Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One might ask, Is there really a separation of church and state?
In a literal sense, mostly yes. I say that due to the fact of millions of untaxed dollars go through church's, why not tax them? This connects with my next point. How many laws are only in effect due to religious influence?
Is the religious influence in the state so overwhelming that it blinds the fact of these "non-profit organizations" are abusing there non-profit status. These institutions are so wealthy its really hard to believe for them to fall under this so called non-profit status.
-With are indirect taxes constantly raising, why not tax the church's as well?
-Is it too taboo in such a highly religious influenced government to take in fiscal dollars from Church's?
-How many of our laws regarding soft drug policies are only in effect due to religious influence?
It's one thing for religious influence to affect those affiliated with that Church, but to go as far as making it federal law only really because of church teachings, Where is the separation?
How many laws are only in effect due to religious influence?
Pretty much all of them. All the big ones, anyway. "Thou shalt not kill". Want to repeal that one?
I wouldn't mind seeing the churches lose their tax-exempt status, but you'd have to apply that to all non-profits.
For some of them, that wouldn't be a problem. For others, it would put them out of business. I'd rather keep them all in business and let some of them get rich than put a bunch out of business in a vain attempt to reduce the fatcattery.
No, not at all. The founders did the best they could to forge a document that would retain the ethical principles of the western world (i.e., the Christian-coated ethical arena), and at the same time obstruct the church itself from having undue influence in the governanace of the republic. Nothing is black and white and there will always be opportunities to slip into a gray area, where they will be hotly diesputed. People on both sides of the question have to be careful to not throw the baby out with the bath water.
Swagger, only 3 of the 10 commandments have been codified into law in America, an those three are equally amd just as emphatically the law in every single country on earth (murder, theft, false-witness). There is not a single word of the Ten Commandments that is law in the United States and not law in all other countries on the planet. So, in fact, the Ten Commandments have had absolutely no influence whatsoever on the law of the land in the United States of America. And, the three laws in the US that are congruent with the Ten Commandments are enforced quite a bit more rigorously in Iran than in the US. And some of the other biblical Judaeo-Christian commandments are the law in Iran, but not the US.
only 3 of the 10 commandments have been codified into law in America ... (murder, theft, false-witness)
You forgot adultery.
It was a simple example - I wasn't really implying that the Ten Commands were made into laws.
Religion has a much deeper influence in law than most people realize, though. Laws are nothing but a set of morals put on paper and enforced. Most morals have religious beginnings, or exist in tandem with religious beliefs.
It was a simple example - I wasn't really implying that the Ten Commands were made into laws.
Religion has a much deeper influence in law than most people realize, though. Laws are nothing but a set of morals put on paper and enforced. Most morals have religious beginnings, or exist in tandem with religious beliefs.
Adultery is not illegal in any jurisdiction in the United States. There aren't even any mild sanctions against anymore, and the constitution was mute on family relatiionships. It is very hard to find a passage in the Holy Bible that actually reflects the laws of the land. People raised in Muslim or Buddhist or Hindu traditions have no problem at all moving about in America and fitting in perfectly with our ethical foundations. They are all the same---not because they are religions, but because all religions intuitively recognized the kinds of interpersonal relationships that would lead to social harmony. The way people behave are pre-religious. Legal systems are based on common sense and fairness, not religious dogma.
Religion has a much deeper influence in law than most people realize, though. Laws are nothing but a set of morals put on paper and enforced. Most morals have religious beginnings, or exist in tandem with religious beliefs.
What is your point? Do you think every bit of religion is tainted in some way by a desire to make peoples lives miserable for a whim? In Asian religions, the ultimate aim is for a person to find peace with themselves and others. That in itself shows a strong ethical desire that is beyond mere whims or folkways, which is why the central tenets of these religions are often called Dharma (that which upholds)- several Asian religions are non-theistic in the Abrahamic sense (either no personal Ground of Being, or metaphysical irrelevence of God). I'm sure, even in Abrahamic religions, there is a belief that the morals of those religions exist for the good of the individual and society as a whole, even if this is indirect.
Adultery is not illegal in any jurisdiction in the United States. There aren't even any mild sanctions against anymore, ...
You just admitted that it was illegal. Enlightenment time...
Quote:
Like 23 other states, Virginia still might prosecute if a husband or wife has consensual sex outside the marriage. Ten states, including Virginia, have anti-fornication statutes as well, prohibiting sex before marriage. Like many fundamentalist Islamic states, the United States uses criminal penalties to police the morality of its citizens.
So now you see that in some places, it is illegal.
Maybe you were just talking about federal laws. I've been talking about it in a broader context, including states and localities.
You could also consider the "dry" counties that still exist. Do you think they're banning alcohol because it's poisonous? Of course not - they're trying to enforce morality, generally for religious reasons (although you're not likely to see that reason written into the law).
Originally Posted by swagger View Post
Religion has a much deeper influence in law than most people realize, though. Laws are nothing but a set of morals put on paper and enforced. Most morals have religious beginnings, or exist in tandem with religious beliefs.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Magnulus
What is your point? Do you think every bit of religion is tainted in some way by a desire to make peoples lives miserable for a whim? In Asian religions, the ultimate aim is for a person to find peace with themselves and others. That in itself shows a strong ethical desire that is beyond mere whims or folkways, which is why the central tenets of these religions are often called Dharma (that which upholds)- several Asian religions are non-theistic in the Abrahamic sense (either no personal Ground of Being, or metaphysical irrelevence of God). I'm sure, even in Abrahamic religions, there is a belief that the morals of those religions exist for the good of the individual and society as a whole, even if this is indirect.
Um, the thread topic is "Separation of church and state a myth?". My point is that the laws that govern us are, in many cases, based on religious beliefs. I thought I was pretty clear about that...
What's your point? I point out a simple fact about the origin of some of our laws and what law really is (enforced morality), and you go off on some rant about the various Eastern religions? Oooookkkkk......
One might ask, Is there really a separation of church and state?
In a literal sense, mostly yes. I say that due to the fact of millions of untaxed dollars go through church's, why not tax them? This connects with my next point. How many laws are only in effect due to religious influence?
Is the religious influence in the state so overwhelming that it blinds the fact of these "non-profit organizations" are abusing there non-profit status. These institutions are so wealthy its really hard to believe for them to fall under this so called non-profit status.
-With are indirect taxes constantly raising, why not tax the church's as well?
-Is it too taboo in such a highly religious influenced government to take in fiscal dollars from Church's?
-How many of our laws regarding soft drug policies are only in effect due to religious influence?
It's one thing for religious influence to affect those affiliated with that Church, but to go as far as making it federal law only really because of church teachings, Where is the separation?
Hopefully, this would include all those shifty, shady "revrend" outfits (Jackson, Sharpton, Wright, TUCC, Pfleger, et al) as well.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
