars to religious organizations that promote abstinence. Most of us don’t want to see our tax dollars wasted like that.


(Jives looks sadly over at the four pregnant 15-year olds he has in his class and the two teenage mothers, one of which is 14.)

Why exactly is abstinence a bad idea again? Benjamin, half of the births in New Mexico last year were to teens. And half of those children were born into extreme poverty. Abstinence is not just a great idea, it's absolutely critical.:-5

[Accountable]

Jives wrote: (Jives looks sadly over at the four pregnant 15-year olds he has in his class and the two teenage mothers, one of which is 14.)



Why exactly is abstinence a bad idea again? Benjamin, half of the births in New Mexico last year were to teens. And half of those children were born into extreme poverty. Abstinence is not just a great idea, it's absolutely critical.:-5
Jives, when will you learn? Abstinance is an idea from the church, therefore is is evil, evil, evil! Squash anything religious!!



Now if you will excuse me, I'm going to shave my head and glue the hair into a goatee.

[Benjamin]

Jives wrote: (Jives looks sadly over at the four pregnant 15-year olds he has in his class and the two teenage mothers, one of which is 14.)

Why exactly is abstinence a bad idea again? Benjamin, half of the births in New Mexico last year were to teens. And half of those children were born into extreme poverty. Abstinence is not just a great idea, it's absolutely critical.:-5


Abstinence is good (for children anyway), but promoting abstinence is ineffective. It doesn't prevent anything. Educating children about birth control is far more effective.

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: So what is your alternative to such unmitigated evil?
I wasn’t saying that all churches are bad. On the contrary, most churches are good and do good things for the community, and faith can help a person get through difficult times. “Whatever gets you through the night,” as the saying goes. I personally don’t see anything wrong with the system as it is. It’s people like O’Reilly who are causing the divide and fabricating the “war on religion.”

To quote Hillel, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” Those are pretty good words to live by. You wouldn’t want someone trying to force their religion on you so don’t try to force your religion on someone else. The Golden Rule, on the other hand, states: “Do unto others as you would have them do onto you.” The problem with the Golden Rule is that people will often do good things for a select group and they think they’re following the Golden Rule, even if do bad things to others. If everyone would follow Hillel’s “ethic of reciprocity,” this world would be a better place. Maybe there should be billboards put up around the country that read, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” It might have a positive affect on society.

[ChiptBeef]

Benjamin wrote: The only thing I’ve seen is people don’t want government sponsored religious displays. I stand by my statement that “most of us,” meaning the majority of the people in the United States, don’t want our tax dollars... used for religions displays or promotion. I’ve seen polls that validate that statement.
Then when will we see that same "majority of the people in the United States" call for Congress to cease saying daily prayers in congressional chambers? After all, our tax dollars are paying them as they stand there and pray.

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: I wasn’t saying that all churches are bad. On the contrary, most churches are good and do good things for the community, and faith can help a person get through difficult times. “Whatever gets you through the night,” as the saying goes. I personally don’t see anything wrong with the system as it is. It’s people like O’Reilly who are causing the divide and fabricating the “war on religion.”



To quote Hillel, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” Those are pretty good words to live by. You wouldn’t want someone trying to force their religion on you so don’t try to force your religion on someone else. The Golden Rule, on the other hand, states: “Do unto others as you would have them do onto you.” The problem with the Golden Rule is that people will often do good things for a select group and they think they’re following the Golden Rule, even if do bad things to others. If everyone would follow Hillel’s “ethic of reciprocity,” this world would be a better place. Maybe there should be billboards put up around the country that read, "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man.” It might have a positive affect on society.
With whatever due respect, that's BS.

Which religion is being forced down your throat?

Have you received a summons to attend a particular church?

Exactly what do you see as so evil in what O'Reilly is doing? Come to think of it, what is O'Reilly doing, in your view? (because it seems as if he's saying exactly the same thing you are.)

[Slade1]

In respect of abstinence, I would like to ask 'what's wrong with contraception?'

The fact is you are not suddenly going to stop teenagers having sex, that's just the way it is. I'm not being immoral here, I'm being a realist.

Can't really comment on the rest of what's being said, our government has been seperate from the church for quite some time now, good thing too I say, if the Prime Minister started going on about God I think the majority of the country would think he'd gone off his rocker.

[Accountable]

Slade1 wrote: In respect of abstinence, I would like to ask 'what's wrong with contraception?'



The fact is you are not suddenly going to stop teenagers having sex, that's just the way it is. I'm not being immoral here, I'm being a realist.



Can't really comment on the rest of what's being said, our government has been seperate from the church for quite some time now, good thing too I say, if the Prime Minister started going on about God I think the majority of the country would think he'd gone off his rocker.
You've hit it on the head, Slade. Nothing is wrong with teaching contraception to older teens. Ben and his ilk think that because the church supports abstinence, it must be bad and must be banned. There's no need for an either/or situation. We can teach both.



As for the second remark, wouldn't it be better to try to convince teens to wait, rather than convince them to stop?

[Slade1]

Wait for how long though? Until they're married? We've had features on our news over here about the abstinence movement in the States and I can't help but think that all of those kids seem a bit..well..odd. I'm thinking 'Invasion of the body snatchers'. Their eyes look like dolls eyes, do know what I mean? I do but I'm not sure if anyone else will.

[Accountable]

Slade1 wrote: Wait for how long though? Until they're married? We've had features on our news over here about the abstinence movement in the States and I can't help but think that all of those kids seem a bit..well..odd. I'm thinking 'Invasion of the body snatchers'. Their eyes look like dolls eyes, do know what I mean? I do but I'm not sure if anyone else will.
If you've gone without sex as long as they have, you'd look odd too. :wah:



Why put a time limit on things? How about wait until you're certain it's right? How about wait until you don't feel you have to? How about wait until the HIV test is back?

[Slade1]

It's quite funny really because I was quite a moral person as a youngster (Whatever happened to that boy?), although I was not brought up with any form of religion.

[Accountable]

Slade1 wrote: It's quite funny really because I was quite a moral person as a youngster (Whatever happened to that boy?), although I was not brought up with any form of religion.
To me it's not the religion part that's important. We're losing our morality, which is worse imo. Since parents have dropped the ball & apparently need help picking it up again, the churches are the logical entities to turn to. But everyone seems to think the gov't can have some effect.



Maybe they can fit it in between fundraising and scandals.

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: You've hit it on the head, Slade. Nothing is wrong with teaching contraception to older teens. Ben and his ilk think that because the church supports abstinence, it must be bad and must be banned. There's no need for an either/or situation. We can teach both.
You don't know what I think so how about sticking to the things I post.

I said teaching abstinence is ineffective. I didn't say anything about banning the teaching of it. The problem with Bush’s policy is he ONLY wants to promote abstinence and he’s giving billions of dollars to religious organizations that ONLY teach abstinence at the exclusion of teaching birth control, and since it has been proven time and time again that teaching abstinence is ineffective, our tax dollars are being wasted. I'm all for teaching both.

[Benjamin]

Slade1 wrote: Wait for how long though? Until they're married? We've had features on our news over here about the abstinence movement in the States and I can't help but think that all of those kids seem a bit..well..odd. I'm thinking 'Invasion of the body snatchers'. Their eyes look like dolls eyes, do know what I mean? I do but I'm not sure if anyone else will.
I saw some of those news stories. The people involved in the "abstinence movement" were just as likely to have sex after a year as others in their age group, but were MORE likely to have unprotected sex, and therefore, more susceptible to disease or pregnancy.

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: You don't know what I think so how about sticking to the things I post.



I said teaching abstinence is ineffective. I didn't say anything about banning the teaching of it. The problem with Bush’s policy is he ONLY wants to promote abstinence and he’s giving billions of dollars to religious organizations that ONLY teach abstinence at the exclusion of teaching birth control, and since it has been proven time and time again that teaching abstinence is ineffective, our tax dollars are being wasted. I'm all for teaching both.That's the second time you've said he's giving billions and still not one shred of proof.



What religious organizations are getting this windfall?

[Accountable]

Accountable wrote: [...]

Politicians cannot possibly fill this role. Politicians support and represent the rule of law, and law has no place in morality. In law, whatever is not illegal is permissable. That means that if somebody can think of a new way to cheat that hasn't been addressed yet, it's legal to do it!



In the courtroom, lawyers give lip service to morality, but can't truly use it. If a defense attorney purposely loses a case on moral grounds, he can go to jail. A trial is a debate contest; both sides are required to do whatever they can legally (not morally) to win. We hope that justice and morality wins, but we know damn well it isn't always the case.



I've been hearing lately about conservatives being appointed to the Supreme Court suddenly acting 'too liberal.' In my view, they are doing exactly what they were hired to do: interpret the law as written rather than trying to force morality into the equation.



Lawmakers are hopefully guided by good morals when making laws, but it isn't always so. In my admittedly jaudiced, skeptical view, politicians' number one priority is to get re-elected. To do that they promise, vote, and write laws not necessarily to promote morality (though it is sometimes a nice coincidence) but to make the voter happy. Morality doesn't always make us happy. Morality sucks sometimes.



Morality is separate from law and should be - it must be.



So now everybody is dissatisfied with our society's moral decay. They respond by looking to the gov't to make amoral laws to dictate morality. Do I have to point out the oxymoron?



We need churches. We need them to remain separate from government. We need them to influence politics and politicians through teaching and example, not through political donations or action committees.



Marginalizing churches and giving moral authority to gov't is creating a de facto "national religion."
Ben, you went off the deep end about my first two paragraphs of this post, so I've deleted them. I'm asking you to respond to the rest.

[Slade1]

This says $170 million. actually it's quite an interesting article as well...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/ar ... 4Dec1.html

[Slade1]

Make that $900 million over 5 years, not far off a billion I suppose...

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: That's the second time you've said he's giving billions and still not one shred of proof.



What religious organizations are getting this windfall?




'Faith' Groups Get $1 Billion From Gov. in '03

WASHINGTON — The government gave more than $1 billion in 2003 to organizations it considers "faith-based," with some going to programs where prayer and spiritual guidance are central

...

All told, faith-based organizations (search) were awarded $1.17 billion in 2003. That is about 12 percent of the $14.5 billion spent on social programs that qualify for faith-based grants in five federal departments. White House officials expect the total to grow.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,143105,00.html

[Jives]

Accountable wrote: Jives, when will you learn? Abstinance is an idea from the church, therefore is is evil, evil, evil! Squash anything religious!!


ROFL! Ahh....So THAT'S what they mean when they say, "dripping with sarcasm.":wah:

[BTS]

Jives wrote: Are Mormans Christian?


OOPS Mr Professor..........

MORMON'S........... not MORMAN'S..

Just wantin ya to be correct for all our kids you tech now.....

OOPS TEACH....

[nvalleyvee]

There is no way I can read the entire thread..........

YES - they must be separated..............

A person's belief in God has absolutely nothing to do with that person's belief in how his/her life will be fulfilled AND it especially does not apply to HOW they choose to live their life.

[Katy1]

Far Rider wrote: Please prove that statement with statistics. I'd like to see that.



I'm teaching my children abstinence, all my brothers and sisters were taught abstinence, my parents were taught abstinence, as were theirs, and theirs before them.

Guess what?, there hasnt been a child born out of wedlock in my family for 5 generations before me. And I'm certain that it probably goes back several generations before that.

Teaching abstinence under proper religious training works 100%.



(heheheh I better say abstinence till married)


I kind of agree with you there Far Rider. I think that if you have religion as a tool to teach abstinence then it probably works quite well. I think a statistic to prove 100% would be a difficult one to find and even poll for.

If you have strong religious faith then you are bound in a way by 'what god would think' so if you could teach kids that it was wrong and source some story from the Bible to back yourself up then you'd be on to a winner.

[Katy1]

Far Rider wrote: Please prove that statement with statistics. I'd like to see that.



I'm teaching my children abstinence, all my brothers and sisters were taught abstinence, my parents were taught abstinence, as were theirs, and theirs before them.

Guess what?, there hasnt been a child born out of wedlock in my family for 5 generations before me. And I'm certain that it probably goes back several generations before that.

Teaching abstinence under proper religious training works 100%.



(heheheh I better say abstinence till married)


I like the way you say 'born' out of wedlock. That's not to say that they were conceived within the boundaries of marriage eh!

[Benjamin]

Far Rider wrote: Please prove that statement with statistics. I'd like to see that.



I'm teaching my children abstinence, all my brothers and sisters were taught abstinence, my parents were taught abstinence, as were theirs, and theirs before them.

Guess what?, there hasnt been a child born out of wedlock in my family for 5 generations before me. And I'm certain that it probably goes back several generations before that.




Most people can say the same thing, even if they weren't from religious familes or taught abstinence.

As far as the statistics, it's been some six months since I read that, so I'll have to look around for a link.

[Benjamin]

Accountable wrote: Ben, you went off the deep end about my first two paragraphs of this post, so I've deleted them. I'm asking you to respond to the rest.


Your post is full of generalizations. Specifically, what morals do you think should be dictated by the church? What's there to stop churches from dictating morals under our current system? If you want to follow the morals of your church, there’s nothing preventing you from doing that unless there are laws prohibiting it. Mormons believe that polygamy is morally acceptable but it's against the law. Since it's a moral dictated by a church, should that supersede civic law?

[Accountable]

Benjamin wrote: Your post is full of generalizations. Specifically, what morals do you think should be dictated by the church? What's there to stop churches from dictating morals under our current system? If you want to follow the morals of your church, there’s nothing preventing you from doing that unless there are laws prohibiting it. Mormons believe that polygamy is morally acceptable but it's against the law. Since it's a moral dictated by a church, should that supersede civic law?
You're helping me make my point. We don't need to change the system. The churches are abdicating their role as moral leaders in favor of one of political action committee. The people are letting them, even encouraging it. I think it's senseless to legislate morality. It's not something one can quantify. It just is. Law is not able to make unquantifyable rules; it can't flex like that.



As for the Mormon statement, Separate, not Superior. Give unto Caesar and all that. The law must be obeyed. But within the law is alot of gray area where criminals get away with murder, figuratively and literally. That gray area is where morality comes into play, but it's losing it's hold on our society. I believe that churches, in their proper role, can make our society morally strong again.



I honestly don't see where we disagree. I'm not saying bring a church into the gov't or make church mandatory in any way. I'm saying the church is becoming weak, which is weakening society, and we are looking to amoral politicians to fill the void.

[Slade1]

Far Rider wrote: Please prove that statement with statistics. I'd like to see that.



I'm teaching my children abstinence, all my brothers and sisters were taught abstinence, my parents were taught abstinence, as were theirs, and theirs before them.

Guess what?, there hasnt been a child born out of wedlock in my family for 5 generations before me. And I'm certain that it probably goes back several generations before that.

Teaching abstinence under proper religious training works 100%.



(heheheh I better say abstinence till married)


Talking statistics, could you please provide statistics that back up your claim that abstinence 'works 100% under proper religious training'.

I also notice that the evidence provided about the American government funding these groups was not acknowledged, please comment.