Republican, monarchist or what?

[the caracal kid]

indeed rev, i will have to look for that thread. in the meantime, here are a few quickies:

Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?
John Adams, second President of the USA

Gentlemen, we are not, nor have we ever been a Christian Nation ...
The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish
or Mohammedan nation.
John Adams

What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy.
James Madison, fourth President of the USA

Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.
James Madison, fourth President of the USA

The founding fathers were Deists who very much above all else wanted a country built on the complete separation of church and state.

 

[jimmoyer]

Well lets go for the vagaries again here, the mushy
middle of the road that appeals to no partisan, no
believer.

Again, at a guarantee of boredom, the truth is
both what Nascar_James and Reverend Blair says it is.

And there's enough factual evidence to support
both points of view, and so who wins this argument?

Nobody.

Because this truth is a little bit of both. The Deists
as most founding fathers were, have great backrounds
in different Christian churches, and all of them
attended the Church of Christ in Philadelphia AND
all of them believed that none of their laws or their
inventions would ever be enforced WITHOUT the moral
foundations of religion, education and culture.

At the same time they also believed religion had its
excesses and wrote about these qualms.

And so Congress shall make no law establishing A
religion (in the context of their time it meant one
Christian church over another christian denomination
because no other religion was dominating or had
even a chance to).

And the second part of the clause was "nor prohibit
the free excercise thereof."

Like I've said before the Separation of Church and
State can go ad absurdum where we really need to
consider a calendar NOT originating from the alleged
birthdate of Christ.

Separation of Church and State is a matter requiring
moderation, intelligence AND NOT a matter of
mind-numbing absolutism.

The extremists on both sides of this issue are
quite adamant to the point of egotistical tyranny.

 

[the caracal kid]

jim. i think what is so often forgetten is the times in which the US was being founded. The understanding of church and state being interwined in Europe is what led many people to seek a new life in america.

Without the separation, there is a path towards theocracy. We all can see what theocracies are like thoughout history. It is indeed the clinging to absolutes that creates the problems.

note to nascar: i agree the queen is irrelevent and unrelfective of the multicultural nature of canada. Holding onto such a head of state out of "tradition" is inflicting more harm than good. If we want to claim canada is not a land of equals by having a head of state that is there just becuase of lineage, then we have no say in other what other tyrants have done and are doing as acts of their "entitement", either by birthright or ambition. The queen of england and Saddam Hussien are of equal "head of state" value to me.

 

[jimmoyer]

But Caracal kid, does this mean the dismantling
of an 89 year old 10 commandments plaque on
a historical courthouse ?

Does it mean we should change a Calendar based
on the alleged birthdate of Christ?

Some of these battles, seem to me quite trivial
on this matter of Church and State.

I think the separation of church and state in
most western democracies is quite balanced.

Much of this debate is the argument of ad absurdum
extremists on both sides.

The main goal of separation has for practical purposes
been accomplished.

In Germany, the students are REQUIRED to take
religious history until they graduate. None of the
teenagers there really care for it, but although
Germany has achieved this separation of church
and state, it is not a big problem to discuss religious
concepts and their evolution in Europe in their
public gymnasiums.

In fact you alluded to this religious history, and the
study of the protesters (The protestant reformation)
contributed to the ideas of free expression and
democracy, along with the federal system of the Iriqois
and the great history of Athens and Rome.

 

[the caracal kid]

quite a bit is a "teething issue" that stems from people's worldviews being opened up by knowledge.

the state needs to be representative of all, and the more diverse the population becomes, the more effort there has to be to remain neutral (even if that means removing what was once the "norm").

in the grand scheme most of it is rather minor, but to those "in the middle" the small issues are mountains.

It is important for people to not confuse the need for complete separation with the state being "against" religion or promoting atheism. The state should be out of all "spiritual" business, and this includes references to any parts of any of the mythologies in any state business, buildings, charters, constitutions, etc.

 

[Reverend Blair]

The Deists
as most founding fathers were, have great backrounds
in different Christian churches, and all of them
attended the Church of Christ in Philadelphia AND
all of them believed that none of their laws or their
inventions would ever be enforced WITHOUT the moral
foundations of religion, education and culture.

But they were Deists, Jimmy. They didn't believe in the Christian god as such, but a larger, more naturalistic deity. They were all well aware of Christianity, and anybody running for office in your country tends to show up at church, but they were not Christians.

Nobody is seriously talking about changing the calendar, Jimmy. The question as to whether religious writings belong in a coutrhouse where people of all faiths, or no faith at all, turn to for justice is a different matter though.

There is also the very troubling interference of religion being interjected into scientific matters. Creationism and it's bastard child Intelligent Design, are not science and do not belong in science class. Decisions about stem cell research should be made on the basis of science and with the advice of scientific ethicists, not George Bush's religious advisors. Abortion is a medical matter and should be handled the same way. The parks people should not have to spew Christian gobbledegook along with scientific fact when giving tours. George Bush's most vocal religious supporters should not be giving him advice on global warming.

These are serious matters and they underline the importance of a separation of church and state.

 

[jimmoyer]

You know, Reverend (LOL !), you got to know that
I've always seen the validity in your points.

But I'd rather have a gentlemanly handshake on
this matter, where both can learn from each other,
instead of cancelling each other, instead of drawing the lines that infuriate each other.

Stem Cell issue is a case in point where the battle
lines are hardening. I surely do believe both
religion and science should be brothers on this matter.

Both science and religion would profit by tolerance
and agreement rather than distrust and defiance.

Stem cell is the beginning of a crazy future no one
can predict, and no one knows how we will police
ourselves on the fundamental moral dilemnas coming
at us.

Science is ill equipped to discuss the moral dilemnas
that could lead us to a Nazi Master Race and
as we seek to use the beneficial nature of stem cell'
research to help the afflicted, no doubt other forces
will find other uses that require a moral debate.

And I still insist, The Gregorian Calendar is the
Elephant in the room that certainly displays the
absurdity of our selective outrage.

 

[Vanni Fucci]

Hey Jimmy,

Why do your posts appear to be in the form of lyrical prose?
If I translate them to Latin will they rhyme?

PS: That wasn't a haiku...

 

[Reverend Blair]

Science is ill equipped to discuss the moral dilemnas
that could lead us to a Nazi Master Race and
as we seek to use the beneficial nature of stem cell'
research to help the afflicted, no doubt other forces
will find other uses that require a moral debate.

That's why there are ethicists though, Jimmy. They argue things out and make points that are based on science and eithics that most societies have in common. We also need to look back at science fiction over the last fifty years, because most of this, including ethical implications and dealing with unforseen circumstances, was discussed long before science even knew what they could accomplish today. It's important to consider what they wrote just as we often consider other works of fiction that address other ethical dilemmas.

The point is that the moral decisions do not have to be religiously based and they most certainly should not rely on the supposed morality of a single religion.

Something else that has to be considered is that no matter what religiously-based decisions George Bush hampers your country with, the work will go ahead in countries not hampered by your peculiar leader.

If you ban abortions down there, it will help to fund our medical system up here as American women come over the border and pay cash for the procedure.

If you limit your stem-cell research the research will continue in Canada and Europe and your best minds in the field will migrate to continue their work.

That plays into it too because, unlike the global gag order that the developing world and the aid agencies that serve them suffer under, you cannot push your legislation on other developed nations. We'll just take your scientists and do what we want.

 

[jimmoyer]

Well I am quite agreement with you Reverend Blair.

Science Fiction is an excellent source plumbing
the moral dilemnas of our future
and so too are those who discuss ethics.

But neither source has the muscle of
a bureaucracy.

I understand and agree with your distrust of religious
voices, but it is they who in their fumbling way
force us to discuss it.

Had the religious right in all their stumbling,
hateful glory not have spoken up, science would
certainly plod along quietly and pleasantly noting the
ethics professor, nodding respectfully to science
fiction stories --- but continuing its quest nevertheless.

And like you, I don't think science and discovery
can be stopped by fiat.

And so it was the discussion of a constitutional monarchy
that led us to the Queen of England who is also the
Head of the Church of England which led us to separation
of Church and State which led us to the part
religion plays in the issues of life: stem cells and abortion
and capital punishment, AND this in turn leads
us to the issue of whether science fiction stories and
ethics professors have no bureacracy with muscle to
force this much needed debate upon us.