Can we divide faith and state

Post Reply New Topic

No. Because the moment you decide to cut religious morals from government, you automatically decide that atheism is the religious stance of the nations. While better than the lunacy of the middle-east, it's still wrongly slanted. No matter what you do, you're going to be "forcing morals on others", it's just a matter of which ones - and pretending the mindset of humans being mere animals and nothing is truly right or wrong is, which is a necessary conclusion of atheism, is just "okay" is still frankly wrong. Then you have as the grounds for authority mere argumentum ad bacculum only, but all authority comes from Christ and not by force, so no matter what the nations pretend is "right" and "wrong" in their own eyes, there is still only one King, the Lord God Almighty.

I am inclined to believe GWB's 9-11 speech indicates the overall idea of mankind pushing God aside entirely!

No.

Because the state relies on narratives and noble lies, to justify it's own existence, the state itself is a form of religion.

Because the church has logistical concerns, in the material world, it is a form of state.

Hey @lamaparakeet, found your response interesting.

That would be great! Human laws based on our best understanding of nature's laws. Good thing that is the stance that progressive governments are taking anyways.

Also, there is no need for the term "religious" before the term "morals". Most religions do not have morals anyways. They have codes of ethics, commandments, nostrums and various morality plays. Morality as its own rational topic included in the religion, no, not usually.

Morality as a subject is the kind of thing you learn elsewhere, such as on the playground, or in College taking a philosophy class. Sunday school is for inculcating one's mentally underveloped population with a Religious culture via Brainwashing. Get them while they are young and defenseless.

No talk of moral dilemma's needed in Sunday School.



Woa, think the above shows a misunderstanding of Atheism. I am an Empiricist Moralist with Shamanistic Math Mysticism leanings myself, but I find the above kind of insulting in a way. Why is it someone needs any specific supernatural or exisential beliefs to be moral? Such a statement is heavily in need of proof.

It is true any form of government will force morals on others. Good point.

We are 'mere' animals. It is religious based bigotry (speciesism) and scientific ignorance to state otherwise. Even if there is another plane of existence we also exist on, then so should other animals, because, we are all animals. It is special pleading to set us apart. Calling out Kingdom Animalia, woop woop.

If you have a beef against Science, how do you not feel like a hypocrite when flying on an aeroplane, Going to the Dr., etc...? I am not trying to be insulting, it is just, I never got that. Religions lost the academic and pragmatic debate a while ago, but no one wants to own up to it.

Atheism, logically speaking, is not about morality, it is just a lack of belief in God. How do you define right or wrong? Maybe it has to do with the Golden Rule, do unto others as you would have them do unto you? Do you need anything else? If so, why?

I do not see any necessity for why, not believing in existence of God, or anything else for that matter, implies you do not think some things are right or wrong. How does that work? Please explain your claim.



Gross. Revelation as authority. I strongly disagree. People of all faiths and walks of life come together all the time to do what is right without a single mention of any specific religion in the process.

And then out comes the King, just like expected. Instead of discovering the truth together, like so many times before, using convergent reason and empathy, it is the King's Sword that counts. I will throw you a bone.

Please stop listening to people who do not repect that the truth can be discovered. People like that always think they are right. How else can it be? After all, if they are wrong, they certainly will never "discover" the error for themselves. The only truth is revealed by a Big-Boned Daddy in the Sky. That is so Homoerotic, I love it!

Makes Perfect Sense!

What do you mean with 'discovering', that something can found out without it being revealed? But isn't discovering revealing something. Meaning that if someone has discovered the truth other people can no longer 'discover' the truth. Or does the truth need to be revealed in order to discover. But that would take away the whole discovering part. I'm stuck.

Atheism doesn't equal science and religion isn't against science. Lots of science advancement came from religious people. Lots of religious people work in science. It's atheists who believe they are the only ones who can represent science and therefore try to pratray religion as being against science. Atheism is a religion in my opinion they way a lot of atheists believe their opinions to be right and want to convert(force) everyone else to believe the same.

I'll answer from my POV. To understand some truths requires discovery. If someone told you, it would mean nothing. You have to work through the process. This applies to all kinds of mystical secrets, but also to some techniques in the material world. Take cooking as an example of something you have to do repeatedly in order to comprehend.

And what are these atheist morals that as secular government pushes exactly?

The only way to truly remove any trace of religion in government would be to ban public religious practice. So basically what the USSR did and the modern Chinese government does, which, as I'm sure doesn't need to be mentioned, are two totalitarian states.

So no, I don't see a total division of faith and state in the west any time soon.

But if someone told you doesn't that mean you discovered what that person had to say? Also I had to read the Bible to fully understand what Jesus did( I didn't get it beforehand). Maybe it isn't a discovery by your definition of the word but it was a search and I've found an answer.

Reading and absorbing can lead to inner discovery of truth, but it can also lead to rigid dogma and repetition. Mostly the latter, I fear.

No, I don't think I'm dogmatic the Bible says that it's actually God who reveals the truth to someone. (Matthew 16:17 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Christ, the Son of the living God.” 17Jesus replied, “Blessed are you, Simon son of Jonah! For this was not revealed to you by flesh and blood, but by My Father in heaven.) So unless if God reveals it to you, you wont believe( But you wont believe this, unless ofcourse...). It's the opposite of being dogmatic, sort of. I think you get the point.

Why do you have the adjective "inner" in that statement? Do you believe it impossible for reading and absorbing to lead to external discovery or are you simply suggesting reading and absorbing can facilitate the internalization of otherwise-external truth? I ask because I used to sit and meditate upon my own navel -- stare at my belly button -- at least figuratively until realizing my alleged mind was out to get me! Also, rigid dogma and rote repetition are not results of reading and absorbing, but of limiting one's willingness and/or ability to continue reading and absorbing.

I think we basically agree. I maintain that I learn best through working through the steps myself. I read a lot, and got a lot out of it, but reading was just a start. Incidentally, this idea of having to put in the work in order to understand something also appears in a lot of books, notably the xian bible.

Cool, and yes, we agree. In fact, I typically tell people they do not have to believe anything that cannot be proved through their own experience...and the context of that statement has to do with their not being pressured by others who can do little more than to recite dogma. I might be *willing* to believe almost anything anyone might say, but I will do my own thorough investigation -- taste and see -- before counting something as fact.

The point is having a government that is not based on religion...banning religious practice would defeat the purpose of freedom of religion. Of course you cannot remove any form of religious belief and spirituality and that can influence people...but that is different than having written laws to enforce a particular religious belief. It is quite possible to have secular laws while still maintaining freedom of religion.