• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you favor Religious Government?

Do you advocate religious government?

  • Total voters
    66
Jetboogieman said:
The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?
Click to expand...

So....are we basing this discussion on any real event, a news story, or are we just supposed to vomit our preexisting biases all over the keyboard?
 
Jetboogieman said:
The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?
Click to expand...

I want total separation of church and state.

I think government should completely stay out of the affairs of religious organizations.

I think religions should completely stay out of government policies.

I think that while people enjoy freedom of religion, they also have freedom from religion, as I believe people also have a right to personal conscience. Therefore, people should be allowed to make their own decisions themselves, and people have no right to set policies against them based on religious reasons.
 
Last edited:
The Mark said:
I don't think that's accurate, precisely.

Rather, in a religious governing system (read: theocracy), the law itself would probably be by design biased against one religion over another or other such things in the first place, so "equal under the law" wouldn't even be in the realm of possibility.

It’s not that such a government doesn't believe in equal under the law – I’m sure everyone who falls under a given law is treated equally under said law ;) – it’s that they believe there should be laws based upon or effecting religion at all.

THAT is the issue.
Click to expand...

The problem is that its just that, religious government would consider those who arent the majority religion or lack their of second class citizens or worse. A religious apartheid would exist.
 
Jetboogieman said:
The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?
Click to expand...

Over the years, I've read hundreds of quotes from our most prominent Founders expressing the importance of maintaining a moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Biblical Scriptures. Denying our Christian heritage would be to deny history itself. The "Separation of Church and State" phrase is found nowhere in our founding documents and didn't become an issue until the mid-20th century in 1947, Everson v. Board of Education. Is it mere coincidence that this period is also when evolution started creeping into the classroom?

Evolution is a religion of itself and ironically never even addresses true origins. One of the most prolific atheist activists is Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins. He stated: "Evolution is the intellectual platform of atheism.," so we should not be alarmed to learn what the true intentions behind preaching evolution is.

Maybe an alternative to the OP question should be; do we want a nation envisioned by our founders, or do we wish to continue to down the same path we're going?
 
getagrip said:
Maybe an alternative to the OP question should be; do we want a nation envisioned by our founders, or do we wish to continue to down the same path we're going?
Click to expand...

So we should promote religion in government, suffrage only for white propertied males, racial slavery in the South, the diaspora and genocide of Native Americans, and revachism against Great Britain and France because that was the nation envisioned by our Founders?
 
samsmart said:
So we should promote religion in government, suffrage only for white propertied males, racial slavery in the South, the diaspora and genocide of Native Americans, and revachism against Great Britain and France because that was the nation envisioned by our Founders?
Click to expand...

So in one broad brush, you've re-written history in a single sentence. Slavery was introduced to the America's two centuries before our founding and was enforced by the British Empire. The truth is, our founders were not in favor of it.

I abhor slavery. I was born in a country where slavery had been established by British Kings and Parliaments as well as by the laws of the country ages before my existence. . . . In former days there was no combating the prejudices of men supported by interest; the day, I hope, is approaching when, from principles of gratitude as well as justice, every man will strive to be foremost in showing his readiness to comply with the Golden Rule. --Henry Larens, President of the Congress, 1777
Click to expand...

A disposition to abolish slavery prevails in North America, that many of Pennsylvanians have set their slaves at liberty, and that even the Virginia Assembly have petitioned the King for permission to make a law for preventing the importation of more into that colony. This request, however, will probably not be granted as their former laws of that kind have always been repealed. --Benjamin Franklin, Letter to Dean Woodward, 1773
Click to expand...

John Quincy Adams was known as the "hell-hound of abolition" and even Thomas Jefferson, often condemned of being a slave owner wrote this:
He [King George III] has waged cruel war against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere or to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. . . . Determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce. --The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Vol. I, p. 34
Click to expand...

This is usually the first area in which people attack our founders, but it's historically incorrect. You also cannot turn about corruption of more than 200 years in a matter of a few. Maybe you are also unaware of Indentured Servantry, where thousands of white slaves spent decades in the same conditions as their black counterparts?
 
Zyphlin said:
Why should religious beliefs be any different than say philisophical beliefs? The 1st amendment does as much to garauntee people the free expression of their religion, and voting is free expression, as it does keeping the government from making laws that establish a religion.

If you would vote in favor of something because the words of Locke and Hobbes have affected how you view the world why would that be different than voting in favor of something because the words of Matthew, Luke, and John affects how you view the world?

Almost every law is about forcing people in some form to do what the person thinks is best for the country based on their own opinions and views of a situation. You talk about people doing what they think is best for the country, not what they think is needed religiously. You talk like those are mutually exclussive. Do you think that somehow people that oppose abortion think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban non-"green" things do it for that reason? Do you think that somehow people who push for allowing a moment of silence at the start of school think its "good for the country" any less than those that seek to ban transfats? Just because YOU don't think its good for the country does not disqualify the notion that they don't. And just because some of the country won't like it obviously doesn't disqualify it because there's no law that gets passed that is liked by everyone in the country.

YOU think that abortions just going to lead to the death of a lot of women and is bad for the country. Others think that it already leads to the death of many people and disallowing it would be good for the country. Why is their view on it magically, as if there is some universal truth to it, "bad" and yours is "good" otehr than because it fits your own biases and opinion to the issue.

You act as if there is some universal "Right for the Country" that is crystal clear and unquestionably true to all.

I would have no problem with someone believing alcohol is a dangerous and troublesome drug that leads to numerous deaths and thus due to that view votes to ban alcohol. So then why should I have an issue if someone felt that alcohol was sinful and poluted ones body and spirit causing people to act dangerously and troublesome and thus it should be banned? These individuals have constitutional protection to practice and express their religion, and part of that expression is the understanding that ones peronal philosophies...be it gained from a religion, from a philosopher, even just from living life"...influence how you view the world.

To tell people they can't make political decisions based in part on their religious beliefs is unconstitutional imho, and more than that is ridiculously bigoted when you allow any other prsonal philosophies to be applied as "reasoning".
Click to expand...

Not just in your opinion, but in the opinion of the Founders as well.
 
getagrip said:
So in one broad brush, you've re-written history in a single sentence. Slavery was introduced to the America's two centuries before our founding and was enforced by the British Empire. The truth is, our founders were not in favor of it.





John Quincy Adams was known as the "hell-hound of abolition" and even Thomas Jefferson, often condemned of being a slave owner wrote this:

This is usually the first area in which people attack our founders, but it's historically incorrect. You also cannot turn about corruption of more than 200 years in a matter of a few. Maybe you are also unaware of Indentured Servantry, where thousands of white slaves spent decades in the same conditions as their black counterparts?
Click to expand...

If the Founders were so against slavery, then why did they countenance it in the Constitution with the 3/5 Compromise?

As for your other point, are you also in favor for indentured servitude as well?

And what about limited suffrage, aboriginal genocide, and European revanchism?
 
Lets do somethin different we can always change it back. Bring on the conformity of the imperfectability of man lead by a government given divine leadership that is guided by a sense of ephemeral wisdom endowed from or creator to TEACH us the proper constructs of citizenship and loyalty to the state . Why not role it all into one , its been done before and so it shall be again- I know lets use the enviornment and our concern for the earth and let government be the moral compass for us by enacting laws to make us a" more noble animal in stewardship of nature for all". How blindly we see when lest we know, what we shall not reason for lack of understanding. The religious state has thus began.
 
samsmart said:
If the Founders were so against slavery, then why did they countenance it in the Constitution with the 3/5 Compromise?

As for your other point, are you also in favor for indentured servitude as well?

And what about limited suffrage, aboriginal genocide, and European revanchism?
Click to expand...

As I stated earlier, it was impossible to change overnight what had developed for more than two centuries. The three fifths compromise was merely the agreement made for the enumeration of slaves currently living in the country for the purpose of taxes and congressional representation. The Constitution was still 2 years away from ratification.

I think my posts clearly represents my position on slavery, or any variety of it, including the modern human trafficking kind if you're to go that far. I'm not proposing that some kind of utopia can be found based merely on re-establishing the merits of our founders. We've passed another two centuries since then and times have changed considerably. I believe this topic is whether we favor religious government. According to Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America, the success America had achieved since it broke away from the British was an adherance to a high standard of morals -- based on Christian doctrines. Something we no longer can attest to and no questions as to why.
 
getagrip said:
As I stated earlier, it was impossible to change overnight what had developed for more than two centuries. The three fifths compromise was merely the agreement made for the enumeration of slaves currently living in the country for the purpose of taxes and congressional representation. The Constitution was still 2 years away from ratification.

I think my posts clearly represents my position on slavery, or any variety of it, including the modern human trafficking kind if you're to go that far. I'm not proposing that some kind of utopia can be found based merely on re-establishing the merits of our founders. We've passed another two centuries since then and times have changed considerably. I believe this topic is whether we favor religious government. According to Alexis de Toqueville's Democracy in America, the success America had achieved since it broke away from the British was an adherance to a high standard of morals -- based on Christian doctrines. Something we no longer can attest to and no questions as to why.
Click to expand...

Or you're just wrong in your apparent notion that all the Founding Fathers were unified in all their beliefs and, in actuality, they each had differeing opinions on the course the nation should go on, slavery being one of them.

While you're right in that John Quincy Adams was against slavery, you are, however, wrong in that he was a Founding Father. And while Thomas Jefferson wrote the Delcaration of Independence and was against slavery, he was not a part of the Constitutional Convention to draft it.

However, John Rutledge was a slave-owner, and supported it. He later became Chief Justice after John Jay.

Pierce Butler and Charles Pinkney slipped in the Fugitive Slave Clause into the Constitution that demanded that fugitive slaves escaping to free states be extradited back to the slave owner.

Daniel of St. Thomas Jennifer owned a plantation in Annapolis and instructed that all his slaves be freed 6 years after his death. So he was against slavery too, but only after he could no longer profit from their labor.

While George Mason did find slavery morally objectionable, he only had the strength of his convictions to want to stop the importation of slaves, but not necessarily use the Constitution to force the states to ban slavery. However, it should be noted he was in favor of the disestablishment of the church.

So this proves that the Founding Fathers were not always united in their opinions and beliefs, and some of them actually favored slavery in our nation. So, more likely than not, they were divided in regards to other beliefs as well.
 
samsmart said:
Or you're just wrong in your apparent notion that all the Founding Fathers were unified in all their beliefs and, in actuality, they each had differeing opinions on the course the nation should go on, slavery being one of them.

While you're right in that John Quincy Adams was against slavery, you are, however, wrong in that he was a Founding Father. And while Thomas Jefferson wrote the Delcaration of Independence and was against slavery, he was not a part of the Constitutional Convention to draft it.

However, John Rutledge was a slave-owner, and supported it. He later became Chief Justice after John Jay.

Pierce Butler and Charles Pinkney slipped in the Fugitive Slave Clause into the Constitution that demanded that fugitive slaves escaping to free states be extradited back to the slave owner.

Daniel of St. Thomas Jennifer owned a plantation in Annapolis and instructed that all his slaves be freed 6 years after his death. So he was against slavery too, but only after he could no longer profit from their labor.

While George Mason did find slavery morally objectionable, he only had the strength of his convictions to want to stop the importation of slaves, but not necessarily use the Constitution to force the states to ban slavery. However, it should be noted he was in favor of the disestablishment of the church.

So this proves that the Founding Fathers were not always united in their opinions and beliefs, and some of them actually favored slavery in our nation. So, more likely than not, they were divided in regards to other beliefs as well.
Click to expand...

I'm new here, so for me to start taking you seriously, I'll need to read more of your posts to determine if you always go off topic, insert into your responses non-existent claims of other members you engage or just have this steadfast fixation on the dead issue of slavery.
 
getagrip said:
I'm new here, so for me to start taking you seriously, I'll need to read more of your posts to determine if you always go off topic, insert into your responses non-existent claims of other members you engage or just have this steadfast fixation on the dead issue of slavery.
Click to expand...

Well here's your original post in this thread:

getagrip said:
Over the years, I've read hundreds of quotes from our most prominent Founders expressing the importance of maintaining a moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Biblical Scriptures. Denying our Christian heritage would be to deny history itself. The "Separation of Church and State" phrase is found nowhere in our founding documents and didn't become an issue until the mid-20th century in 1947, Everson v. Board of Education. Is it mere coincidence that this period is also when evolution started creeping into the classroom?

Evolution is a religion of itself and ironically never even addresses true origins. One of the most prolific atheist activists is Oxford Professor Richard Dawkins. He stated: "Evolution is the intellectual platform of atheism.," so we should not be alarmed to learn what the true intentions behind preaching evolution is.

Maybe an alternative to the OP question should be; do we want a nation envisioned by our founders, or do we wish to continue to down the same path we're going?
Click to expand...

In your post, you were alluding that because the Founding Fathers knew "the importance of maintaining a moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Biblical Scriptures," I was just wondering what part of them wanting to maintain a moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Bible Scriptures allowed them to institute safeguards for slavery when they wrote the Constitution that would be the framework for the government of the moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Biblical Scriptures that you said the Founding Fathers wanted.
 
samsmart said:
Well here's your original post in this thread:



In your post, you were alluding that because the Founding Fathers knew "the importance of maintaining a moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Biblical Scriptures," I was just wondering what part of them wanting to maintain a moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Bible Scriptures allowed them to institute safeguards for slavery when they wrote the Constitution that would be the framework for the government of the moral society based upon the doctrines found in the Biblical Scriptures that you said the Founding Fathers wanted.
Click to expand...

Pay special attention to that "envisioned" term please. If you're trying to make the case that slavery was envisioned by the most prominent of our founders, you're sadly mistaken. Besides, the issue of slavery was not included in the enumeration of powers expressed in Article I Section VIII, and rightly so. Being the Constitution is a Federal document and not a National document, the argument shifts to the States.
 
getagrip said:
Pay special attention to that "envisioned" term please. If you're trying to make the case that slavery was envisioned by the most prominent of our founders, you're sadly mistaken. Besides, the issue of slavery was not included in the enumeration of powers expressed in Article I Section VIII, and rightly so. Being the Constitution is a Federal document and not a National document, the argument shifts to the States.
Click to expand...

So now you're picking and choosing which of the Founding Fathers are important enough for the people 200 years later to maintain their vision of what the United States should be? Does that also mean that you will pick and choose which Founding Fathers you regard as important for maintaining a moral society based on the Biblical Scriptures and ignore those who didn't believe in maintaining a moral society based on the Biblical Scriptures?

And the argument does not totally shift to the states, as I pointed out earlier the Article IV, Section II, Clause III that constitutionally forces free states to apprehend and return runaway slaves to their owners.
 
Last edited:
samsmart said:
So now you're picking and choosing which of the Founding Fathers are important enough for the people 200 years later to maintain their vision of what the United States should be? Does that also mean that you will pick and choose which Founding Fathers you regard as important for maintaining a moral society based on the Biblical Scriptures and ignore those who didn't believe in maintaining a moral society based on the Biblical Scriptures?

And the argument does not totally shift to the states, as I pointed out earlier the Article IV, Section II, Clause III that constitutionally forces free states to apprehend and return runaway slaves to their owners.
Click to expand...

Not at all. Again, the slavery issue was in no way going to be sufficiently addressed, nor would it have been possible back in that day to outright abolish it. Slavery had become an institution which had been introduced and enforced for centuries. Our Constitution would have never been ratified and we would more likely have morphed into the same failures experienced by the European nations.

It took 13 years from the days of the Declaration just to get to the Ratification process of the Constitution, but you can go back to your "three fifths compromise" to understand the obstacles they faced.

So clue me in here. Are you an atheist or an agnostic?
 
getagrip said:
Not at all. Again, the slavery issue was in no way going to be sufficiently addressed, nor would it have been possible back in that day to outright abolish it. Slavery had become an institution which had been introduced and enforced for centuries. Our Constitution would have never been ratified and we would more likely have morphed into the same failures experienced by the European nations.

It took 13 years from the days of the Declaration just to get to the Ratification process of the Constitution, but you can go back to your "three fifths compromise" to understand the obstacles they faced.
Click to expand...

Well, I pointed out 4 of our Founding Fathers who didn't even see slavery as an obstacle to be overcome. So how do you resolve them in your notion that the Founding Fathers as a whole wanted to create a moral society based on the Biblical Scriptures?
 
samsmart said:
Well, I pointed out 4 of our Founding Fathers who didn't even see slavery as an obstacle to be overcome. So how do you resolve them in your notion that the Founding Fathers as a whole wanted to create a moral society based on the Biblical Scriptures?
Click to expand...

Four Founding Fathers? Are you trying to imply that the majority opinion of that era was in support of slavery? Where have I stated anywhere "the Founding Fathers as a whole?" Again, you're making assertions from my posts and twisting the direction of this discussion with the sole emphasis on slavery.

Was Charles Carroll, a signer of the DOI a leading founder? If his opinion is considered worthy, he spoke for the majority of the sentiments in those days:
Why keep alive the question of slavery? It is admitted by all to be a great evil. (emphasis mine)
-- Life and Correspondence of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, Vol. II, p. 321, April 23, 1820
Click to expand...

The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished as the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude; "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16, though voluntary servitude was permitted under the Mosaic law.

Maybe a little perspective should be noted here. According to Hugh Thomas in The Slave Trade, December 7, 1997 about 11,328,000 Africans were transported to the new world between 1440 and 1870. Of these about 4 million went to Brazil, 2.5 million to Spanish colonies, 2 million to the British West Indies, 1.6 million to the French West Indies, and only 500,000 went to what became the United States of America. In 1700 there were not more than 20 to 30 thousand black slaves in all the colonies. The undeniable fault here lies squarely at the foot of the British. In the quest to expand their empire, the colonies more or less had become merely the financial tool to pay off war debt, and slaves helped to secure that revenue.

The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the founders. Slavery has existed since the fall of mankind in nearly every civilization. At the time of our founders, it's inherent evil didn't even dawn upon them until the colonists woke up in the mid-1760's when they realized they were becoming slaves to the British Empire themselves.

Prior to the great Revolution, the great majority . . . of our people had been so long accustomed to the practice and convenience of having slaves that very few among them even doubted the propriety and rectitude of it.
-- John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, Vol. III, p. 342, to the English Anti-Slavery Society in June 1788.
Click to expand...

For me to continue this discussion, you will have assert your ideals in relation to the topic instead of continuing to challenge mine. And if the main focus of yours is to put the blame of slavery on our founder's envision for America, I consider the matter closed.

So are you an atheist or an agnostic?
 
getagrip said:
Four Founding Fathers? Are you trying to imply that the majority opinion of that era was in support of slavery? Where have I stated anywhere "the Founding Fathers as a whole?" Again, you're making assertions from my posts and twisting the direction of this discussion with the sole emphasis on slavery.

Was Charles Carroll, a signer of the DOI a leading founder? If his opinion is considered worthy, he spoke for the majority of the sentiments in those days:


The overwhelming majority of early Americans and most of America's leaders did not own slaves. Some did own slaves, which were often inherited (like George Washington at age eleven), but many of these people set them free after independence. Most Founders believed that slavery was wrong and that it should be abolished as the Bible strictly forbids involuntary servitude; "He who kidnaps a man, whether he sells him or he is found in his possession, shall surely be put to death." Exodus 21:16, though voluntary servitude was permitted under the Mosaic law.

Maybe a little perspective should be noted here. According to Hugh Thomas in The Slave Trade, December 7, 1997 about 11,328,000 Africans were transported to the new world between 1440 and 1870. Of these about 4 million went to Brazil, 2.5 million to Spanish colonies, 2 million to the British West Indies, 1.6 million to the French West Indies, and only 500,000 went to what became the United States of America. In 1700 there were not more than 20 to 30 thousand black slaves in all the colonies. The undeniable fault here lies squarely at the foot of the British. In the quest to expand their empire, the colonies more or less had become merely the financial tool to pay off war debt, and slaves helped to secure that revenue.

The historical fact is that slavery was not the product of, nor was it an evil introduced by the founders. Slavery has existed since the fall of mankind in nearly every civilization. At the time of our founders, it's inherent evil didn't even dawn upon them until the colonists woke up in the mid-1760's when they realized they were becoming slaves to the British Empire themselves.



For me to continue this discussion, you will have assert your ideals in relation to the topic instead of continuing to challenge mine. And if the main focus of yours is to put the blame of slavery on our founder's envision for America, I consider the matter closed.
Click to expand...

I have asserted my ideals elsewhere in this thread.

I am debating your assertion for the reason why the U.S. should have a religious government, which seems to be, "The Founding Fathers believed in religion in government, therefore we should continue with their vision."

To me, just because the Founding Fathers did something does not make it in and of itself worthy to continue. Such as slavery. While the Founding Fathers may not have started slavery, which I never said they did, they never stopped it or halted it. I have already cited 4 Founding Fathers who wished it to continue. This is to further support my assertion against implementing a religious government simply because the Founding Father did.

getagrip said:
So are you an atheist or an agnostic?
Click to expand...

I am an atheistic agnostic deist Christian Jewish gnostic Luciferean Buddhist shaman Zensunni.
 
samsmart said:
I am an atheistic agnostic deist Christian Jewish Gnostic Luciferean Buddhist shaman Zensunni.
Click to expand...
Damn, it must be hard to avoid confusion while praying...or whatever.
 
The Mark said:
Damn, it must be hard to avoid confusion while praying...or whatever.
Click to expand...

It's not easy. But it's what the enlightened one who has joined with the gods to become the only deity but became insane and chose a people for it's own and sent a messiah to give salvation from the fallen angel who is demonized for granting wisdom to mankind so that we may fight the Thinking Machines that I doubt exists and so don't believe in demands it of me.
 
samsmart said:
It's not easy. But it's what the enlightened one who has joined with the gods to become the only deity but became insane and chose a people for it's own and sent a messiah to give salvation from the fallen angel who is demonized for granting wisdom to mankind so that we may fight the Thinking Machines that I doubt exists and so don't believe in demands it of me.
Click to expand...
:eek: :applaud
 
Jetboogieman said:
The debate of Seperation of Church and State has reared its ugly head once again.

My view here is, if you are against Seperation of Church and State, then you must be for Religious government

I.E. Basing laws and policy using Religious texts.

While some things are more obvious and common sense, such as making murder illegal, other things such as making other religions illegal, teaching only creationism in schools etc... would be against the seperation of church and state.

Is this something you advocate?
Click to expand...

Religious Government as in law being based on religious text? Hell no.

All religious text have passages that can be misinterpreted and religious segregation would occur where those who don't follow State religion would be second class citizens.

I don't even like my MP's talking about religion and the only decent thing Blair did in his years was shut his mouth about his faith until he left office. Any politician who bases their decisions on religion even if it contradicts his constituents views shouldn't be in office
 
"Government that governs least governs best" - John Leland, Thomas Jefferson's baptist minister who heavily influenced the inclusion of the first amendment and Jefferson's views on separation of church and state.

Leland also said:
"Is conformity of sentiments in matters of religion essential to the happiness of civil government? Not at all. Government has no more to do with the religious opinions of men than it has with the principles of the mathematics. Let every man speak freely without fear--maintain the principles that he believes--worship according to his own faith, either one God, three Gods, no God, or twenty Gods; and let government protect him in so doing, i.e., see that he meets with no personal abuse or loss of property for his religious opinions. Instead of discouraging him with proscriptions, fines, confiscation or death, let him be encouraged, as a free man, to bring forth his arguments and maintain his points with all boldness; then if his doctrine is false it will be confuted, and if it is true (though ever so novel) let others credit it. When every man has this liberty what can he wish for more?"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom