100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Separation of Church and State? | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
I was not even alive then. The 60s were another story. Vietnam. It was a time of change and the Liberals were fighting back. It was an era fraught with turmoil. so the 50's didn't work for ya'...and...the 60's didn't work for ya'...was there ever a happy time in your life ?... Yes, NOW is always the best time to live in.  now ?...really...for me...the memories of my childhood...through my teens...and into my 20's...was a glorious time for me...like I've said before...we were alive when we were young...now we just live...ohhhhhhhhh for the 50's...  ....lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Mon 12/22/08 08:47 AM
|
|
Nor was my comment yet its stands on its own merit obviously.   . That laughter you here is everyone that knows me on this site. Hey I just havin fun now no disrespect intended...Gio and I dont agree on a whole lot but I consider him a friend and we try to have some fun on here... For some reason you were assuming my comment was directed at you and it would only apply to you if you would define yourself as a conservative, right wing Christian and in that case, then my comment that conservative right wing Christians would be much more pleased if we could revert to the "jolly old segregated 50s" is appropriate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Red brings up some excellent points in the post on I think page two of this thread.
The Code of Hammurabi is acknowledged as influencing our law. These were not however the earliest laws and if you study abit you will find a nod to earlier law in his code. Hammurabi says these directives were sent to him from Sumerian gods. There you have it. A ruler making mention of God or Gods and implying he has authority over the common man bestowed on him by the greatest authority, the gods, those unseen and powerful entities who could cause drought or rains, who could cause their crops and animals to thrive or die, who could punish or protect the mere mortal. Enter the bogey man...he's still with us today. Authority based on divine direction! Who could argue eh? You better follow the law as pronounced by this ruler or surely you will be struck down by the gods. Superstitious people who cowered at the mysteries of the world must have been fairly impressed eh? Since then many rulers have asserted that they derive if not their power then their direction from the divine. Some still do... This sort of thing worked out well for many rulers, despots, kings and others who sought to maintain power and control populations by asserting divine direction. They directed armies, controlled resources, demanded tribute...you all know the story right? You can't maintain that sort of control over people without also keeping people scared and ignorant of alternatives. Now of course I am over simplifying but I hope you get my point here. The powerful, asserting divine authority, controlling resources and information and maintaining it was for the good of the people. Fast forward... Along comes the age of enlightenment. When by no coincidence education becomes more widespread. People started to question the bogey man approach and instead began to discuss the idea that authority should be based in reason. Imagine how scary that was for those who had for generations upon generations had maintained their influence and power over the rabble?? Basing government, society and law upon reason and not divine authority?? Wow, if we allow people to do that our power base might be threatened. Our founders knew those authorities well and sought to embrace reason and reject the authority of sovereigns and churches. This is very clear in the letters and other writings of the founders. Were they men or faith? There is little doubt but they were also men of reason. What a concept eh? Authority based in reason and not sent down by the gods?? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nor was my comment yet its stands on its own merit obviously. . That laughter you here is everyone that knows me on this site. Hey I just havin fun now no disrespect intended...Gio and I dont agree on a whole lot but I consider him a friend and we try to have some fun on here... For some reason you were assuming my comment was directed at you and it would only apply to you if you would define yourself as a conservative, right wing Christian and in that case, then my comment that conservative right wing Christians would be much more pleased if we could revert to the "jolly old segregated 50s" is appropriate. I am not addressing you nor was I ever however. I was speaking in general terms so if you define yourself as a conservative, right wing Christian than my comment would have applied directly to you. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nor was my comment yet its stands on its own merit obviously. . That laughter you here is everyone that knows me on this site. Hey I just havin fun now no disrespect intended...Gio and I dont agree on a whole lot but I consider him a friend and we try to have some fun on here... For some reason you were assuming my comment was directed at you and it would only apply to you if you would define yourself as a conservative, right wing Christian and in that case, then my comment that conservative right wing Christians would be much more pleased if we could revert to the "jolly old segregated 50s" is appropriate. woohoooooooo... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Unknow
on
Mon 12/22/08 10:02 AM
|
|
Red brings up some excellent points in the post on I think page two of this thread. The Code of Hammurabi is acknowledged as influencing our law. These were not however the earliest laws and if you study abit you will find a nod to earlier law in his code. Hammurabi says these directives were sent to him from Sumerian gods. There you have it. A ruler making mention of God or Gods and implying he has authority over the common man bestowed on him by the greatest authority, the gods, those unseen and powerful entities who could cause drought or rains, who could cause their crops and animals to thrive or die, who could punish or protect the mere mortal. Enter the bogey man...he's still with us today. Authority based on divine direction! Who could argue eh? You better follow the law as pronounced by this ruler or surely you will be struck down by the gods. Superstitious people who cowered at the mysteries of the world must have been fairly impressed eh? Since then many rulers have asserted that they derive if not their power then their direction from the divine. Some still do... This sort of thing worked out well for many rulers, despots, kings and others who sought to maintain power and control populations by asserting divine direction. They directed armies, controlled resources, demanded tribute...you all know the story right? You can't maintain that sort of control over people without also keeping people scared and ignorant of alternatives. Now of course I am over simplifying but I hope you get my point here. The powerful, asserting divine authority, controlling resources and information and maintaining it was for the good of the people. Fast forward... Along comes the age of enlightenment. When by no coincidence education becomes more widespread. People started to question the bogey man approach and instead began to discuss the idea that authority should be based in reason. Imagine how scary that was for those who had for generations upon generations had maintained their influence and power over the rabble?? Basing government, society and law upon reason and not divine authority?? Wow, if we allow people to do that our power base might be threatened. Our founders knew those authorities well and sought to embrace reason and reject the authority of sovereigns and churches. This is very clear in the letters and other writings of the founders. Were they men or faith? There is little doubt but they were also men of reason. What a concept eh? Authority based in reason and not sent down by the gods?? Lets get back on topic!!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 12/22/08 10:26 AM
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
i wonder if one was not a white male if the 50s would seem so alluring i have seen a few points along my thoughts used here yes the known past nearly always seems better than a changing future that is why so many in relationships with abuse remain in them Since I was only 1 in the 50's, I can't say they were my best years. I don't see how Gio can say it either. He's 5 yrs. older then me. Actually, I've like all of the years. I see a lot of negatives in the 50's though. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was not even alive then. The 60s were another story. Vietnam. It was a time of change and the Liberals were fighting back. It was an era fraught with turmoil. so the 50's didn't work for ya'...and...the 60's didn't work for ya'...was there ever a happy time in your life ?... Yes, NOW is always the best time to live in. now ?...really...for me...the memories of my childhood...through my teens...and into my 20's...was a glorious time for me...like I've said before...we were alive when we were young...now we just live...ohhhhhhhhh for the 50's... ....lol OMG, I see it clearly now. You loved your childhood, teens, and 20's. Then....you had to grow up. That's why you liked it so much back then. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nor was my comment yet its stands on its own merit obviously. . That laughter you here is everyone that knows me on this site. Hey I just havin fun now no disrespect intended...Gio and I dont agree on a whole lot but I consider him a friend and we try to have some fun on here... For some reason you were assuming my comment was directed at you and it would only apply to you if you would define yourself as a conservative, right wing Christian and in that case, then my comment that conservative right wing Christians would be much more pleased if we could revert to the "jolly old segregated 50s" is appropriate. But...he was only 5 yrs. old and under in the 50's. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was not even alive then. The 60s were another story. Vietnam. It was a time of change and the Liberals were fighting back. It was an era fraught with turmoil. so the 50's didn't work for ya'...and...the 60's didn't work for ya'...was there ever a happy time in your life ?... Yes, NOW is always the best time to live in. now ?...really...for me...the memories of my childhood...through my teens...and into my 20's...was a glorious time for me...like I've said before...we were alive when we were young...now we just live...ohhhhhhhhh for the 50's... ....lol OMG, I see it clearly now. You loved your childhood, teens, and 20's. Then....you had to grow up. That's why you liked it so much back then. exactly...well...kind of sort of...lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Lynann,
Thank you for the compliment. The Truth of the matter is that a society's Moral fiber is based upon the ethics, spirituality (view of the divine), and traditions of the community. It is ironic that that in this society where we value religious freedom there seems to exist a double standard. That being: yes, you can have your freedom as long you agree with me. Because of that different religious groups and non-religious groups believe their agenda is correct. This is never more true then in the attempt of the Separation of Church and State. History is full of examples where this has not been the case. For example the Utah Territory was not allowed to become a state until the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints outlawed polygamy. Then there is the hypocrisy of the treatment of Native Americans. Rather than learning about their Spirituality they were often forced to deny their culture, their belief, and their language. But then God, Gold, and Glory were powerful motivators for the early explorers. Not to mention this nation belief in Manifest Destiny. Which conscientiously or unconscientiously is still an aspect of our foreign policy. As an educator I am aware that there are students who for religious reasons do not believe in saying the Pledge of Allegiance. To respect their beliefs they are given the option - step out of the room during the Pledge or simply stand. To date I have not had a student or a parent complain about this. The tension between the Separation of Church and State is going to continue to exist. For it includes ethics and respect of others. Will future decisions make everyone happy? Probably not. Do we need to continue to have open and honest dialogue? Definitely yes. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 12/22/08 12:28 PM
|
|
Oh stop it. I told you that my comment was not directed at you and you yourself said it was I told you that my comment would only apply to you if in fact you did consider yourself a "right wing conservative Christian". I dont know how else to explain this to you. Shall I try interpretive dance?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh stop it. I told you that my comment was not directed at you and you yourself said it was I told you that my comment would only apply to you if in fact you did consider yourself a "right wing conservative Christian". I dont know how else to explain this to you. Shall I try interpretive dance? do you have rhythm ?...this I've got to see !... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Alright, enough already. Back on topic any day now boys.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I give you the floor...if not for dancin'...then for whatever you have on your cheast...no pun intended...gulp !!...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One of the most common statements from the "Religious Right" is that they want this country to "return to the Christian principles on which it was founded". However, a little research into American history will show that this statement is a lie. The men responsible for building the foundation of the United States had little use for Christianity, and many were strongly opposed to it. They were men of The Enlightenment, not men of Christianity. They were Deists who did not believe the bible was true.
When the Founders wrote the nation's Constitution, they specified that "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States." (Article 6, section 3) This provision was radical in its day-- giving equal citizenship to believers and non-believers alike. They wanted to ensure that no single religion could make the claim of being the official, national religion, such as England had. Nowhere in the Constitution does it mention religion, except in exclusionary terms. The words "Jesus Christ, Christianity, Bible, and God" are never mentioned in the Constitution-- not once. The Declaration of Independence gives us important insight into the opinions of the Founding Fathers. Thomas Jefferson wrote that the power of the government is derived from the governed. Up until that time, it was claimed that kings ruled nations by the authority of God. The Declaration was a radical departure from the idea of divine authority. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Giocamo
on
Mon 12/22/08 12:55 PM
|
|
duly noted...I'll settle...for just plain old principles...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You wanted to get back on topic so....take her away big boy. You brainiac you.
|
|
|
|
|
