Separating Church and State

[Belsnickel]

I just came across an interesting article that I figured some people on here would enjoy reading.

http://blog.oup.com/2015/09/separating-church-state-tocqueville/

Quote:Since the 17th century, Western thinkers have struggled with the problem of how to stop conflicts over religious differences. Not long ago, we mostly thought that the problem had been solved. Two rather different solutions served widely as paradigms, with many variations. One was the American Separation of Church and State, and the other, the French laïcité, usually if misleadingly translated as ‘secularism’.

There is more to it. Anyway, just wanted to drop it in here for some reading in case anyone was interested.

[Blutarsky]

(09-23-2015, 09:29 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: http://blog.oup.com/2015/09/separating-church-state-tocqueville/

Except that Thomas Jeffersons rationale  behind his "wall of separation" quote is misinterpreted here as it is everywhere else.

[GodHatesBengals]

(09-23-2015, 12:17 PM)Blutarsky Wrote: Except that Thomas Jeffersons rationale  behind his "wall of separation" quote is misinterpreted here as it is everywhere else.

Except it isn't, and despite right wing insistence to the contrary, the separation of church and state does not mean "keeping the gubmint out of religion, not religion out of gubmint derpppp".

[Vas Deferens]

(09-23-2015, 02:19 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Except it isn't, and despite right wing insistence to the contrary, the separation of church and state does not mean "keeping the gubmint out of religion, not religion out of gubmint derpppp".

How are the Christian mega churches going to produce meth addicted super pastors and build enormous mega ranches to house their male ***** orgies if the damn gumbnit starts treating like every other for profit institution?

Damn obamuslim

[fredtoast]

The ONE BIG REASON we can not fix the middle east is because religion and politics are the same there. Until they can develop governments that are not based on religion there will not be any peace. No matter how much anyone bombs them. No matter how many troops are sent there by America, or Russia, or a UN Coalition. There will not be peace with governments defined by religious beliefs.


I am not anti-religion. I am just against religion having any influence on government.

[*Nately120*]

(09-23-2015, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The ONE BIG REASON we can not fix the middle east is because religion and politics are the same there.  Until they can develop governments that are not based on religion there will not be any peace.  No matter how much anyone bombs them.  No matter how many troops are sent there by America, or Russia, or a UN Coalition.  There will not be peace with governments defined by religious beliefs.


I am not anti-religion.  I am just against religion having any influence on government.

Well yea, it's bad when MUSLIMS run the government, but not Jesus-lovers!

[6andcounting]

(09-23-2015, 03:56 PM)Nately120 Wrote: Well yea, it's bad when MUSLIMS run the government, but not Jesus-lovers!

Of course it's bad when a fake religion is used to run government. Using the real true religion makes it work because we are one nation under God.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-23-2015, 04:01 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Of course it's bad when a fake religion is used to run government. Using the real true religion makes it work because we are one nation under God.

But isreal's cool bc they're whiter and vote in FL.

[6andcounting]

(09-23-2015, 05:01 PM)Vas Deferens Wrote: But isreal's cool bc they're whiter and vote in FL.

Their wrong, but they're not evil about it like Muslims and atheists.

[Blutarsky]

(09-23-2015, 02:19 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: Except it isn't, and despite right wing insistence to the contrary, the separation of church and state does not mean "keeping the gubmint out of religion, not religion out of gubmint derpppp".

You're right, that's what I get for skimming the article.

What I was alluding to is that Thomas Jeffersons "wall of separation" quote has been taken out of context or misinterpreted by liberals from Jeffersons original intent.
You'll be shocked to know that during Jefferson's time some states  had established religions. The Danbury Baptists, a minority religious domination in Connecticut, wrote a letter the President Jefferson complaining that a state established religion would infringe upon their rights as a minority.

Jefferson responded by saying he can't not get involved in religious issues or debates, that there must be a wall of separation between the government and matters dealing with religion. That the government shall make no law with respect to religion.

I'm not convinced that Jefferson would have objected to a judge having the Ten Commandments displayed in his courtroom or public school kids having a moment of silence so they could pray. That certainly wasn't Jeffersons focus with "wall of separation" comment.
That's the shit that misled liberals think Jefferson was talking about..

[Blutarsky]

(09-23-2015, 03:07 PM)fredtoast Wrote:   There will not be peace with governments defined by religious beliefs.

 
That's only if the government is theocratic, where religion is the law and the Koran is the Constitution.

I must admit there were those atheist peace loving governments of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Jung Un...

So when it comes down to it the only governments that start shit are either going to be theocratic, (Muslim) or atheists.

Interesting.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2015, 06:36 PM)Blutarsky Wrote:  
That's only if the government is theocratic, where religion is the law and the Koran is the Constitution.

I must admit there were those atheist peace loving governments of Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Kim Jung Un...

So when it comes down to it the only governments that start shit are either going to be theocratic, (Muslim) or atheists.

Interesting.

Well, to be fair, Hitler convinced the public that his final solution was divinely inspired.  Whether he believed it or not...the people did.

[Belsnickel]

(09-23-2015, 09:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, to be fair, Hitler convinced he public that his final solution was divinely inspired.  Whether he believed it or not...the people did.

The majority of the people also did not know the full extent of the atrocities being committed. I was reading an interview with on German soldier from the time, recently, where he remembers hearing about some of the things for the first time from British soldiers while a POW. He was saying all of them just thought it was propaganda, they had no idea.

[GMDino]

(09-23-2015, 09:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The majority of the people also did not know the full extent of the atrocities being committed. I was reading an interview with on German soldier from the time, recently, where he remembers hearing about some of the things for the first time from British soldiers while a POW. He was saying all of them just thought it was propaganda, they had no idea.

Nonetheless they thought God had inspired Hitler.

And he understood that people will follow their god to war before they will follow a man.

[Vas Deferens]

(09-23-2015, 05:47 PM)6andcounting Wrote: Their wrong, but they're not evil about it like Muslims and atheists.

Big apartheid fan over here.

[*michaelsean*]

(09-23-2015, 09:05 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The majority of the people also did not know the full extent of the atrocities being committed. I was reading an interview with on German soldier from the time, recently, where he remembers hearing about some of the things for the first time from British soldiers while a POW. He was saying all of them just thought it was propaganda, they had no idea.

Soldiers off fighting maybe didn't know.  The citizens knew. 

[Blutarsky]

(09-23-2015, 09:03 PM)GMDino Wrote: Well, to be fair, Hitler convinced the public that his final solution was divinely inspired.  Whether he believed it or not...the people did.

Funny that it wasn't God that inspired him, but a Muslim..the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El Husseini.  Unthinkable isn't it.

I think that any mention of divine inspiration by Hitler to the public was just an extra added touch. The giant Nazi propaganda machine had portrayed Germany as big time victims...victims of WWI, victims of Polish aggression toward Germans living there, victims of Jews....
I can't prove it I bet most Germans took divine intervention with a grain of salt.

[GMDino]

(09-24-2015, 10:35 AM)Blutarsky Wrote: Funny that it wasn't God that inspired him, but a Muslim..the Mufti of Jerusalem, Haj Amin El Husseini.  Unthinkable isn't it.

I think that any mention of divine inspiration by Hitler to the public was just an extra added touch. The giant Nazi propaganda machine had portrayed Germany as big time victims...victims of WWI, victims of Polish aggression toward Germans living there, victims of Jews....
I can't prove it I bet most Germans took divine intervention with a grain of salt.

Again, he knew the people would follow their god and not a man.  

Christian historians love to say that since Hitler did bad things or Stalin or whomever they were not true believers anymore...no matter how they were raised.

And I would agree with that assessment.

True believers would not be that evil.

However that does not mean they did not truly believe they were doing "god's work".  Many people throughout history had said "god told them" to do certain, evil things.  I would put forth the argument that god would not do that.  But it still means the person did evil in "god's name".  Some will even cite bible verses to support their ways.