Separation of Church n' State

[drbeachboy]

People always seem to forget that "separation of church & state" means separation of religion & state. It was put there so no other religion could be placed above another or become the (endorsed) state religion. It had nothing to do with God and spirituality. The founding fathers all believed in some Supreme Being and that it was guiding them in founding the country, even the Revolution, itself. Over the years it's been perverted into something that it was never meant to be; Godlessness.

I thought that this was an excellent post from yesterday from DrBB, and I quote:

"People always seem to forget that "separation of church & state" means separation of religion & state. It was put there so no other religion could be placed above another or become the (endorsed) state religion. It had nothing to do with God and spirituality."

So, the USA is not a "Chrsitian nation" (thank goodness) but there are those who wish it so.

Would it be wrong to say that we started out as a "Godly" nation? That some in government have perverted "Separation of Church & State" to now mean "Un-Godly"?

[Bean Bag]

So, the USA is not a "Chrsitian nation" (thank goodness) but there are those who wish it so.

When you thank Goodness... what are you thanking?  Anyway, that's a really narrow view of the discussion.  First... it's factually incorrect.  We are a Judeo-Christian nation.  And you should be thankful for that.  Our principles come from and aspire to those great ideals.  We're also a former English colony.  We have an English culture and customs and that's why we're conversing in English right now.

The problem we have today is bad education.  Bad politicians are responsible for the bad education.  So it's getting harder to have a deep meaningful discussions with people, since many don't have the basic facts down.  Politicians love it -- they prefer us dumb so they can easily trick us into perpetually voting for them -- so they can get free caviar for life.  

Secondly, the point of Separation of Chuch n' State is to say... the government shouldn't endorse a single state religion -- because that would create a monolithic Church/State partnership -- which is EXACTLY how the left (or current political class) is using the argument of Church n' State today.  They want to remove ALL religion so the state becomes the monolithic church.  It's the same goal.  Just coming from the left flank.

The goal of the perpetual Statest is to create the monolithic society.  No diversity.  Nothing above THEM.

[Bean Bag]

Would it be wrong to say that we started out as a "Godly" nation? That some in government have perverted "Separation of Church & State" to now mean "Un-Godly"?

Pretty much.  (Rock. Rock, roll.)  They flipped it around on people.  Not unlike how the health/medicine society gets us all hyped on something like Trans-Fats or High Fructose Corn Syrup -- but then over time, what we replace it with is worse or something.  People just get all caught up in something -- "ok we're supposed to be this now!!" -- and nobody sees what's coming around the other side.  Life's a tightrope... more than we'd prefer it to be.

As for the first point -- "starting out as a 'Godly' nation" -- I'm not sure.  There's a book out by Conrad Black called "Flight of the Eagle" which talks about the intelligence and strategy that our founding fathers used -- it wasn't all divinity and light from a cloud.  Sure, faith was important to many of them.  But they owned slaves, many of them.  So they weren't angels.  Really, more than anything, the founding fathers were bright, reasoned, tactical men -- who understood the nature and tendencies of human desires and frailties. 

They were resourceful people who knew how to win.  Which makes me laugh when I think of folks like Hillary or John Kerry serving as Secretary of State -- doing all the negotiating.  We just don't hire the best people for these jobs.   

[Loaf]

hey hey hey, stop calling Democrats 'The Left'. The USA has 2 political parties, Right and Further Right. There is no middle, no left. I know everyone gets worked up about 'liberals' and 'socialists', but it's incorrect.

The Right is not immune from state or dictator worship either (e.g. 1930s Germany), but let's not let the facts get in the way of Making A Point, eh!?

Well, I would have to disagree.  We really ought to allow facts to act as a buffer.

For example, might you be referring to the National Socialism party that arose to power in Germany during the 1930s?  Cuz if so... you know, your batting average is ZIPPY.

Are you implying that the fascist Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s were somehow not Right wing?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

hey hey hey, stop calling Democrats 'The Left'. The USA has 2 political parties, Right and Further Right. There is no middle, no left. I know everyone gets worked up about 'liberals' and 'socialists', but it's incorrect.

The Right is not immune from state or dictator worship either (e.g. 1930s Germany), but let's not let the facts get in the way of Making A Point, eh!?

Well, I would have to disagree.  We really ought to allow facts to act as a buffer.

For example, might you be referring to the National Socialism party that arose to power in Germany during the 1930s?  Cuz if so... you know, your batting average is ZIPPY.

Are you implying that the fascist Nazi party in Germany in the 1930s were somehow not Right wing?

Undoubtedly and it is precisely hogwash. You are exactly correct - the left has been entirely disenfranchised from the legitimate political sphere in the United States, by design, mostly illegal. BB thinks he can get away with his usual fabrications like these because he knows I won't respond directly to him. Please see the introduction to my Sandbox thread "A Long History" where I give a very lengthy analysis of where these fabrications come from. But undoubtedly he is hoping that people will simply accept that Hitler's Nazis were left wingers because of the name National Socialist. But as you suggest, the facts unfortunately tell a different story.

In fact, historically, the Nazis under Hitler viciously opposed socialism and there is a long historical record supporting this. When the Nazis came to power, they had one central opposition – namely the Communist Party of Germany which was established by old school Marxists like Rosa Luxemburg, although the party grew to take on a more authoritarian stance later. After Hitler was appointed Chancellor, he called for an election in 1933 and a week before the election, the Reichstag building burned down which Hitler claimed was a communist conspiracy so he called for Hindenburg to issue the Reichstag Fire Decree which curbed civil liberties and allowed Hitler to go on a spree of jailing communists. Doing that, along with surpressing the Communist vote – meaning a lack of votes for the central Communist Party - gave the Nazi Party the election. If de-legitimizing communists wasn’t enough, Hitler wanted to ensure the total elimination of socialist views from political authority in Germany. This was known as the Night of the Long Knives, wherein Hitler specifically targeted the the left-wing Strasserist faction of the Nazi Party, left over from the pre-Hitler days. The central figure behind the element, Otto Strasser had already been expelled as far back as 1930, Hitler took this even further, ultimately executing the leader of the left wing movement Ernst Rohm, because of Rohm's desire to "redistribute wealth" and impose a socialist platform.

Nationalization was fairly common after the Great Depression and like many other countries, Germany had taken part in attempts to nationalize some resources. What made Germany under the Nazis uniquely different from other western capitalist countries during that same time was their push to transfer ownership of firms to the private sector. In fact, 1934-1937 were crucial years of re-privitization in Germany which saw railways, steel and mining, banking, ship building, and shipping lines placed into private hands. This was a policy that turned, in one particular case, the largest publicly owned business in the world at the time (German Railways or the Deutsche Reichsbahn) into a privately run organization. Indeed, government did intervene in markets as we have seen throughout all historical examples of right-wing capitalist, industrial-based societies. As Claude Guillebaud put it at the time: “the State in fact divested itself of a great deal of its previous direct participation in industry . . . But at the same time state control, regulation and interference in the conduct of economic affairs was enormously extended.” Gullebaud concluded that it was a “cardinal tenet of the Party that the economic order should be based on private initiative and enterprise (in the sense of private ownership of the means of production and the individual assumption of risks) though subject to guidance and control by state.” Guillebaud here could very well be describing the kind of system that brought modern England and the United States to power, though Guillebaud is admittedly leaving out the particularly perverted way that the Nazi state “guided” private industry.

The fact is that wanting a small government does not belong exclusively to one side of the political spectrum. There are both right and left wing positions that call for a small government. Marx noted, as many anarchists who were influenced by Marx picked up, that socialism could only function properly when political power had been eliminated.

As for the left in the US being disenfranchised, I'm afraid the facts are readily apparent on that matter as well. The Socialist Party of America had decent showings during United States history but struggled because of things like their leaders being thrown in prison. Then by the 1950s, the party died out because the government began accusing citizens of disloyalty, treason, and subversion if they happened to associate with anyone who may have had some kind of vague link to communism. Careers were destroyed, and people were imprisoned. Is it any wonder that people stopped voting for the Socialist Party? Of course not - they were being intimidated and it's no coincidence that the party died at the height of the intense Salem-esque hysteria of the 1950s. Then between 1956 and 1971, the CIA was used as the national political police in very much the same way that Stalin used his own police squad, to illegally spy, infiltrate, discredit and disrupt "subversive" organizations - the vast majority of which happened to be socialist and communist groups - under a program called Cointelpro. The program worked and, in many ways, succeeded, in undermining both the Communist Party USA and the Socialist Workers Party. Ultimately, the left as a political enterprise in the U.S. were actively and persistently dismantled, discredited, delegitimized, persecuted, and shut away for decades. The groups and the people in it were made perfectly aware that their very security and their livelihood was in danger by holding these political views. The inevitable consequence was that a once vibrant community was basically reduced to a shell of what it was. This was exactly the intention of the US governmental organizations that were constructed precisely for this purpose - to disenfranchise the left from the political mainstream.

[guitarfool2002]

I think it was drbeachboy and others too who made a great point, one which hit me after that initial post.

In my own words, this kid could be praying to a piece of toast that looks like Al Jardine, for all I care, but he does in America at least have that right.

Which is one thing to actually celebrate, within reason of course.

Do we want kids too young to know much detail beyond what someone in authority tells them to be praying to a piece of toast that looks like Al Jardine?

On one hand the fact that he can be seen in public praying to something other than a mandated, state-enforced religion or religious figure is a testament to America, actually. It's why certain things were set up as they were.

Again...within reason.

But consider the fate of a kid like this if he just happened to be born in, say, any number of countries or societies in the Middle East where you were mandated by the ruling parties to be a devout follower of Islam, follow the teachings of the Koran, and anyone outside of that would be an infidel...and worshiping or praying to anyone but Muhammed in some Islamic cultures is punishable by death.

So it's good the little guy in the video is a kid in a society that doesn't rule over its citizens' religious decisions with a penalty of death hanging over their heads if they choose to publicly worship something or someone other than what the Koran tells them.

I just felt it necessary to point out how some may balk at seeing an American elected official prayed to as near-divinity, if that's indeed what we see in the video. Again, pray to versus pray for, that's the dividing line.

But even so, let's say we get some kind of divine epiphany sitting in a diner and a slice of toast looks like Al Jardine, so we take to YouTube praising the Jardine toast in our own quasi-religious or overtly religious way.

In America, most people may laugh then dismiss than do anything, but we won't have that threat of a local Mullah issuing a fatwah against us for blasphemy or for being an infidel, thus punishable by death.

So that's one thing we have going for us. 

Just as long as it doesn't reach the level of a Hirohito where the general public believed (or was led to believe) that their political leader was not only divine, but also that when he spoke they were hearing the words of a god, and the set of circumstances which put that man in power in Japan were the result of divine fate.

That's some heavy stuff. Hope it never happens where I'm living.

[drbeachboy]

As long as the kid isn't forced by the government to pray to Obama, then nothing is wrong. It is up to his family to steer him in his search to pray to a deity. At the same time you don't want the government dictating who or what you pray to. Government is not supposed to be here to tell you anything, it is here to enforce your rights as a citizen. At least in ideal conditions.

[guitarfool2002]

As long as the kid isn't forced by the government to pray to Obama, then nothing is wrong. It is up to his family to steer him in his search to pray to a deity. At the same time you don't want the government dictating who or what you pray to. Government is not supposed to be here to tell you anything, it is here to enforce your rights as a citizen. At least in ideal conditions.

Right, that's my point. The fact that there are still societies in the year 2013 which are putting people to death who don't pray to what their government leaders order them to worship is far more disturbing than this video. And part of that problem is that the line between religious leaders and government leaders is blurred to the point where they are one in the same, and the government is the religion dictating the way the society works.

Again, the fact that this kid is in a society where he is not ordered to worship a certain way or in a certain faith is actually something to be happy about. At least I am. And we don't need to worry about this kid growing up to be a man and being forced to grow his beard a certain length to avoid some form of physical punishment under the rules of the government-mandated religious laws.

[drbeachboy]

As long as the kid isn't forced by the government to pray to Obama, then nothing is wrong. It is up to his family to steer him in his search to pray to a deity. At the same time you don't want the government dictating who or what you pray to. Government is not supposed to be here to tell you anything, it is here to enforce your rights as a citizen. At least in ideal conditions.

Right, that's my point. The fact that there are still societies in the year 2013 which are putting people to death who don't pray to what their government leaders order them to worship is far more disturbing than this video. And part of that problem is that the line between religious leaders and government leaders is blurred to the point where they are one in the same, and the government is the religion dictating the way the society works.

Again, the fact that this kid is in a society where he is not ordered to worship a certain way or in a certain faith is actually something to be happy about. At least I am. And we don't need to worry about this kid growing up to be a man and being forced to grow his beard a certain length to avoid some form of physical punishment under the rules of the government-mandated religious laws.

Indeed! Iran is a perfect example of what you speak. Church & State together is never a good thing. Our Forefathers knew exactly what would happen without separation of the two. The history of the world is filled with it.

[guitarfool2002]

As long as the kid isn't forced by the government to pray to Obama, then nothing is wrong. It is up to his family to steer him in his search to pray to a deity. At the same time you don't want the government dictating who or what you pray to. Government is not supposed to be here to tell you anything, it is here to enforce your rights as a citizen. At least in ideal conditions.

Right, that's my point. The fact that there are still societies in the year 2013 which are putting people to death who don't pray to what their government leaders order them to worship is far more disturbing than this video. And part of that problem is that the line between religious leaders and government leaders is blurred to the point where they are one in the same, and the government is the religion dictating the way the society works.

Again, the fact that this kid is in a society where he is not ordered to worship a certain way or in a certain faith is actually something to be happy about. At least I am. And we don't need to worry about this kid growing up to be a man and being forced to grow his beard a certain length to avoid some form of physical punishment under the rules of the government-mandated religious laws.

Indeed! Iran is a perfect example of what you speak. Church & State together is never a good thing. Our Forefathers knew exactly what would happen without separation of the two. The history of the world is filled with it.

That was apparently the key issue in the wake of Japan's surrender in 1945, in order to move forward there had to be that separation made clear so that no government nor politician in Japan's future could claim divinity and political power equally.

Note the recent events in Egypt surrounding the "Muslim Brotherhood".

[Heysaboda]

I think it was drbeachboy and others too who made a great point, one which hit me after that initial post.

In my own words, this kid could be praying to a piece of toast that looks like Al Jardine, for all I care, but he does in America at least have that right.

Well, I draw the line at a piece of toast that looks like Bruce Johnston.  That would be disgraceful!   

[Bean Bag]

Toast?  White bread.  Right-wing?  Hitler?

Note the recent events in Egypt surrounding the "Muslim Brotherhood".

Ahhh... yes.  The "Arab Spring."    Did it surprise anyone that Obama dug the whole rise of the Muslim Brotherhood?  The Left branded it the Arab Spring!!!  



Which picture doesn't belong?

[guitarfool2002]

The entire "Arab Spring" bullshit was one of the worst loads of propaganda crap I've seen from the media regarding foreign affairs. To see the likes of Senators McCain and Graham playing along with this, promoting various things surrounding the Arab Spring and the Muslim Brotherhood, and expressing OUTRAGE (that's to signify how outraged McCain was on the Senate floor) that someone would bring the name of Huma Abedin into the discussion of the Brotherhood....well, let's just say everything I thought about McCain and Graham as cheap politicians was confirmed.

I guess part of me gets frustrated when it becomes a case of too many folks just not seeing things for what they are, or not wanting to care about what's going on. I compare it to a group standing around a raging bonfire, and someone says "that's not hot", and others start saying "yeah, that's not hot, right?" "Not hot at all!". And someone gets too close believing it's not hot despite the flames their own eyes are seeing and gets burnt.

Take Egypt for what it is, and note the reasons how and why it would come to a point of an American politician like Obama or McCain expressing even the slightest bit of sympathy or association with a group like Muslim Brotherhood.

Disclaimer: I read Diana West. 

[Chocolate Shake Man]

Recall, of course, that no US leader, and certainly not Obama, supported the Muslim Brotherhood until it was politically impossible not to. Rather, the opposite was the case. The Obama Administration as well as other admins before it, in fact, supported gross violations of human rights carried out against the Muslim Brotherhood by the totalitarian dictatorship of Mubarak that the US was largely funding. Recall that the United States historically supported the regime that threw the central figureheads of the Muslim Brotherhood in jail, and imprisoned thousands of their supporters, eventually holding around 30,000 political prisoners, and preventing the right of fair trail and the right of free votes. The United States, as per their usual historical record, opposed democracy in the region (this is not only true of Egypt but of the whole region) and this meant supporting a regime that kept the Muslim Brotherhood as political prisoners. Then, also in keeping with the historical record that included supporting dictators like Suharto, Marcos, Duvalier up until they were finally deposed, when it became clear that it would only be an international embarrassment to continue to support tyranny in the region in the face of a transforming and increasingly more democratic state, the US did an about face and pretended as if they had supported this democratic shift the whole time. But really, it was only after the army shifted gears that the US got on board with the new regime and now once again, they are supporting the army, which means, ultimately, supporting a military coup against a democratically elected government, thereby supporting the restoration of the Mubarak military dictatorship (Mubarak himself is not involved but the coup is backed by key members of the regime) in the region which given the historical record is probably what they wanted all along.

[grillo]

How about separation of Me and State? Is that possible? (waits for the "love it or leave it crowd" to chime in)

[Chocolate Shake Man]

How about separation of Me and State? Is that possible? (waits for the "love it or leave it crowd" to chime in)

How about the separation of everyone from State. But to do this you need to be prepared to actually acknowledge what that means and it also means being prepared to engage with real ideas and do real work rather than the self-justifying back-slapping intellectual exercises that is the contemporary American faux-Libertarian movement.

[guitarfool2002]

I don't view the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its offshoots as in any way a sympathetic group, or one to be sympathized let alone be supported or given de facto support by the likes of McCain, Obama, and whoever else.

Yet this issue is a third rail in US politics, where even putting out hard facts about what or who the group is and what they endorse gets blasted as having overtones of racism or intolerance.

I'm watching the events in Egypt and seeing several issues no one really wants to debate in the political arena coming to a head. If it has not already reached a breaking point, that is.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I don't view the Muslim Brotherhood or any of its offshoots as in any way a sympathetic group, or one to be sympathized let alone be supported or given de facto support by the likes of McCain, Obama, and whoever else.

Again, though, they've never had much sympathy from US political leaders. To repeat, when the Muslim Brotherhood were victims of gross human rights violations, with tens of thousands of supporters illegally thrown in jail, the US applauded by continuing the fund the army carrying out these crimes. The reason why the US hasn't had sympathy historically for the Brotherhood is obvious. It clearly has nothing to do with theology. If that were true, the US wouldn't have historically supported Islamization programs. What has made the Brotherhood worthy of scorn by US leaders and targets of a rather sickening propaganda campaign which has, by and large, spread a great deal of falsehoods about the Brotherhood, is the fact that the Muslim Brotherhood has historically come out in favor of social welfare and the interests of the population and, as a result, they have represented the possibility of democracy. These are things that the United States largely opposes and therefore it has been necessary to oppose the Brotherhood and support the tyrannical responses that worked illegally to repress them.

[guitarfool2002]

But those who don't support a state-mandated religion and a government working hand-in-hand or promoting a single religion over any others would have a bigger problem with the Muslim Brotherhood in theory taking government control over any society, no matter how positive their motives and social changes are suggested to be.

Would there be sympathy for a similarly-named Catholic Brotherhood or Morman Brotherhood political group seeking government power and control over a given country in a way similar to what the Muslim Brotherhood has done and is doing? Vote for us, we'll force you to worship the religion we mandate and enforce laws specified to followers of that religion. Wouldn't that be considered the ultimate anathema to those seeking a religion-free government structure? They remove not only the freedom to practice something other than Islam, but also the freedom not to practice at all, if the extreme conclusions would be reached and it becomes another example as we see in several Middle East countries being governed under Sharia law.

Or does the Muslim Brotherhood get a free pass on enacting and enforcing an official religion when they would assume government power in a society?

Again, just my own two cents and if you want to call it bias then have at it, but it's hard to support or sympathize with a religious organization who would seek power, then mandate a specific religion be followed by everyone in that country, and the extreme elements in that party may choose to follow the extreme tenets of the religion the party is named for...namely the treatment and views of women in that religion and the treatment of homosexuals and citizens who practice religions other than Islam.

It's quite a step to take from claiming intolerance within the US to having entire societies where people are punished and put to death for not following the strict rules of that country's mandated religion.

Again, I simply don't feel any sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood or their beliefs. And the beliefs can quite easily be found in their own publications, for those willing to seek them out.

[Chocolate Shake Man]

But those who don't support a state-mandated religion and a government working hand-in-hand or promoting a single religion over any others would have a bigger problem with the Muslim Brotherhood in theory taking government control over any society, no matter how positive their motives and social changes are suggested to be.

Would there be sympathy for a similarly-named Catholic Brotherhood or Morman Brotherhood political group seeking government power and control over a given country in a way similar to what the Muslim Brotherhood has done and is doing? Vote for us, we'll force you to worship the religion we mandate and enforce laws specified to followers of that religion. Wouldn't that be considered the ultimate anathema to those seeking a religion-free government structure? They remove not only the freedom to practice something other than Islam, but also the freedom not to practice at all, if the extreme conclusions would be reached and it becomes another example as we see in several Middle East countries being governed under Sharia law.

That would be problematic in Egypt (or Egypt, under the leadership of the Muslim Brotherhood) if it were true but it isn't. The freedom of religion in Egypt was certainly problematic but not in the way you describe. In fact, those who practised Christianity or Judaism were as equally protected by the constitution as those who practiced Islam so this notion that "we'll force you to worship to religion we mandate" sounds scary enough but simply does not hold to what were the realities of Egypt before the military coup. The government did essentially outlaw one major religion, namely, Baha’is. That is problematic but where the religious laws were most conservative were the outlawing of blasphemy. Therefore the real targets of the religious law in Egypt were not those who practised other faiths but rather those who practiced no faiths and those who were critical of faiths.

Again, just my own two cents and if you want to call it bias then have at it, but it's hard to support or sympathize with a religious organization who would seek power, then mandate a specific religion be followed by everyone in that country, and the extreme elements in that party may choose to follow the extreme tenets of the religion the party is named for...namely the treatment and views of women in that religion and the treatment of homosexuals and citizens who practice religions other than Islam.

Obviously lots of problems though I think we are better off solving these problems by focusing on the realities rather than the fabrications, which gets us nowhere. Are the Muslim Brotherhood ideal? Absolutely not. Is it up to you or me to decide for the Egyptians who is ideal? Absolutely not. The fact is, the Brotherhood were elected democratically and if we care about democracy beyond just meaningless rhetoric, then we have to have to support it when we see it rather than encourage its suppression (which has been the history) or encourage the undermining of democracy and its reversion to military dictatorship (which seems to be happening now)

Again, I simply don't feel any sympathy for the Muslim Brotherhood or their beliefs. And the beliefs can quite easily be found in their own publications, for those willing to seek them out.

I agree that one should seek them out. Reading them will uncover the staggeringly gross manipulations that have been set in place by a vulgar propaganda campaign. In fact, a quick view of the opinions of the party founder Hassan Al-Banna works within a couple of paragraphs to undermine the general construction that we typically see.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm talking about the Muslim Brotherhood in general, not specific to Egypt. The core foundations of that group are seeking power then governing and ruling under Sharia law, which is strictly Islamic in nature and structure and does not allow for the freedom to practice or not practice religion of choice. Freedom of religion is as much the freedom not to practice as it is to practice. Under Sharia law, there is no other religion but Islam. Therefore, if you do not practice Islam, you are breaking the law.

If the concerns of those who worry about keeping religion and government separate are going to be applied across the board, then a group whose core foundation is built on following a specific religion and its beliefs through the laws enforced on that society should come under scrutiny as they seek to expand their influence.

[Heysaboda]

When you thank Goodness... what are you thanking?  Anyway, that's a really narrow view of the discussion.  First... it's factually incorrect.  We are a Judeo-Christian nation.  And you should be thankful for that.  Our principles come from and aspire to those great ideals.  We're also a former English colony.  We have an English culture and customs and that's why we're conversing in English right now.

The problem we have today is bad education.  Bad politicians are responsible for the bad education.  So it's getting harder to have a deep meaningful discussions with people, since many don't have the basic facts down.  Politicians love it -- they prefer us dumb so they can easily trick us into perpetually voting for them -- so they can get free caviar for life.  

Secondly, the point of Separation of Chuch n' State is to say... the government shouldn't endorse a single state religion -- because that would create a monolithic Church/State partnership -- which is EXACTLY how the left (or current political class) is using the argument of Church n' State today.  They want to remove ALL religion so the state becomes the monolithic church.  It's the same goal.  Just coming from the left flank.

The goal of the perpetual Statest is to create the monolithic society.  No diversity.  Nothing above THEM.

My point, BB, was that we have no "state-sponsored" religion, currently anyway.  Our heritage may be "judeo-christian-etc." but we are not a "Christian nation".

This may be semantics, or rather some antics.

[Heysaboda]

People always seem to forget that "separation of church & state" means separation of religion & state. It was put there so no other religion could be placed above another or become the (endorsed) state religion. It had nothing to do with God and spirituality. The founding fathers all believed in some Supreme Being and that it was guiding them in founding the country, even the Revolution, itself. Over the years it's been perverted into something that it was never meant to be; Godlessness.

I thought that this was an excellent post from yesterday from DrBB, and I quote:

"People always seem to forget that "separation of church & state" means separation of religion & state. It was put there so no other religion could be placed above another or become the (endorsed) state religion. It had nothing to do with God and spirituality."

So, the USA is not a "Chrsitian nation" (thank goodness) but there are those who wish it so.

Would it be wrong to say that we started out as a "Godly" nation? That some in government have perverted "Separation of Church & State" to now mean "Un-Godly"?

DrBB

I would say that the Framers of the Constitution were “rational” and “enlightened”.  Not “godly” but also not anti-god.

This is in contrast to the nation of spoiled babies that we have become.  You know, expecting everything for free and taking No responsibility for our actions.

[guitarfool2002]

My point, BB, was that we have no "state-sponsored" religion, currently anyway.  Our heritage may be "judeo-christian-etc." but we are not a "Christian nation".

This may be semantics, or rather some antics.

Great point, and on the surface it plays into my concerns with a group like the Muslim Brotherhood whose foundation is based on a state-sponsored religion, in their case Islam.

If we are concerned with avoiding a specific state-sponsored religion as the foundation of a government, why then wouldn't it be even more of a concern with groups like Muslim Brotherhood seeking that very goal through their political activities?

[Chocolate Shake Man]

I'm talking about the Muslim Brotherhood in general, not specific to Egypt. The core foundations of that group are seeking power then governing and ruling under Sharia law, which is strictly Islamic in nature and structure and does not allow for the freedom to practice or not practice religion of choice. Freedom of religion is as much the freedom not to practice as it is to practice. Under Sharia law, there is no other religion but Islam. Therefore, if you do not practice Islam, you are breaking the law.

Well, then, I think your problem is less with the Muslim Brotherhood than with that kind of Sharia law. I agree with you on that, by the way. However, that being said, there are variants to those who adhere to Sharia law and very crucial differences that often fall on generational lines. So, for example, second and third generation advocates the human rights aspects whilst the first generation advocate a more strict adherence to the Koran. These differences are crucial and well worth knowing when discussing the issue because when brushing off Sharia or the Muslim Brotherhood with one stroke, we risk throwing out the wrong ideas because quite possibly we could be talking about supporters of a religious identity but not necessarily supporters of a state-mandated religious identity. Personally, I think there would be better ways to go about achieving human rights but I'll take what I can get.

But again, we have to be quite serious on this discussion because from our point of view, our leaders couldn't care less about Sharia law. One of the biggest US allies has been for a long time Saudi Arabia, who are one of the most fundamentalist states in the world. Political opposition to (or support of, for that matter) the Muslim Brotherhood has entirely nothing to do with religious ideology.