Politics & Current Events
chiualover
member
Dear Community,
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
Our tech team has launched updates to The Nest today. As a result of these updates, members of the Nest Community will need to change their password in order to continue participating in the community. In addition, The Nest community member's avatars will be replaced with generic default avatars. If you wish to revert to your original avatar, you will need to re-upload it via The Nest.
If you have questions about this, please email help@theknot.com.
Thank you.
Note: This only affects The Nest's community members and will not affect members on The Bump or The Knot.
What does "seperation of church and state" mean to you?
Just wondering.
Re: What does "seperation of church and state" mean to you?
Jefferson used this phrase in a letter response to the Danbury Baptist Association. Here is the letter:
"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.
Gentlemen,
The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson"
The Association wrote him initially with worries that their freedom to their own religion would be superseded by the federal government as was the case in England (England had a state religion - whatever the King was, that's what the country was). Jefferson was assuring these people that the U.S. Federal Government was not going to begin this practice (of a state-held religion) and that they had the freedom to meet and worship as they wanted without fear of a state deemed religion.
The part I underlined is important. He is saying that there would be no law enacted or enforced to establish a STATE religion. He isn't saying that religion does not have its place in government as a guiding force or as an ideal set of principles.
Jefferson was not a Christian - this is fairly widely held. And, he may have be a deist (believing in a higher being). Franklin was this way too. However, we can pretty much assert that with a few other exceptions, the founding fathers, were God-fearing, Christian believers. And, while they did not want a STATE religion forced upon themselves or upon the new American people, they did see that God, and His morals, had a place in helping govern and assist in making decisions.
I think this phrase from Jefferson's letter has been widely misunderstood and misused from both sides.
It does not mean that we cannot pray in government or that we cannot have the Ten Commandments displayed in a court of law. It also does not mean that there should be prayer in schools. All it means is that the Federal U.S. government is not going to have a state religion. All are free to worship and meet as they see fit.
So, we cannot use Jefferson's quote out of context. The truth is, this country was a Christian nation founded on Judeo-Christian principles. However, these principles DO translate into pretty much every other worldview out there...golden rule, etc. And, while other religions may not call them the Ten Commandments, most religions and ways of life do adhere to its tenets pretty much.
I want to add this point.
People say, "Well, I don't believe that. Or, I believe this. So, I don't want XYZ displayed where I can see it. It isn't fair and it goes against my rights."
I think this is a tough spot. I agree with what these folks think. However, while it may not be fair for a city to only display a Nativity scene at Christmas, is it right to spend tax payers' money to remove stone carvings of scripture or biblical language that dates back to a buildings' birth in the 1800's or 1900's? Chrsitianity is part of this nation's history. Generally, I oppose erasing history.
But I think, like anything else, this idea must adapt with the times.
So the Founding Fathers were predominantly "God-fearing" and what-have you. Great. They also were around at a time when it must have been inconceivable for a Muslim, Hindu, Sikh, etc, to be a part of the public sphere in the United States. A time when slavery was not only legal, but acknowledged in the Constitution. A time when the right to vote was accepted as belonging to land-owning white men. At what point do we stop lusting over the "Founding Fathers' intent" and acknowledge that it was a different era, culturally, socially, religiously, politically?
At what point does the saturation of Judeo-Christian symbolism/prayer/etc imply an unwritten expectation that our elected officials be Christian? That has been a cultural, if not legal, expectation from the beginning, let's not further entrench it.
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "pray in government"- there are prayers said before inaugurations, conventions, and in all sorts of military settings in my experience. I've never really heard much protest or fuss over that.
The Ten Commandments really do have no business in a courtroom, in my opinion, regardless of the times. The point of the courtroom is the rule of law, not the rule of anyone's god. So much baseless fuss has been made in this country over the (nonexistent) conspiracy to subject us all to Sharia law and undermine the Constitution, it is incredibly hypocritical to display any other religious law instead. In what way is displaying the Ten Commandments in a courtroom not quietly implying a state religion? The Constitution in no way implies that we should, in doubt of interpretation, turn to the Bible as the next source of judgment.
And school prayer belongs in religious schools, or as a voluntary activity outside of structured school hours.
Oh, to answer the original question, it means:
Keep your god or gods out of my politics, out of my school, and out of my bedroom.
This is exactly how I feel. I asked this question because of my
support of marriage for ALL people. And also thank you for your
previous answer. I could never say all of that, that well. But you
also spoke for me.
Interesting point. But isn't this a slippery slope argument, the bolded and underlined? Things tend to unravel due to time passing and human nature.
"The times," as you call them, are outlined by the behaviors of the American and world citizens. But, when do we stop adapting to "the times?" When is enough adaptation enough or do we just adapt ourselves to.....do whatever...Because under that line of thought - we could be allowing sex with animals and sex with kids in our country and it might no longer be considered illegal it might just become "keeping up with the times."
It's a stretch, but if you allow "the times" to inform your choices, then you consistently end up with a rotting culture. You may say, "Nope. We'd never let that happen. That's just wrong and disgusting." But, if you allow "the times" to inform your choices and you replace a rigid framework for making decisions and guiding a society, in favor of "the times" guiding you, then when basis for right and wrong are you left with?
If "the times" rule our thought, we have removed the existence of an absolute truth in right and wrong...black and white. When a distinct right and wrong disappear, we have the middle ground and a grey area, which is vague and no one can say anything about what right and wrong are anymore. If you allow a grey area to permeate a culture, you have no framework or comparison to saying something is good or bad.
While not everyone subscribes to a religion, religion can and does curb vile behaviors and tends to hold people, and by extension, a society to a higher standard.
People assume that a religion is out moded and old fashioned; however that may be, it does serve one important purpose, which is to hold people accountable and to curb peoples' otherwise inhumane, greedy and disgusting tendancies that all of us have and are capable of acting upon.
I think we can say that the moral decline of our nation, which IS occuring rapidly is due to the removal of a faith-based majority and also a movement away from what is perceived to be the old fashioned, unenlightened life.
Your points about white, male voters and slavery still being permitted during the time of the Constitution being written are absolutely valid points to bring up. The views of these men, were flawed. But, look at the progress the U.S. has made under a Judeo-Christian worldview. Slavery is ended. Women vote and own property, etc. It took a long time for other parts of the world to follow suit. And, there are still nations that do allow slavery and that prevent women from voting, owning property and even getting medical care.
I'm so tired of the "sex with animals" argument.
And you say religion curbs vile behavior? I say it makes for an excuse to act vile. How many wars are started because of religion? How many people get beat up for being of the "wrong" religion? The reason I became turned off of Christianity is because I got sick of people using God as an excuse to treat people like sh?t. I'm not saying all religious people act this way, but I would never say that relion makes for a better person.
You, you are saying that a same sex couple in a loving, monogamous
relationship is the same as sex with children and aninmals?
You are a hateful bi*ch.
I feel this applies here.
http://www.buzzfeed.com/donnad/how-gay-rights-is-nothing-like-legalizing-beastali?s=mobile
Once again-
The Bible AND the Constitution CONDONE SLAVERY.
Yes, changing with the times is crucial.
FFS.
Thank you. I actually chuckled at the title. I needed that.
Because obviously, there is no difference between having a consenting relation with an adult of the same sex, vs having a relationship with a child who cannot make that rational decision.
There is a reason our legal system has grown to develop laws against pedophilia and beastiality & cruelty to animals, but has moved the opposite direction of things like sodomy laws.
It's evidence that the times do change and the law changes with it- for the better, as we grow to be more analytic, rational human beings, not human beings who do as we're told without question. We develop distinctions between morality and prejudice. Morally, pedophilia is wrong and there are plenty of arguments to go along with it about maturity and mental, physical, and emotional development. Prejudice is anti gay laws which are based in scripture and have no place in a society that, guess what? Has separation of church and state.
lolwhut?
Oh, ML. You sure do have the most tl;dr posts with random "WTAF?"-worthy bombs in them.
Now that we've all possibly calmed down a little bit, I'd like to add one more thing to this thread-
You are falling into the causation/correlation trap here. And your reasoning is consequently flawed. To imply (or less sublty here, outright say) that the decline of religious fervor of America has caused anything is to blatantly ignore every single other social and historical factor involved. And that is an extremely narrow-minded and absolutist view.
How do you possibly explain that Scandinavian countries consistently rank highest in the world for things like quality of life, education, happiness- and yet are among the most secular and even nonreligious populations in the "western" world? By rights, they should be in constant decline until they can come back to god and pull themselves up by their bootstraps... or something.
And if you think the 1860s was ahead of the times on abolishing slavery, you really need to go back and reread your history. We sat back and defended slavery when all of these other "Judeo-Christian" nations had long abandoned it. Further evidence that correlation does NOT equal causation. France and Sweden had us beat by over 500 years (granted, we hadn't been around for 500 years) and, guess what? They're very secular today. *gasp*
For some research about our supposed "moral decline," I suggest you look into the dynamics of homogeneous vs heterogeneous populations and social conflict and unrest, especially in periods of high transition.
this line of thinking is just as inaccurate as the line of thinking equating homosexuality to pedophilia. Just because someone uses one thing for something evil doesn't mean it is inherently bad.Let's face it, religious groups of all kinds are usually on the front lines dealing with things we as a society don't want to or can't deal with. There are far fewer secular groups on the ground in places like Kenya and Darfur rescuing people from poverty and disease than religious groups. How many people do you know quit their jobs to take car of Aids babies in Africa? Probably far fewer than you hear coming from the spiritual segment of our community. Why do so many support, help and community groups meet at churches? Because those are the organizations that will donate space to people looking for help. Those are just a few examples. Most faiths in their purest forms-Judaism, Christianity, Islam, etc have service to others as one of, if not their main, tenet. I don't think it's fair to blame the ideaologies for the acts of people who misconstrue them or use them for their own evil gain. In America unscrupulous people use voter fraud to get things passed because they think their way is right. Does that make voting evil?
I agree with you that religion does NOT make someone a better person. I will argue that thinking beyond yourself whether it be through a spiritual or other altruistic filter might.
As far as separation of church and state to me means that no one in this country is required to profess belief in one religion over another. It does not mean freedom FROM religion. It does not mean you have a right never to have to see someone profess a belief either via clothing, signage or other symbol. In the same way something a religious group might object to is told to simply ignore it, other groups should do the same when it comes to matters of religion. I am a Christian and don't feel the slightest bit influence or intimidated when I come upon someone wearing a religious symbol. If the lady in the tax department is wearing a star of David necklace or a Hajib I don't somehow take it as an official mandate that the tax department wishes that I become Jewish or Muslim.
Here are some things that used to be the norm in our society and no longer are, because we kept up with "the times":
-Owning another human being
-Lynching
-Laws that forced people of different races to use different public facilities, attend different schools, etc.
-Women not being allowed to vote
-Child labor
-It be perfectly legal for a husband to rape his wife
-Using American citizens as medical test subjects without their consent
-Executing innocent people because they happened to be immigrants
-Forcing Americans into concentration camps because they happened to be Japanese
-Sterilizing poor people without their consent
Sooo.. I'm going to say that yes, our society is MORE moral now than it has ever been.
Gawd, Geraldo, why are you trying to redefine "common sense"???? It's a slippery slope, dontchaknow.
Here's another good argument against redefining our values:
"Because it is unwise to risk the good we already have, for the evil which may occur."
I found it here.
Somehow I don't think MommyLib has missed me lol.
Alot.