| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"LT Lee" |
| Date: |
23 Nov 2003 09:22:12 AM |
| Object: |
Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to answer
the followering two related questions concerning the why and the how
of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or false.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God who
speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will not be
separation of church and state. No one will need the government any
more unless the government is also the servant of God. A state
independent of God's influence does not exist. No separation of church
and state.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not to
exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations. So
the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state. Or,
how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is therefore a clear
example of government intrusion on the freedom of expression and
religion.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most of
the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is wrong?
Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is fulfilling the
wish/need of the majority.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business. The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution. At present, America is doing exactly the opposite. The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority. At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see the
obvious?
.
|
|
| User: "ZenIsWhen" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
23 Nov 2003 05:42:32 PM |
|
|
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com...
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom.
??????????
Do you always have such irrational delusions?
The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
Obviously, it is YOU who do not understand the concept!
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to answer
the followering two related questions concerning the why and the how
of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or false.
Wrong again!
The concept came about because the educated men who wrote the constitution
SAW, historicaly, what happened when the chuch mixed with teh state in other
nations thorughout history!
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God who
speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will not be
separation of church and state.
That means about as much as asking what would happen if Tinkerbell could
really spread pixie dust and make people fly!
No one will need the government any
more unless the government is also the servant of God. A state
independent of God's influence does not exist. No separation of church
and state.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not to
exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No church, no separation of church and state.
There is no valid evidence that this god, or any other god, exists - yet
people still believe.
You cannot prove a negative.
People will believe becasue THEY need, oir want, to believe .....nothing
will change that.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations. So
the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state. Or,
how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
This argument is based on your first deragned assertion .. .and means
nothing.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to
harm people
phyically or psychologically.
Bull *****; dipshit!
WE do not base our rights on what may or may not harm others!
There is no evidence that limiting a person's right to free speech does any
harm - but we cherish THAT freedom.
Besides - there is a VAST amount of historical evidence that shows the evils
created when church mixes with state!
Removing the rock is therefore a clear
example of government intrusion on the freedom of expression and
religion.
More CRAP!
Judge Moore had NO right, as a judge and representative of the government,
to display HIS personal religious beliefs in a government owned and operated
setting!
What assholes like you don't seem to understand is the FACT that actions
taken because of your religous beliefs are LIMITED! Just like ANY of the
other freedoms in the Constitution and the amendments, there are limits!
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most of
the time.
That's why we have a democratic republic - and not a democracy.
In this nation the ONLY time majority rules is during an election.
ALL other times, it is the Constitution that rules!
Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is wrong?
No.
Pork .....which is apparently above your comprehention, is NOT a religion or
religious symbol!
Roy Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is
fulfilling the
wish/need of the majority.
So what?
The wishes of the majority, if illegal, mean nothing!
Would you let Michael Jackson get away with the alleged child molestation,
if a majority claimed that was OK with them?
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business.
Then the point you are talking about is obviously the one on the top of your
head!
Perhaps you should get, at least, a basic education in the Constitution.
Maybe you can get a 6th grader to explain it to you!
The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution.
The government certainly does NOT run itself in accordance with your
deranged delusions and wishes.
At present, America is doing exactly the opposite.
In some ways - but not the ways YOU are talking about!
The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority.
Because, asswipe, it was NOT a legitimate religious freedom!
At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic hatred under the name of religion by the minority.
Who? What? When? Where?
Of course, separation of church ans state is also the cloak under which
many among the
priest class sexually abuse young boys.
Say WHAT?
You don't have an intimate knowledge of reality .....do you!?!?!?!
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see the
obvious?
OK .... We see the obvious.....you are an ignorant, deranged, self absorbed,
uneducated moron!
.
|
|
|
| User: "LT Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
24 Nov 2003 10:45:57 PM |
|
|
"ZenIsWhen" <ZenIsWhen@anywhere.com> wrote in message news:<vs2hf3bm2pu044@corp.supernews.com>...
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com...
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom.
??????????
Do you always have such irrational delusions?
The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
Obviously, it is YOU who do not understand the concept!
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to answer
the followering two related questions concerning the why and the how
of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or false.
Wrong again!
The concept came about because the educated men who wrote the constitution
SAW, historicaly, what happened when the chuch mixed with teh state in other
nations thorughout history!
Historically colonial Europeans did not come to America to seek
religious freedom for all. They came to the new world for the
freedom to practice their religion and to impose it on all other
residents of their colony.
Congregationalism of Puritan Massachusetts made church membership
and citizenship the same thing. Anglicanism of Virginia and the
Dutch Reformed tradition of New Netherlands were only a little more
tolerate. (Dutch later exchanged New Netherland, present day New
York, for the Spice Island in Southeast Asia. The Presbyterians
gradually became the dominant church in the middle states.)
Accidental Religious Freedom after the Revolutionary War
"Since it is clear from the beginning that no one group could
get a majority vote for its own faith as the established church
of the new and already diverse nation, all factions reluctantly
agreed that religious toleration was preferable to the
establishment of someone else's church. Everyone wanted
religious freedom for themselves, and the only way they saw to
get it was to grant it, however grudgingly, to others. Thus
religious freedom came to the new United States not by ideology
or design but by compromise and accident."
Long tradition of limiting Catholicism
To further secure their religions, "The different religious
groups quickly turned their attention to the new enterprise of
building their competing denominations and battling with each
other... and in most of the nineteenth century with new Roman
Catholic immigrants, for the souls of the nation's citizens."
(Quoted material above from BETWEEN CHURCH AND STATE by James W.
Fraser)
Defacto Protestant Establishment until the 1930's
"...States enforced prohibitions on blasphemy, levied civil
penalties on atheists, enforced the Christian Sabbath, and
continued to visit civil disabilites upon the heads of non-
Protestants and nonbelievers..." (THE OXFORD COMPANION TO THE
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES, p. 718)
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God who
speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will not be
separation of church and state.
That means about as much as asking what would happen if Tinkerbell could
really spread pixie dust and make people fly!
No one will need the government any
more unless the government is also the servant of God. A state
independent of God's influence does not exist. No separation of church
and state.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not to
exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No church, no separation of church and state.
There is no valid evidence that this god, or any other god, exists - yet
people still believe.
You cannot prove a negative.
People will believe becasue THEY need, oir want, to believe .....nothing
will change that.
Agree with you in principle. I will also add perpetual doubt because
the lack of good evidence is a necessary ingradient of faith. Faith is
the result of balancing of one's perpetual needs and one's doubt
concerning the great mystery associated with every great religions. It
is such balancing act or struggle which contributes to a person's
spirituality.
A person's religious belief becomes problematic when his or her
certainty takes over. In the absence of doubt, one's private need or
want then dominate and the believer would be turned into a religious
brute.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations. So
the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state. Or,
how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
This argument is based on your first deragned assertion .. .and means
nothing.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to
harm people
phyically or psychologically.
Bull *****; dipshit!
WE do not base our rights on what may or may not harm others!
There is no evidence that limiting a person's right to free speech does any
harm - but we cherish THAT freedom.
Besides - there is a VAST amount of historical evidence that shows the evils
created when church mixes with state!
Removing the rock is therefore a clear
example of government intrusion on the freedom of expression and
religion.
More CRAP!
Judge Moore had NO right, as a judge and representative of the government,
to display HIS personal religious beliefs in a government owned and operated
setting!
What assholes like you don't seem to understand is the FACT that actions
taken because of your religous beliefs are LIMITED! Just like ANY of the
other freedoms in the Constitution and the amendments, there are limits!
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most of
the time.
That's why we have a democratic republic - and not a democracy.
In this nation the ONLY time majority rules is during an election.
ALL other times, it is the Constitution that rules!
The first amendment does not foster true separation of church and
state.
Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is wrong?
No.
Pork .....which is apparently above your comprehention, is NOT a religion or
religious symbol!
Pork is considered unclean by the Jews and the muslims for religious
reasons.
Roy Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is
fulfilling the
wish/need of the majority.
So what?
The wishes of the majority, if illegal, mean nothing!
Would you let Michael Jackson get away with the alleged child molestation,
if a majority claimed that was OK with them?
Objectively determinable harms are state business.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business.
Then the point you are talking about is obviously the one on the top of your
head!
Perhaps you should get, at least, a basic education in the Constitution.
Maybe you can get a 6th grader to explain it to you!
The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution.
The government certainly does NOT run itself in accordance with your
deranged delusions and wishes.
At present, America is doing exactly the opposite.
In some ways - but not the ways YOU are talking about!
The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority.
Because, asswipe, it was NOT a legitimate religious freedom!
At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic hatred under the name of religion by the minority.
Who? What? When? Where?
KKK, Christian Identity and etc.
Many of them believe the purity of the Aryan stock and they
oppose race mixing strongly. One frequently quoted passage is:
"Race mixers, breakers of Yahweh's Law, are to be put to death."
Want to study Bible? Take a look what AMERICAN INSTUTITE OF THEOLOGY
teaches
through its Correspondence Bible Course. For example Chapter 86:
"There is No Pacificism in the Bible..."
Belieivers should not "merely stand around murmuring pious platitudes
about the desirability of good conduct! Your duty-- and we do mean
DUTY-- as a good Christian is to stop him, if you have to kill him to
do it."
Sounds like Bin Laden. Right? Yet, the U.S. is the prime exporter this
extermist/terrorist ideology for many years.
"As perhaps the primary exporter of racist ideology in the world, the
United State is a safe haven for many Aryan extremists driven from
their own countries. This does not mean these foreign racists are now
neutralized. Quite the contrary. Because of U.S. free-speech rights
granted by the First Amendment, "refugee" racists, who have entered
the country legally, can operate openly. After all, it is not a crime
in the United States to print racist literature and flooded another
country with it. Nor is it a crime for home-grown racists to do the
same." (Quotes from SOLDIERS OF GOD by H.L. Bushart, J.R. Criag and
M.Barnes)
Of course, separation of church ans state is also the cloak under which
many among the
priest class sexually abuse young boys.
Say WHAT?
You don't have an intimate knowledge of reality .....do you!?!?!?!
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see the
obvious?
OK .... We see the obvious.....you are an ignorant, deranged, self absorbed,
uneducated moron!
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dr. DuFonet" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
23 Nov 2003 07:36:51 PM |
|
|
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com...
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to answer
the followering two related questions concerning the why and the how
of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or false.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God who
speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will not be
separation of church and state. No one will need the government any
more unless the government is also the servant of God. A state
independent of God's influence does not exist. No separation of church
and state.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not to
exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations. So
the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state. Or,
how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is therefore a clear
example of government intrusion on the freedom of expression and
religion.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most of
the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is wrong?
Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is fulfilling the
wish/need of the majority.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business. The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution. At present, America is doing exactly the opposite. The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority. At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see the
obvious?
For the government to post the ten commandments in a courthouse is to wrap
the court in the mantle of absolute power of religion. It is a totalitiarian
statement. You are a m*f*g fascist.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LT Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
24 Nov 2003 04:50:15 AM |
|
|
"Dr. DuFonet" <accordiondoc@mindsproing.cop> wrote in message news:<Tgdwb.11765$sb4.5239@newsread2.news.pas.earthlink.net>...
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com...
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to answer
the followering two related questions concerning the why and the how
of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or false.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God who
speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will not be
separation of church and state. No one will need the government any
more unless the government is also the servant of God. A state
independent of God's influence does not exist. No separation of church
and state.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not to
exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations. So
the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state. Or,
how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is therefore a clear
example of government intrusion on the freedom of expression and
religion.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most of
the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is wrong?
Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is fulfilling the
wish/need of the majority.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business. The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution. At present, America is doing exactly the opposite. The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority. At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see the
obvious?
For the government to post the ten commandments in a courthouse is to wrap
the court in the mantle of absolute power of religion. It is a totalitiarian
statement.
Please explain.
You are a m*f*g fascist.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
23 Nov 2003 12:49:25 PM |
|
|
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com...
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
China as a model of religious freedom? Hilarious.
<>
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state.
As Al Klein so succinctly pointed out, that is the very idea
behind the first ammendment.
Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Typo? Church?
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically.
It is harm.
It is a proclamation of prejudice against Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc.
.
|
|
|
| User: "LT Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
23 Nov 2003 05:33:09 PM |
|
|
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message news:<Vi7wb.8438$t01.8101@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com...
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
China as a model of religious freedom? Hilarious.
It is history.
<>
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state.
As Al Klein so succinctly pointed out, that is the very idea
behind the first ammendment.
Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Typo? Church?
Thank you for pointing out the typo.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically.
It is harm.
It is a proclamation of prejudice against Buddhists, Hindus, atheists, etc.
Every time we say the word "we" we are making a proclamation of
prejudice against the non-"we". "We are like this" invariably means
"They are not like this." No, prejudice is inherent in us, in the
humans, not in Roy's Rock or any other inanimate object. Roy's rock is
only a rock. Eating pork is only eating pork. It is the people who
give them meanings. People can choose to give them religious meanings.
No a state adheres to the separation of church and state.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Ron Baker" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
24 Nov 2003 01:39:14 AM |
|
|
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311231533.46c1a36c@posting.google.com...
"Ron Baker" <rbaker4@msnn.com> wrote in message
news:<Vi7wb.8438$t01.8101@twister.socal.rr.com>...
"LT Lee" <ltlee1@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com...
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
China as a model of religious freedom? Hilarious.
It is history.
In 1949 the communists took over China.
They murdered priests (Buddhist, Christian, and others)
while reciting their slogan "Religion is poison."
That was the policy for decades to follow.
Religious freedom has been codified in our constitution
and practiced for more than 200 years.
<>
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state.
As Al Klein so succinctly pointed out, that is the very idea
behind the first ammendment.
Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Typo? Church?
Thank you for pointing out the typo.
Don't make me sorry for being nice to you.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically.
It is harm.
It is a proclamation of prejudice against Buddhists, Hindus, atheists,
etc.
Every time we say the word "we" we are making a proclamation of
prejudice against the non-"we". "We are like this" invariably means
What do you mean 'we'?
Were did this 'we' come from?
"They are not like this." No, prejudice is inherent in us, in the
humans, not in Roy's Rock or any other inanimate object. Roy's rock is
only a rock. Eating pork is only eating pork. It is the people who
give them meanings. People can choose to give them religious meanings.
No a state adheres to the separation of church and state.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
23 Nov 2003 08:33:40 PM |
|
|
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com:
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to answer
the followering two related questions concerning the why and the how
of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or false.
Actually most gods can be shown to be logically contradictory, logically
inconsistent and mostly absurd. So unless you have a new and better
definition of "god", it can be proven false.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God who
speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will not be
separation of church and state. No one will need the government any
more unless the government is also the servant of God. A state
independent of God's influence does not exist. No separation of church
and state.
Sounds like something the Taliban would like.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not to
exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
Of course, how does one convince irrational believers based on rational
evidence and the use of critical thinking?
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations. So
the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state. Or,
how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Why do you think that all objectively determined activities need to be
part of the state?
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is therefore a clear
example of government intrusion on the freedom of expression and
religion.
The problem is that "roy's rock" and all the other bits and pieces of
religious crap that people are exposed to does cause harm. Regularly,
repeatedly and much too often. The treatment of homosexuals at the hands
of many xians is sufficient evidence of this. (And that's just the
start.)
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most of
the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is wrong?
Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is fulfilling the
wish/need of the majority.
Yeah, isn't too bad that the constitution was also designed to protect
the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority and the abuses
of the government.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business. The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution. At present, America is doing exactly the opposite. The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority. At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
What a bunch of crap. Putting that rock in the courthouse was an act of
the government, by agents of that government. How could this not be
government business?
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see the
obvious?
Because many Americans (although, it seems to be a minority) aren't as
stupid as you and prefer to see religion being kept out of the
government.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "LT Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
24 Nov 2003 05:28:38 AM |
|
|
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message news:<Xns943CDBF9AB9CEwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
ltlee1@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com:
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the Rock
inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand the
meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China was and
is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to answer
the followering two related questions concerning the why and the how
of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or false.
Actually most gods can be shown to be logically contradictory, logically
inconsistent and mostly absurd. So unless you have a new and better
definition of "god", it can be proven false.
The believers read the logic differently.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God who
speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will not be
separation of church and state. No one will need the government any
more unless the government is also the servant of God. A state
independent of God's influence does not exist. No separation of church
and state.
Sounds like something the Taliban would like.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not to
exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
Of course, how does one convince irrational believers based on rational
evidence and the use of critical thinking?
Many great scientists are also religious.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations. So
the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state. Or,
how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In another
word, activities that can be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to pray to and how
to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have objectively determinable
impacts
belong to the state.
Why do you think that all objectively determined activities need to be
part of the state?
I did not say "need to be." Rather, I say the government should limit
itself to the realm of objectivity.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from any
other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of the
beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm people
phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is therefore a clear
example of government intrusion on the freedom of expression and
religion.
The problem is that "roy's rock" and all the other bits and pieces of
religious crap that people are exposed to does cause harm. Regularly,
repeatedly and much too often. The treatment of homosexuals at the hands
of many xians is sufficient evidence of this. (And that's just the
start.)
Allowing the rock is not the same as allowing the mistreatment of
homosexuals.
The former is allowed exactly because it cannot inflict harm. If it
can be shown that some people look at the rock and become sick
physically and/or psychologically, then it should not be allowed.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most of
the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is wrong?
Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is fulfilling the
wish/need of the majority.
Yeah, isn't too bad that the constitution was also designed to protect
the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority and the abuses
of the government.
Will you argue against serving pork in government cafeteria too?
Hindus do not eat beef. Will you argue against issuing license to
import beef?If not, why not?
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business. The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution. At present, America is doing exactly the opposite. The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority. At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
What a bunch of crap. Putting that rock in the courthouse was an act of
the government, by agents of that government. How could this not be
government business?
Why is the government in the business of serving pork or issing import
license for beef?
A rock is only a rock until someone put meaning into the rock.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see the
obvious?
Because many Americans (although, it seems to be a minority) aren't as
stupid as you and prefer to see religion being kept out of the
government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
24 Nov 2003 08:03:41 AM |
|
|
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311240328.dbaa05d@posting.google.com:
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns943CDBF9AB9CEwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com:
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the
Rock inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand
the meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China
was and is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to
answer the followering two related questions concerning the why and
the how of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or
false.
Actually most gods can be shown to be logically contradictory,
logically inconsistent and mostly absurd. So unless you have a new
and better definition of "god", it can be proven false.
The believers read the logic differently.
Yes, we're regularly exposed to believer's "logic" around here. It looks
to be just as valid as your gods.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God
who speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will
not be separation of church and state. No one will need the
government any more unless the government is also the servant of
God. A state independent of God's influence does not exist. No
separation of church and state.
Sounds like something the Taliban would like.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not
to exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
Of course, how does one convince irrational believers based on
rational evidence and the use of critical thinking?
Many great scientists are also religious.
Not the ones that apply their critical thinking and reasoning ability to
gods as well as their scientific disciplines.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations.
So the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state.
Or, how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In
another word, activities that can be proved to have objectively
determinable impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to
pray to and how to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have
objectively determinable impacts
belong to the state.
Why do you think that all objectively determined activities need to
be part of the state?
I did not say "need to be." Rather, I say the government should limit
itself to the realm of objectivity.
In that case, you also agree that "In god we trust" should be removed
from our money?
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from
any other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of
the beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm
people phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is therefore
a clear example of government intrusion on the freedom of
expression and religion.
The problem is that "roy's rock" and all the other bits and pieces of
religious crap that people are exposed to does cause harm.
Regularly, repeatedly and much too often. The treatment of
homosexuals at the hands of many xians is sufficient evidence of
this. (And that's just the start.)
Allowing the rock is not the same as allowing the mistreatment of
homosexuals.
The former is allowed exactly because it cannot inflict harm. If it
can be shown that some people look at the rock and become sick
physically and/or psychologically, then it should not be allowed.
But we've just pointed out that this rock & other religious symbols do
indeed lead to physical and psychological damages.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most
of the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is
wrong? Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is fulfilling
the wish/need of the majority.
Yeah, isn't too bad that the constitution was also designed to
protect the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority
and the abuses of the government.
Will you argue against serving pork in government cafeteria too?
Hindus do not eat beef. Will you argue against issuing license to
import beef?If not, why not?
Why do you think that the goverment should stay out of religious dietary
rules but still allow other religious ***** (like roy's rock)? Why
can't you be consistent?
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business. The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution. At present, America is doing exactly the opposite. The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority. At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
What a bunch of crap. Putting that rock in the courthouse was an act
of the government, by agents of that government. How could this not
be government business?
Why is the government in the business of serving pork or issing import
license for beef?
A rock is only a rock until someone put meaning into the rock.
And then they use that meaning to abuse, degrade and harm others. So
much for a "rock is only a rock" *****. You are perfectly aware of
symbols and their effects.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see
the obvious?
Because many Americans (although, it seems to be a minority) aren't
as stupid as you and prefer to see religion being kept out of the
government.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "LT Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
24 Nov 2003 03:42:21 PM |
|
|
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message news:<Xns943D5CE1E996Dwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
ltlee1@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311240328.dbaa05d@posting.google.com:
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns943CDBF9AB9CEwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
ltlee1@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com:
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the
Rock inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't understand
the meaning of Separation of Church and State. In contrast, China
was and is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to
answer the followering two related questions concerning the why and
the how of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or
false.
Actually most gods can be shown to be logically contradictory,
logically inconsistent and mostly absurd. So unless you have a new
and better definition of "god", it can be proven false.
The believers read the logic differently.
Yes, we're regularly exposed to believer's "logic" around here. It looks
to be just as valid as your gods.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a God
who speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There will
not be separation of church and state. No one will need the
government any more unless the government is also the servant of
God. A state independent of God's influence does not exist. No
separation of church and state.
Sounds like something the Taliban would like.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers not
to exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under this
circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would hardly
exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is not
necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
Of course, how does one convince irrational believers based on
rational evidence and the use of critical thinking?
Many great scientists are also religious.
Not the ones that apply their critical thinking and reasoning ability to
gods as well as their scientific disciplines.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some demarcations.
So the question is: Where is the boundary between church and state.
Or, how to distinguish church affairs from state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved one
way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated on
the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In
another word, activities that can be proved to have objectively
determinable impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who to
pray to and how to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have
objectively determinable impacts
belong to the state.
Why do you think that all objectively determined activities need to
be part of the state?
I did not say "need to be." Rather, I say the government should limit
itself to the realm of objectivity.
In that case, you also agree that "In god we trust" should be removed
from our money?
"In god we trust" or "There is no god" makes no difference to a
government that strictly observes the separation of church and state.
The former is religious claim which cannot be proved or disproved, so
is the latter.
In another word, separation of church and state is not running away
from religions. It is impossible. Saying god exists is a religious
claim. Saying god deos not exist is also a religious claim. Neither
can be proved or disproved.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from
any other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of
the beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm
people phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is therefore
a clear example of government intrusion on the freedom of
expression and religion.
The problem is that "roy's rock" and all the other bits and pieces of
religious crap that people are exposed to does cause harm.
Regularly, repeatedly and much too often. The treatment of
homosexuals at the hands of many xians is sufficient evidence of
this. (And that's just the start.)
Allowing the rock is not the same as allowing the mistreatment of
homosexuals.
The former is allowed exactly because it cannot inflict harm. If it
can be shown that some people look at the rock and become sick
physically and/or psychologically, then it should not be allowed.
But we've just pointed out that this rock & other religious symbols do
indeed lead to physical and psychological damages.
Please tell what physical harm and psychological damages are on your
mind.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need most
of the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent the
selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many muslim
countries is different. Does anyone think either situation is
wrong? Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is fulfilling
the wish/need of the majority.
Yeah, isn't too bad that the constitution was also designed to
protect the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority
and the abuses of the government.
Will you argue against serving pork in government cafeteria too?
Hindus do not eat beef. Will you argue against issuing license to
import beef?If not, why not?
Why do you think that the goverment should stay out of religious dietary
rules but still allow other religious ***** (like roy's rock)? Why
can't you be consistent?
I am not saying the government will stay out in one aspect(dietary)
and not the other aspect(roy's rock). Rather I am pointing out your
inconsistency if you do not argue against serving pork in government
cafeteria and issuing import license for beef. In addition, I would
say that such inconsistency could not be avoided unless the government
treats all religious claims as great silliness or great mystery
depends on how one views religion.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or not
allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria, neither are
government business. The government should limit herself on things
with more tangible results such as preventing real religious
persecution. At present, America is doing exactly the opposite. The
first amendment was used to disallow legitimate religious freedom
like praying before football match and Roy's Rock favored by the
majority. At the same time, it allows the spread of religious and
ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
What a bunch of crap. Putting that rock in the courthouse was an act
of the government, by agents of that government. How could this not
be government business?
Why is the government in the business of serving pork or issing import
license for beef?
A rock is only a rock until someone put meaning into the rock.
And then they use that meaning to abuse, degrade and harm others. So
much for a "rock is only a rock" *****. You are perfectly aware of
symbols and their effects.
What is the cause of these abuse, degradation and etc?
Yes, Lord Acton said,"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Yes, he said the above with the Catholic Church and the
Pope on his mind.
However, power by itself does not corrupt. It is people's certainty on
religious claims which corrupts. If abusing other people will please
god and pleasing god can bring about salvatiion with 100% certainty,
people will abuse other people to achieve that. If killing other
people is a sure way to get salvation, poeple will kill to get
salvation. Power can bring harm. More important, it is "certainty"
which directs the power to harm.
I am aware of symbols and their effects. I am suggesting a way to
render those symbols ineffective.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to see
the obvious?
Because many Americans (although, it seems to be a minority) aren't
as stupid as you and prefer to see religion being kept out of the
government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
24 Nov 2003 10:02:05 PM |
|
|
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311241342.5df2782f@posting.google.com:
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns943D5CE1E996Dwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311240328.dbaa05d@posting.google.com:
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns943CDBF9AB9CEwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com:
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the
Rock inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't
understand the meaning of Separation of Church and State. In
contrast, China was and is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to
answer the followering two related questions concerning the why
and the how of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or
false.
Actually most gods can be shown to be logically contradictory,
logically inconsistent and mostly absurd. So unless you have a
new and better definition of "god", it can be proven false.
The believers read the logic differently.
Yes, we're regularly exposed to believer's "logic" around here. It
looks to be just as valid as your gods.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a
God who speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There
will not be separation of church and state. No one will need the
government any more unless the government is also the servant of
God. A state independent of God's influence does not exist. No
separation of church and state.
Sounds like something the Taliban would like.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers
not to exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under
this circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would
hardly exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is
not necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
Of course, how does one convince irrational believers based on
rational evidence and the use of critical thinking?
Many great scientists are also religious.
Not the ones that apply their critical thinking and reasoning ability
to gods as well as their scientific disciplines.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some
demarcations. So the question is: Where is the boundary between
church and state. Or, how to distinguish church affairs from
state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved
one way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated
on the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In
another word, activities that can be proved to have objectively
determinable impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who
to pray to and how to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have
objectively determinable impacts
belong to the state.
Why do you think that all objectively determined activities need
to be part of the state?
I did not say "need to be." Rather, I say the government should
limit itself to the realm of objectivity.
In that case, you also agree that "In god we trust" should be removed
from our money?
"In god we trust" or "There is no god" makes no difference to a
government that strictly observes the separation of church and state.
The former is religious claim which cannot be proved or disproved, so
is the latter.
In another word, separation of church and state is not running away
from religions. It is impossible. Saying god exists is a religious
claim. Saying god deos not exist is also a religious claim. Neither
can be proved or disproved.
So what is you point. If we have separation of church and state, then
all the religious BS that people try to have put in public/government
facilities should be eliminated. (Just like the courts have said.)
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from
any other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of
the beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm
people phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is
therefore a clear example of government intrusion on the freedom
of expression and religion.
The problem is that "roy's rock" and all the other bits and pieces
of religious crap that people are exposed to does cause harm.
Regularly, repeatedly and much too often. The treatment of
homosexuals at the hands of many xians is sufficient evidence of
this. (And that's just the start.)
Allowing the rock is not the same as allowing the mistreatment of
homosexuals.
The former is allowed exactly because it cannot inflict harm. If it
can be shown that some people look at the rock and become sick
physically and/or psychologically, then it should not be allowed.
But we've just pointed out that this rock & other religious symbols
do indeed lead to physical and psychological damages.
Please tell what physical harm and psychological damages are on your
mind.
Ask the family of Matthew Sheppard about that.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need
most of the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent
the selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many
muslim countries is different. Does anyone think either
situation is wrong? Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is
fulfilling the wish/need of the majority.
Yeah, isn't too bad that the constitution was also designed to
protect the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority
and the abuses of the government.
Will you argue against serving pork in government cafeteria too?
Hindus do not eat beef. Will you argue against issuing license to
import beef?If not, why not?
Why do you think that the goverment should stay out of religious
dietary rules but still allow other religious ***** (like roy's
rock)? Why can't you be consistent?
I am not saying the government will stay out in one aspect(dietary)
and not the other aspect(roy's rock). Rather I am pointing out your
inconsistency if you do not argue against serving pork in government
cafeteria and issuing import license for beef. In addition, I would
say that such inconsistency could not be avoided unless the government
treats all religious claims as great silliness or great mystery
depends on how one views religion.
So in one regard I agree. Let's have the government declare all
religious claims to be silliness and then eliminate them from all
government facilities, money, buildings, documents, etc.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or
not allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria,
neither are government business. The government should limit
herself on things with more tangible results such as preventing
real religious persecution. At present, America is doing exactly
the opposite. The first amendment was used to disallow
legitimate religious freedom like praying before football match
and Roy's Rock favored by the majority. At the same time, it
allows the spread of religious and ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
What a bunch of crap. Putting that rock in the courthouse was an
act of the government, by agents of that government. How could
this not be government business?
Why is the government in the business of serving pork or issing
import license for beef?
A rock is only a rock until someone put meaning into the rock.
And then they use that meaning to abuse, degrade and harm others. So
much for a "rock is only a rock" *****. You are perfectly aware
of symbols and their effects.
What is the cause of these abuse, degradation and etc?
Yes, Lord Acton said,"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Yes, he said the above with the Catholic Church and the
Pope on his mind.
However, power by itself does not corrupt. It is people's certainty on
religious claims which corrupts. If abusing other people will please
god and pleasing god can bring about salvatiion with 100% certainty,
people will abuse other people to achieve that. If killing other
people is a sure way to get salvation, poeple will kill to get
salvation. Power can bring harm. More important, it is "certainty"
which directs the power to harm.
I am aware of symbols and their effects. I am suggesting a way to
render those symbols ineffective.
And how does a government displaying "roy's rock" do anything to render
it ineffective as a symbol? That is what you said that the gov't should
do as part of what you have tried to call separation of church & state.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to
see the obvious?
Because many Americans (although, it seems to be a minority)
aren't as stupid as you and prefer to see religion being kept out
of the government.
--
Woden
"religion is a socio-political institution for the control of
people's thoughts, lives, and actions; based on
ancient myths and superstitions perpetrated through
generations of subtle yet pervasive brainwashing."
.
|
|
|
| User: "LT Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
25 Nov 2003 07:24:02 AM |
|
|
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message news:<Xns943DEAFCF556Awodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
ltlee1@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311241342.5df2782f@posting.google.com:
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns943D5CE1E996Dwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
ltlee1@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311240328.dbaa05d@posting.google.com:
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns943CDBF9AB9CEwodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
ltlee1@hotmail.com (LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311230722.2accc00e@posting.google.com:
Separation of church and state would allow Roy Moore to put the
Rock inside the courtroom. The problem: Americans don't
understand the meaning of Separation of Church and State. In
contrast, China was and is doing much better on this issue.
To understand the meaning of Separation of Church, one has to
answer the followering two related questions concerning the why
and the how of such separation.
1. What is the foundation of Separation of Church and state?
Answer: God and religious claimed cannot proven to be true or
false.
Actually most gods can be shown to be logically contradictory,
logically inconsistent and mostly absurd. So unless you have a
new and better definition of "god", it can be proven false.
The believers read the logic differently.
Yes, we're regularly exposed to believer's "logic" around here. It
looks to be just as valid as your gods.
What if God can be proven to exist? What if there is indeed a
God who speaks to people everyday from heaven. What then? There
will not be separation of church and state. No one will need the
government any more unless the government is also the servant of
God. A state independent of God's influence does not exist. No
separation of church and state.
Sounds like something the Taliban would like.
On the other hand, what if God can be proven to every seekers
not to exist like "Flat Earth" can be proven to be false? Under
this circumstance, not many will need God and the Church would
hardly exist. Implication: the separation of church and state is
not necessary. No
church, no separation of church and state.
Of course, how does one convince irrational believers based on
rational evidence and the use of critical thinking?
Many great scientists are also religious.
Not the ones that apply their critical thinking and reasoning ability
to gods as well as their scientific disciplines.
2. How to separate church and state?
Two things can only be separated if there exists some
demarcations. So the question is: Where is the boundary between
church and state. Or, how to distinguish church affairs from
state affairs?
Answer to the first question provides the answer to the second
question.
Given that God's existence and religous claims cannot be proved
one way
or the other objectively, church and state can then be separated
on the
ground whether a certain claim can be proved objectively. In
another word, activities that can be proved to have objectively
determinable impacts belong to the state. Activities, like who
to pray to and how to worhsip, that cannot be proved to have
objectively determinable impacts
belong to the state.
Why do you think that all objectively determined activities need
to be part of the state?
I did not say "need to be." Rather, I say the government should
limit itself to the realm of objectivity.
In that case, you also agree that "In god we trust" should be removed
from our money?
"In god we trust" or "There is no god" makes no difference to a
government that strictly observes the separation of church and state.
The former is religious claim which cannot be proved or disproved, so
is the latter.
In another word, separation of church and state is not running away
from religions. It is impossible. Saying god exists is a religious
claim. Saying god deos not exist is also a religious claim. Neither
can be proved or disproved.
So what is you point. If we have separation of church and state, then
all the religious BS that people try to have put in public/government
facilities should be eliminated. (Just like the courts have said.)
Not at all.
Separation of church and state will require the state to refrain from
giving religious meaning to "In God we trust" and "Roy's Rock" because
God or the Rock is irrelevant to state's function.
Look, every govenment building has color. People may choose to
associate a certain color with religious meaning. The government
cannot prevent that and has no reason to prevent that. However, the
government should not give in and give religious meaning to the color.
Hence, the government should not choose or change the color of the
building on religious ground. The same applied to architecture style
and Roy's Rock.
Roy Moore's Rock
1. From the state's point of view, the rock is no different from
any other decoration. It may be wonderful or ugly in the eyes of
the beholders. But
it should be allowed unless its presence can be proved to harm
people phyically or psychologically. Removing the rock is
therefore a clear example of government intrusion on the freedom
of expression and religion.
The problem is that "roy's rock" and all the other bits and pieces
of religious crap that people are exposed to does cause harm.
Regularly, repeatedly and much too often. The treatment of
homosexuals at the hands of many xians is sufficient evidence of
this. (And that's just the start.)
Allowing the rock is not the same as allowing the mistreatment of
homosexuals.
The former is allowed exactly because it cannot inflict harm. If it
can be shown that some people look at the rock and become sick
physically and/or psychologically, then it should not be allowed.
But we've just pointed out that this rock & other religious symbols
do indeed lead to physical and psychological damages.
Please tell what physical harm and psychological damages are on your
mind.
Ask the family of Matthew Sheppard about that.
Alright, please establish the causal chain between religious symbols
and the harm done to Mathew Sheppard.
2. Democracy after all is satisfying most people's wish/need
most of the
time. Currently, American government cafeteria do not prevent
the selling
and the consuming of pork. Of course, the situation in many
muslim countries is different. Does anyone think either
situation is wrong? Roy
Moore was elected Cheif Justice of Alabama by the Alabama people
partially
on the platform of putting the Rock. So, his action is
fulfilling the wish/need of the majority.
Yeah, isn't too bad that the constitution was also designed to
protect the rights of the minority from the wishes of the majority
and the abuses of the government.
Will you argue against serving pork in government cafeteria too?
Hindus do not eat beef. Will you argue against issuing license to
import beef?If not, why not?
Why do you think that the goverment should stay out of religious
dietary rules but still allow other religious ***** (like roy's
rock)? Why can't you be consistent?
I am not saying the government will stay out in one aspect(dietary)
and not the other aspect(roy's rock). Rather I am pointing out your
inconsistency if you do not argue against serving pork in government
cafeteria and issuing import license for beef. In addition, I would
say that such inconsistency could not be avoided unless the government
treats all religious claims as great silliness or great mystery
depends on how one views religion.
So in one regard I agree. Let's have the government declare all
religious claims to be silliness and then eliminate them from all
government facilities, money, buildings, documents, etc.
No. The government can't declare all religious claims to be silliness.
No ground on that declaration. Private citizens can choose to see such
claim as silliness or mysterious. The government which represents all
citizens has to see them as both silliness and mysterious at the same
time.
My point, rock or no rock in government courthouse, allowing or
not allowing of pork consumption in government cafeteria,
neither are government business. The government should limit
herself on things with more tangible results such as preventing
real religious persecution. At present, America is doing exactly
the opposite. The first amendment was used to disallow
legitimate religious freedom like praying before football match
and Roy's Rock favored by the majority. At the same time, it
allows the spread of religious and ethnic
hatred under the name of religion by the minority. Of course,
separation
of church ans state is also the cloak under which many among the
priest
class sexually abuse young boys.
What a bunch of crap. Putting that rock in the courthouse was an
act of the government, by agents of that government. How could
this not be government business?
Why is the government in the business of serving pork or issing
import license for beef?
A rock is only a rock until someone put meaning into the rock.
And then they use that meaning to abuse, degrade and harm others. So
much for a "rock is only a rock" *****. You are perfectly aware
of symbols and their effects.
What is the cause of these abuse, degradation and etc?
Yes, Lord Acton said,"Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts
absolutely." Yes, he said the above with the Catholic Church and the
Pope on his mind.
However, power by itself does not corrupt. It is people's certainty on
religious claims which corrupts. If abusing other people will please
god and pleasing god can bring about salvatiion with 100% certainty,
people will abuse other people to achieve that. If killing other
people is a sure way to get salvation, poeple will kill to get
salvation. Power can bring harm. More important, it is "certainty"
which directs the power to harm.
I am aware of symbols and their effects. I am suggesting a way to
render those symbols ineffective.
And how does a government displaying "roy's rock" do anything to render
it ineffective as a symbol? That is what you said that the gov't should
do as part of what you have tried to call separation of church & state.
From the state's point of view, the rock is just another decoration,
not a religious declaration. Removing it on religious ground is
admitting the religious claim assocaiated with the rock. If it can be
shown to cause harm, it should be removed. Otherwise, case closed. The
government should not be required to repaint or redecorate a
government building everytime someone say certain color or such
decoration is religious.
A more interesting question is: Why so many Americans fail to
see the obvious?
Because many Americans (although, it seems to be a minority)
aren't as stupid as you and prefer to see religion being kept out
of the government.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Woden" |
|
| Title: Re: Separation of churhc and state and Roy Moore's Rock |
25 Nov 2003 08:15:24 AM |
|
|
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311250524.78af1c1a@posting.google.com:
Woden <woden@charter.net> wrote in message
news:<Xns943DEAFCF556Awodencharternet@216.168.3.44>...
(LT Lee) wrote in
news:5eb15984.0311241342.5df2782f@posting.google.com:
(snip)
In another word, separation of church and state is not running away
from religions. It is impossible. Saying god exists is a religious
claim. Saying god deos not exist is also a religious claim. Neither
can be proved or disproved.
So what is you point. If we have separation of church and state,
then all the religious BS that people try to have put in
public/government facilities should be eliminated. (Just like the
courts have said.)
Not at all.
Separation of church and state will require the state to refrain from
giving religious meaning to "In God we trust" and "Roy's Rock" because
God or the Rock is irrelevant to state's function.
So you're saying that having such symbology in public display supported
and encouraged by the government on government property is not support
for this from the government? This sounds like more of that "believers
logic" you've been using.
Look, every govenment building has color. People may choose to
associate a certain color with religious meaning. The government
cannot prevent that and has no reason to prevent that. However, the
government should not give in and give religious meaning to the color.
Hence, the government should not choose or change the color of the
building on religious ground. The same applied to architecture style
and Roy's Rock.
The former is allowed exactly because it cannot inflict harm. If
it can be shown that some people look at the rock and become
sick physically and/or psychologically, then it should not be
| | | | | | | |
