Separation of Church and State?

Slade1 · Post by **Slade1** » Sun Feb 05, 2006 4:58 am

Far Rider wrote: Lets see abstinence works 100%... you see that s kinda it, it is it's own stat. No sex means no pregnancy. :-2

I'm actually looking into the issue about Bush giving money to churches. Im a bit shocked that church's would take it to tell ya the truth. The church I attend wouldnt accept federal funds at all. With the money comes strings. The church should never be run by the government, nor the government by the church.

I can't find anywhere that a local church got funds, only large orginizations like the salvation army. Which I dont consider a church. I think its a dangerous idea for the government to give to the church.

When Ive checked thouroughly I will come back and comment.

Sorry, I misunderstood your abstinence statement, I thought you meant that the specific schemes that we were talking about were 100% succesful, I see what you mean now, although I think it's more of a complicated issue than that.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 6:26 am

Far Rider wrote: I think its very complicated. I know that in my family and community I grew up in there was very little unwed preganancies, and I dont mean to say or imply we had a lot of shotgun weddings. I mean it was relatively unheard of. In fact I had to call my sister and ask her if she knew of any girls who came up pregnant when we were growing up, and she had to call my oldest sister to even find one and it was a lady that didnt regularly attend services nor was she even from our community, she arrived pregnant from another place and stayed with relatives.

My point is that if abstinence is instructed and the parents modeled it as teens then likely the children will follow suit.

I'm talking about teaching biblical conviction, not just abstinence. Which is why teaching abstinence, although a good thing, will have limited success in the typical non religious environment because it is not taught as a conviction, but rather a simple solution.

Yes, It's very complicated. but realisticly the only convictions a teen carries into adulthood are the decisions parents or other adults help them make as children and teens.Modeling! That's the word I was looking for. The churches should be modeling good moral behavior, rather than paying politicians to legislate it.

Churches do it - church members feel peer pressure to comply - kids see their parents do it - culture is formed.

Gov't does it - politicians model whatever the hell they want - the only pressure to comply is to minimum requirements - kids learn to skirt the system - culture is formed.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 9:38 am

Far Rider wrote: Excellent! Theres only one problem and I'm sad to report it..... the teachings and modeling of the "church" isnt much different from the rest of the "nonchurched"... most Churches today are so corrupt and weak both spritiually and morally that you can hardly learn a higher moral standard from them.

Youre gonna have to get them to buy into this one.
We don't need the same standard, just a higher standard than we have - and certainly a higher one than the one we're headed for!

We can call it "smart business", if that would make it more pallitable for them. :p

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 1:08 pm

Far Rider wrote: Ok for the sake of setting the standard tell me five basic moral standards you think need to be taught... theoretically it should be very easy to set the standard. So lets choose five basic tennents of morals, list no source but ourselves, then start a thread and see if we can get a majority of votors to agree with our "five tennents of morality".

wanna?
That should be interesting.

For me, this pretty much covers everything: "What is hateful to you, do not to your fellow man."

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 4:28 pm

Far Rider wrote: Ok for the sake of setting the standard tell me five basic moral standards you think need to be taught... theoretically it should be very easy to set the standard. So lets choose five basic tennents of morals, list no source but ourselves, then start a thread and see if we can get a majority of votors to agree with our "five tennents of morality".

wanna?
You mean like my favorite, self-responsibility?

What do you have in mind?

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:08 pm

Far Rider wrote: Sorry thats open to too much internal interpretation, cause what I hate may not be what you hate.

We're looking for a declared standard.
But if you hate it, you wouldn't do it to someone else, even if it didn't bother them, so you're covered.

I guess the question is, what is something that you wouldn't mind having done to you but someone else would hate?

Off hand, I can't think of anything.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 5:23 pm

Benjamin wrote: But if you hate it, you wouldn't do it to someone else, even if it didn't bother them, so you're covered.

I guess the question is, what is something that you wouldn't mind having done to you but someone else would hate?

Off hand, I can't think of anything.
I don't mind taking full responsibility for my actions, even if I break the law. Many people will try anything to be declared not guilty, and/or avoid punishment.

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:10 pm

Far Rider wrote: ahahah...

Ok I get ya, but its still subjective...lets say I drive my old rusted out 55 chevy close to your 2006 truck and I scrap yours all to heck, I woudlnt hate it if you did that to me? I dont care, mines already scraped up and rusted out... so since its something I dont hate am I responsible?
It's not the same thing. Generally speaking, you wouldn't care if someone damaged something that is of little value to you, but you'd be damaging something that IS of value to someone else. And besides, we have civic laws to cover that kind of thing.

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:15 pm

Far Rider wrote: Sure ok I'll agree to that one...each person is responsible for themselves.

Ok so thats #1.

let me throw out #2....

Personal honesty. No lying, wether your under oath or not, your word is your word.
That fits into my "ethic of reciprocity." You wouldn't want someone to lie to you so don't lie to others... in MOST situations, that is. Sometimes you just don't want to hurt someone's feelings so you tell a white lie.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Mon Feb 06, 2006 7:28 pm

Far Rider wrote: Sure ok I'll agree to that one...each person is responsible for themselves.

Ok so thats #1.

let me throw out #2....

Personal honesty. No lying, wether your under oath or not, your word is your word.
I'm still not sure what you have in mind.

Possible #3. I'm trying to phrase it right on how to help people without making them dependent.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:01 am

Far Rider wrote: My goal is to come up with a list of five basic moral values and then see if we can get a majority to agree on them. It might be easier here than most places. I suppose its an experiment. I dont think we can get a simple majority to agree on a set of moral laws.
Oh okay. One caviat. I don't want to use the ones that involve violating another's body or property. I mean 'don't murder' is a good value, but it is also something we can legislate even without such a value, because it violates another's right to life. See? Theft violates another's right to ownership, etc.

Just brainstorming here for things we could consider:

parenting

taking care of old folks

charity

Hmmmm......

Y'know some states have a law requiring a person to help someone in distress. I think that's a stupid law. It's a good thing to do, but a stupid law. What is you get hurt yourself trying to do something you're not trained to do, out of fear of going to jail??

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:00 pm

Far Rider wrote: So lets choose five basic tennents of morals, list no source but ourselves, then start a thread and see if we can get a majority of votors to agree with our "five tennents of morality".Far, with no offense intended, I think the word you're looking for here is 'tenet'. 'Tennent' is the name of a manufacturer of mechanized floor scrubbing equipment.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 12:32 pm

Bronwen wrote: Far, with no offense intended, I think the word you're looking for here is 'tenet'. 'Tennent' is the name of a manufacturer of mechanized floor scrubbing equipment.
you'll be all day pointing out his grammatical errors. *smacks Far in the face with eraser & runs*

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 2:58 pm

Far Rider wrote: hmmm....

Agreed, we have a bunch of laws that govern property already...

Lets see we have personal responsibility, we have personal honesty, how about personla rsponsibilty for thos that fall under your care?
That law's in place, but nobody has the cojones to enforce it.

Hmmmmmm :yh_think

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:17 pm

BTS wrote: OOPS Mr Professor..........

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

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

OOPS TEACH....

LOL. Stupid arthritus! I must have been off that day! Thanks for catching that one, BTS.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:18 pm

Far Rider wrote: ahaha yes thank you! no offense takin, I get to typoin and these fingers go to whatever looks good and the brain follers!

I've got Far's problem with an addition of Rheumatoid Artritus. Sometimes even when I know the right key, my poor swollen fingers won't go for it!:o

Benjamin · Post by **Benjamin** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 4:53 pm

Far Rider wrote: hmmm....

Agreed, we have a bunch of laws that govern property already...

Lets see we have personal responsibility, we have personal honesty, how about personla rsponsibilty for thos that fall under your care?
Everything you have there is purely subjective.

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 07, 2006 5:48 pm

Benjamin wrote: Everything you have there is purely subjective.
Hey, Mr Glass-half-empty. You're not helping here.

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 12:34 am

What about the influence of the "Anti-Christian Agenda?" http://www.chatmania.net/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=86

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sat Feb 11, 2006 8:45 am

TruthSeekerToo wrote: What about the influence of the "Anti-Christian Agenda?" http://www.chatmania.net/forum/forumdis ... p?f=86What about it yourself, TST? What is your point here?

To save other readers the trouble, I'll post your link here, since it is quite short. Note that this is a post within a post, the poster providing the title and the short introductory paragraph, and the rest being a letter to the editor, apparently from someone else:Anti-Christian Agenda

The following letter to the editor appeared on Page 4-A of the March 9, 2005 Martinsville Bulletin newspaper published in Martinsville, Virginia. Doesn't it seem as though Christians are easily attacked without much opposition?

"Christians taking over schools"

"Public school-sponsored prayer and pre-game prayer in public schools is unconstitutional. The fundamentalist conservative Christians in several states continue to demand that public schools display the Ten Commandments and "In God We Trust," and teach creationism. Their goal is obvious: To teach their religious point of view. The problem with the religion in public schools controversy is the dishonesty of fundamentalist conservative Christians. Religion and Christianity are not the problem. There are many Christians who understand the necessity for keeping government and religion separate. Prayer is not even the problem. A student can still pray in public school, silently or even in a group as long as no one is coerced to participate. The problem is only with a select group wanting the government to sponsor their brand of Christianity. Fundamentalist conservative Christians cannot even be honest, which should say a lot about their brand of Christianity in claiming that prayer is banned in public schools. It's not about prayer in schools, it's using the government to sponsor their prayer and it is about being seen and heard praying in a government setting."

"Bob Lawson"

"Ridgeway"The letter writer is 100% correct. Does the poster disagree with Mr. Lawson's viewpoint? S/he doesn't say; the only clue is the title. What is 'Anti-Christian' here? Where is the 'attack'? I don't see it.

Also, it's important to remember that we are talking about PUBLIC, tax-supported schools here, where any religious aganda would be clearly unconstitutional. Parochial schools are not subject to such guidelines, nor is anyone suggesting that they should be.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 2:39 am

Bronwen wrote: The letter writer is 100% correct. Where is the 'attack'? I don't see it.
I don't agree with the letter writer. I think the overall tone of the letter is derogatory. The repeated reference to "fundamentalist conservative Christians" is clearly a dig. Then, "a select group wanting the government to sponsor their brand of Christianity." is clearly an attempt to marginalize millions of Americans. That's close enough to an "attack" for me. There's a clear agenda being put forth by "Bob Lawson," the letter writer.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 11:50 am

ChiptBeef wrote: I don't agree with the letter writer. I think the overall tone of the letter is derogatory. The repeated reference to "fundamentalist conservative Christians" is clearly a dig. Then, "a select group wanting the government to sponsor their brand of Christianity." is clearly an attempt to marginalize millions of Americans. That's close enough to an "attack" for me. There's a clear agenda being put forth by "Bob Lawson," the letter writer.Chip, if you are seriously suggesting that fundamentalist conservative Christians do NOT want to tear down the wall of separation, I can only ask what planet you have been living on. I know of no such attempts by Catholics, Jews, or 'mainline' Protestants, only by those to whom the letter writer refers.

I will admit, however, that such intentions are not universal within the fundamentalist community. Many Baptists, for example, to their credit, have consistantly supported the separation of Church and State, and this may apply to members of other fundamentalist denoms as well.

This thread is now in its 14th screen. I suggest you review the entire thread for a better perspective. If you wish, I can provide links to LOTS of fundamentalist websites which will confirm the letter writer's concern beyond any doubt.

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Sun Feb 12, 2006 1:59 pm

Bronwen wrote: What about it yourself, TST? What is your point here?
I simply posted a link related to the subject of this thread. But since you are soliciting opinions, I believe Bob Lawson is trying to be part of a larger agenda, as he has had a number of other anti-Christian letters to the editor published by the local newspaper, the Martinsville Bulletin. The link I posted was found on an internet search, and I thought it would be helpful, since that newspaper doesn't publish personal letters to the editor from area residents on their web site.

As to the initial issue of this thread, the Supreme Court first declared a "separation of church and state" in it's 1947 decision for Everson v. Board of Education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v. ... _Education

The Supreme Court decided against school prayer in 1962 "even when relatively non-denominational and voluntary..." http://www.answers.com/topic/engel-v-vitale

The Supreme Court decided in 1963 that "sanctioned organized Bible reading in public schools in the United states to be unconstitutional." The school policy challenged in that case stated "Each school... shall be opened by the reading without comment, of a chapter in the Holy Bible... Participation in the opening exercise... is voluntary." http://www.answers.com/topic/abington-s ... -v-schempp

I don't agree with the Courts' interpretation, based on our nations history up to those points. I think the phrase "legislation from the bench" is fitting.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 9:14 am

TruthSeekerToo wrote: 1. I simply posted a link related to the subject of this thread. But since you are soliciting opinions, I believe Bob Lawson is trying to be part of a larger agenda, as he has had a number of other anti-Christian letters to the editor published by the local newspaper, the Martinsville Bulletin.

2. As to the initial issue of this thread, the Supreme Court first declared a "separation of church and state" in it's 1947 decision for Everson v. Board of Education. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everson_v. ... _Education

The Supreme Court decided against school prayer in 1962 "even when relatively non-denominational and voluntary..." http://www.answers.com/topic/engel-v-vitale

The Supreme Court decided in 1963 that "sanctioned organized Bible reading in public schools in the United states to be unconstitutional." The school policy challenged in that case stated "Each school... shall be opened by the reading without comment, of a chapter in the Holy Bible... Participation in the opening exercise... is voluntary."

3. I don't agree with the Courts' interpretation, based on our nations history up to those points. I think the phrase "legislation from the bench" is fitting.1. Well, fair enough, but as a Christian I don't consider the letter unChristian at all. On the contrary, I can't imagine any person of faith - Christian or otherwise - disagreeing with it OTHER THAN the fundamentalist bigots he refers to.

Not having read any of Mr. Lawson's other letters to the editor, I cannot comment on them.

2. I'm sure your citations here are correct. However, all of these are based on the first amendment. That is clearly the source of the 'wall of separation', and that amendment in turn is based on the broad principles on which this nation was conceived, as reflected in the writings of the founding fathers, notably Jefferson, Franklin and Paine.

3. All of us, as individuals, surely have the right to disagree with Supreme Court decisions. These particular decisions are not likely to be overturned. No doubt the extremists of the religious right will keep trying. They seem too stupid to realize that the purpose of the wall of separation is not to inhibit religion but to guarantee religious freedom for everyone. That is a freedom that must be preserved at all costs. So many of the world's people don't have it.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Mon Feb 13, 2006 7:19 pm

Bronwen wrote: Chip... This thread is now in its 14th screen. I suggest you review the entire thread for a better perspective.
I started the thread. I know how long it's been running. I don't need it to define my beliefs. The terms "wall of separation" or "separation of church and state" have never appeared in the Constitution. The phrase "separation of church and state" was an intepretation by the Supreme Court. The phrase "wall of separation" was taken from a January 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. See my posts at the beginning of this thread. They will give you "a better perspective."

One problem I have with the letter by Bob Lawson that you so readily embrace, is that it's not original work. It was taken, word for word, from an internet article published by Bill Jager on an atheist / agnostic web site about half way down the page under the bold heading "Fundalmentalist Conservative Christian and Public Schools." If someone can't submit their own ideas and work without at least giving proper credit to the author, their position lacks merit, in my opinion. http://www.mindspring.com/~wjager/billrel.html

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:51 am

ChiptBeef wrote: 1. I started the thread. I know how long it's been running. I don't need it to define my beliefs. The terms "wall of separation" or "separation of church and state" have never appeared in the Constitution. The phrase "wall of separation" was an intepretation by the Supreme Court. The phrase "separation of church and state" was taken from a January 1802 letter from Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association. See my posts at the beginning of this thread. They will give you "a better perspective."

2. One problem I have with the letter by Bob Lawson that you so readily embrace, is that it's not original work. It was taken, word for word, from an internet article published by Bill Jager on an atheist / agnostic web site about half way down the page under the bold heading "Fundalmentalist Conservative Christian and Public Schools." If someone can't submit their own ideas and work without at least giving proper credit to the author, their position lacks merit, in my opinion. http://www.mindspring.com/~wjager/billrel.html1. Yes, you did, and now you are repeating yourself. In doing so, you have your quotes confused. The Jefferson letter contains the phrase 'wall of separation', not 'separation of Church and State'.

But we are talking about concepts here, not words or phrases. The word "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Bible yet it is one the most basic tenets of Christianity. The founders of the USA, through the first amendment, clearly intended that religion be upheld and respected without regard to sect. Jefferson's letter affirms that. So does, in my view, Lawson's letter.

2. I will take your word for that, and I agree that 'web etiquette' dictates that in such cases the source should be given. But that really changes nothing, there is nothing whatever in the letter that is antiChristian or antireligious. If you disagree, please quote the part to which you object.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:13 am

moverguy wrote: GOD ID GREAT AND IT'S WHAT THIS NATION IS BASED ON - Constitution, D OF I and on the federal buildings around the USA.

Screw all of you who feel otherwise...Mo, can you provide any reference to God in the Constitution? I can't find any, but maybe I didn't look hard enough.

Once you HAVEN'T done that, can you provide any reference to the Christian God in the D of I? The 'basis' of the D of I is the tyranny of British rule, which is spelled out in some detail. I see only a couple of brief, passing references to the 'Laws of Nature and of Nature's God', and to a 'Creator' who endows EVERY human, not just Americans, certainly not just Christians, with certain basic rights, but this is mere rhetoric. There is surely no sectarianism here.

What exactly do you find written on federal buildings that you feel supports your position? Give the name of the building and the exact quote. I have visited our capital several times and I have not seen that.

So what is your point? Maybe you should go screw yourself.

ChiptBeef · Post by **ChiptBeef** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:34 am

Bronwen wrote: 1. Yes, you did, and now you are repeating yourself. In doing so, you have your quotes confused. The Jefferson letter contains the phrase 'wall of separation', not 'separation of Church and State'.

But we are talking about concepts here, not words or phrases. The word "Trinity" does not appear anywhere in the Bible yet it is one the most basic tenets of Christianity. The founders of the USA, through the first amendment, clearly intended that religion be upheld and respected without regard to sect. Jefferson's letter affirms that. So does, in my view, Lawson's letter.

2. I will take your word for that, and I agree that 'web etiquette' dictates that in such cases the source should be given. But that really changes nothing, there is nothing whatever in the letter that is antiChristian or antireligious. If you disagree, please quote the part to which you object.
I got the phrases inverted as a typing error. Please don't shoot me, since I corrected the error. Neither Jefferson's nor Lawson's letter are binding, legal documents. If the Constitutional Congress had contemplated a "wall of seperation" or "separation of church and state," those defining words would have been included in the Constitution. The First Amendment provides, by specific words and language, freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

As to Lawson's letter, it's not just about "web etiquette." It's about plagiarism and a fraud on the community where the newspaper is published. I find the entire tone of the letter derogatory and anti-Christian against select portions of the Christian community. In that sense, it is bigoted, IMO. We can agree to disagree on that, though.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:50 am

ChiptBeef wrote: 1. I got the phrases inverted as a typing error. Please don't shoot me, since I corrected the error.

2. If the Constitutional Congress had contemplated a "wall of seperation" or "separation of church and state," those defining words would have been included in the Constitution.

3. The First Amendment provides, by specific words and language, freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

4. I find the entire tone of the letter derogatory and anti-Christian against select portions of the Christian community. In that sense, it is bigoted, IMO. We can agree to disagree on that, though.1. Oh, I would never do that. I'm not the vice-president.

2. Here we will have to agree to disagree. To me, that is precisely what the first amendment says. The exact words differ, the meaning is the same.

3. Here the disagreement is, with all respect, considerably stronger. 'No law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]' in no way implies that religion must or should be exercised, only that such exercise may not be prohibited. That seems to me quite clear.

4. Oh, I am not disagreeing with you here at all, the key phrase being 'key portions', and I think that is clear from my response to TST earlier in the thread. I think such extremists SHOULD be derogated, because they are attempting to subvert the Constitution, and so far, thank God, the courts have upheld this view nearly across the board. Of course they have the right to their sectarian beliefs, but not to impose them on the rest of us, or upon our children and grandchildren in public schools.

Are you seriously suggesting that the nation's schools should be turned over to these people? If not, what are we arguing about? If so, what would you propose?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 12:21 pm

ChiptBeef wrote: The First Amendment provides, by specific words and language, freedom of religion, not freedom from religion.

[QUOTEBronwen]Here the disagreement is, with all respect, considerably stronger. 'No law...prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]' in no way implies that religion must or should be exercised, only that such exercise may not be prohibited. That seems to me quite clear.
I believe it acknowledges that we are free to worship as we please. To set forth law/regulations/rules to prohibit that exercise is strictly forbidden. I am free to pray in public. No one may prevent that. They may complain, but not prevent. Thus, they do not have freedom 'from' religion.

Now, if other parents are of the mind that my hypothetical public-school children should learn things with a religious bent, sorry. Not permitted. Homeschool or start a parochial school.

Teach about religions - don't teach religion - in a culture class.

TruthSeekerToo · Post by **TruthSeekerToo** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 6:32 pm

Bronwen wrote: All of us, as individuals, surely have the right to disagree with Supreme Court decisions. These particular decisions are not likely to be overturned. No doubt the extremists of the religious right will keep trying. They seem too stupid to realize...
The Supreme Court is not above making mistakes. In the "Dred Scott" case of 1857, the Court upheld salvery as constitutional. That was overturned by the 13th Amendment in 1865. I think exclusive statements like "extremists of the religious right" and "They seem too stupid" just adds fuel to the fire.

Jives · Post by **Jives** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 8:21 pm

Accountable wrote:

Teach about religions - don't teach religion - in a culture class.

Even there, you wouldn't believe the razor blade schools walk.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 9:52 pm

I'm curious about your burden for this issue. Would you mind answering a few questions? (be as brief as you care to be)

What would you like to see happen in regards to Church and State, in your country?

How would you benefit, or how would it affect you personally?

What do you think will really happen in regards to Church and State in your country, and why do you think so?

How do you expect it will affect your own life?

Accountable · Post by **Accountable** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:22 pm

Not sure I fall into the category. I'm saying that we're stripping churches (call it The Church, if you like) of their societal roles as promoters of morality, and ceding them to the state, making it (thus, politicians) the de facto church.

Ted · Post by **Ted** » Tue Feb 14, 2006 10:37 pm

If we did not have a strict division of church and state here in Canada I would find it intolerable. I don't want or need a fundamentalist/literalist of any faith telling me what to do and how to do it. The church has no business in the halls of political power. I can see opening and closing parliament with a prayer that is essentially non denominational. That would be acceptable.

Shalom

Ted:-6

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:39 am

Ted wrote: If we did not have a strict division of church and state here in Canada I would find it intolerable. I don't want or need a fundamentalist/literalist of any faith telling me what to do and how to do it. The church has no business in the halls of political power. I can see opening and closing parliament with a prayer that is essentially non denominational. That would be acceptable.
Do you still have 'blue laws' (Sunday closing) in Canada, Ted? Last time I was there (in Ontario), NEARLY everything was closed down on Sunday, and when I remarked on this I was told that an organization called 'The Lord's Day Alliance' was mainly responsible. If true, that certainly sounds like interference with the separation. Please note, I'm not knocking Canada here, I'm just curious.

telaquapacky · Post by **telaquapacky** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:42 am

Accountable wrote: Not sure I fall into the category. I'm saying that we're stripping churches (call it The Church, if you like) of their societal roles as promoters of morality, and ceding them to the state, making it (thus, politicians) the de facto church.Accountable, I like your observation of the role of the churches. It seems to me that the lay people in the churches and the holy couch potatoes whose church is to watch televangelists bloviate on the tube, are abdicating their personal duty to God to be the salt of the world- the influencers of their children and the world around them, and expecting government- especially public school teachers- to do this task for them.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:43 am

telaquapacky wrote: I'm curious about your burden for this issue. Would you mind answering a few questions? (be as brief as you care to be)

What would you like to see happen in regards to Church and State, in your country?

How would you benefit, or how would it affect you personally?

What do you think will really happen in regards to Church and State in your country, and why do you think so?

How do you expect it will affect your own life?All excellent questions, and I have asked pretty much the same but have received no direct response. Those who seem to oppose the strict separation seem unwilling to be specific regarding what they would like to see.

Of course, they are all rhetorical questions because it ain't gonna happpen.

Bronwen · Post by **Bronwen** » Wed Feb 15, 2006 8:47 am

Jives wrote: Even there, you wouldn't believe the razor blade schools walk.You are, of course, correct, and we discussed this earlier in the thread. It would be very difficult to provide any such course below the college level because the possibility of proselytizing, directly by the teacher or indirectly by some pressure group, would be too great. It would be more of a probability than a possibility.