| Author |
Message |
|
fougere
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 56
|
 Posted: 10 Nov 2009 05:00:55 pm Post subject: |
|
|
There is some overlap with the choices, sorry; and my examples may not be the best. Please feel free to bash me if I've gotten something wrong.
I realize that your answers to this poll will be strongly swayed by your religious beliefs / lack thereof. In the discussion, though, please express your views on which of these ideas you think are most successful, even if you don't support them. (eg. Hitler, Stalin, and Mao Tse-Tung WERE SUCCESSFUL (for a while, at least) even though (almost) everbody despises them.)
Last edited by Guest on 11 Nov 2009 08:52:49 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fullmetalcoder
Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2009
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: 10 Nov 2009 05:25:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FougereRapide wrote: and my examples may not be the best.
Damn right! You cannot seriously consider the US as a proper example of state/church separation when politicians are expected to be theist (sorry if the vocab isn't quite right). Also, AFAIK there are many occasions where people are required to swear on the Bible as part of executive, legislative or judiciary processes. Admittedly this is not a *direct* interference of *church* but I'd argue that the effects are even more pernicious...
FougereRapide wrote: most successful
How do you measure successfulness? (Based on your examples of successfulness I guess I'm likely to disagree with your definition but that's another matter). |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fougere
Advanced Newbie
Joined: 07 Aug 2009
Posts: 56
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2009 04:50:30 pm Post subject: |
|
|
that's why I put 'though this is debatable' next to the US example because that's what it's 'supposed' to be, although I fully agree with you that it's not.
As for successfulness, obviously a country/empire/dynasty/etc can't be successful for forever. There has to be a failure sometime. So, I guess you could judge them by how long they were in power, among other things. The Mongol Empire (which was arguably the largest empire) was extremely short lived. The Roman Empire, for a while at least, maintain a general 'peace' (Pax Romana). Counting the Byzantine Empire as an extension of the Roman Empire, it lasted for a heck of a long time. So, things to consider for successfulness: size of its territory of influence, length of time in power, happiness of the people, etc. I am not going to give an order of importance to these, nor am I giving a definition of successful, just guidelines. Interpret it how you want.
EDIT: I also realize that most of the people on this forum will vote for #1, oh well.
Last edited by Guest on 11 Nov 2009 04:52:00 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fullmetalcoder
Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2009
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2009 05:16:15 pm Post subject: |
|
|
FougereRapide wrote: So, I guess you could judge them by how long they were in power, among other things.
[...]
I am not going to give an order of importance to these, nor am I giving a definition of successful, just guidelines. Interpret it how you want.
Slightly contradictory but anyway my understanding is that you want to consider the successfulness of a society and correlate it to the relationships between state and church. Am I missing something?
Anyway my opinion is that they should be independent by design because they deal with different domains and history provides us with a load of examples of the undesirable (sorry, cannot find a more appropriate word in english...) effects of one (or both) going "out of scope". |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
|
| Posted: 11 Nov 2009 09:03:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I may be biased from living in the United States. But is there anywhere in the world, regardless of how well church and state are separated, where the former is performing any useful function whatsoever? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fullmetalcoder
Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2009
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 06:02:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
I may be biased from not living in the United States. But is there anywhere in the world, regardless of how well church and state are separated, where the later is performing any useful function whatsoever?
:P |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lordelo
Newbie
Joined: 29 Oct 2009
Posts: 21
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 06:25:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Looking at the votes so far made me laugh. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Graphmastur
Advanced Member
Joined: 25 Mar 2009
Posts: 360
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 06:58:00 am Post subject: |
|
|
The original concept of separation of church and state came from when Henry 8 wanted to divorce his first wife, and couldn't being of the catholic church. So he broke off from the church, and started his own Anglican church. So since the state was now ruling the church, people who came to the US did not want the state to be involved in the church matters. This does not mean that the church ideas are not supposed to permeate through the state, but really, just the opposite.
Sep. Of C&S was not designed to protect the state from the church, but to protect the church from the state.
Did you know that Sep. of C&S is not even in the Constitution? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
polarBody
Newbie
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 11:51:52 am Post subject: |
|
|
Graphmastur wrote: Did you know that Sep. of C&S is not even in the Constitution?
On the contrary, the 1st amendment of the Constitution spells out pretty clearly that the government is to have no control over any religion, or over anyone's free exercise of religion. If that's not separation of church and state, then I don't know what is. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ah-blabla
Newbie
Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 04:22:19 pm Post subject: |
|
|
polarBody wrote: Graphmastur wrote: Did you know that Sep. of C&S is not even in the Constitution?
On the contrary, the 1st amendment of the Constitution spells out pretty clearly that the government is to have no control over any religion, or over anyone's free exercise of religion. If that's not separation of church and state, then I don't know what is.
That doesn't rule out religion taking over state. I.e. all the clergy *might* be voted in to govern, and and then that means the church has control of the state. But I'm nit picking and pedanticising here. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
polarBody
Newbie
Joined: 02 Sep 2009
Posts: 30
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 06:08:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [quote name='ah-blabla' post='138459' date='Nov 12 2009, 03:22 PM'] polarBody wrote: Graphmastur wrote: Did you know that Sep. of C&S is not even in the Constitution?
On the contrary, the 1st amendment of the Constitution spells out pretty clearly that the government is to have no control over any religion, or over anyone's free exercise of religion. If that's not separation of church and state, then I don't know what is.
That doesn't rule out religion taking over state. I.e. all the clergy *might* be voted in to govern, and and then that means the church has control of the state. But I'm nit picking and pedanticising here.
[/quote]
Even if members of the clergy are voted into office, they're still bound by the constitution and, as such, they are not allowed to influence religion with policy. It would be unconstitutional for them to do so. Of course, the hypothetical clergy in office could overthrow the current government, invalidating the constitution, but now we're no longer talking about the US government as we know it.
Although, it is true that policies made by clergy members would be influenced by their religion. But then in any country where the free practice of religion is allowed, inevitably you will have politicians whose policies are influenced by their religion. The only true way to separate religion from the government is to ban religion, in which case the separation of church and state becomes meaningless. Of course, banning religion in today's society is a ridiculous idea, since there are so many practitioners, so I think it's simply unfeasible to prevent religious influence in the government.
Last edited by Guest on 12 Nov 2009 06:24:35 pm; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
calc84maniac
Elite
Joined: 22 Jan 2007
Posts: 770
|
| Posted: 12 Nov 2009 06:51:01 pm Post subject: |
|
|
polarBody wrote: [quote name='ah-blabla' post='138459' date='Nov 12 2009, 03:22 PM'] polarBody wrote: Graphmastur wrote: Did you know that Sep. of C&S is not even in the Constitution?
On the contrary, the 1st amendment of the Constitution spells out pretty clearly that the government is to have no control over any religion, or over anyone's free exercise of religion. If that's not separation of church and state, then I don't know what is.
That doesn't rule out religion taking over state. I.e. all the clergy *might* be voted in to govern, and and then that means the church has control of the state. But I'm nit picking and pedanticising here.
Even if members of the clergy are voted into office, they're still bound by the constitution and, as such, they are not allowed to influence religion with policy. It would be unconstitutional for them to do so. Of course, the hypothetical clergy in office could overthrow the current government, invalidating the constitution, but now we're no longer talking about the US government as we know it.
Although, it is true that policies made by clergy members would be influenced by their religion. But then in any country where the free practice of religion is allowed, inevitably you will have politicians whose policies are influenced by their religion. The only true way to separate religion from the government is to ban religion, in which case the separation of church and state becomes meaningless. Of course, banning religion in today's society is a ridiculous idea, since there are so many practitioners, so I think it's simply unfeasible to prevent religious influence in the government.
[/quote]
Here's the problem though - when people think of "separation of church and state," they think that means religion (or religious ideas) should have no influence in the government. They say that our policies shouldn't be influenced by our religion - which is just ridiculous, like you said. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fullmetalcoder
Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2009
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2009 02:29:14 am Post subject: |
|
|
calc84maniac wrote: polarBody wrote: [quote name='ah-blabla' post='138459' date='Nov 12 2009, 03:22 PM'] polarBody wrote: Graphmastur wrote: Did you know that Sep. of C&S is not even in the Constitution?
On the contrary, the 1st amendment of the Constitution spells out pretty clearly that the government is to have no control over any religion, or over anyone's free exercise of religion. If that's not separation of church and state, then I don't know what is.
That doesn't rule out religion taking over state. I.e. all the clergy *might* be voted in to govern, and and then that means the church has control of the state. But I'm nit picking and pedanticising here.
Even if members of the clergy are voted into office, they're still bound by the constitution and, as such, they are not allowed to influence religion with policy. It would be unconstitutional for them to do so. Of course, the hypothetical clergy in office could overthrow the current government, invalidating the constitution, but now we're no longer talking about the US government as we know it.
Although, it is true that policies made by clergy members would be influenced by their religion. But then in any country where the free practice of religion is allowed, inevitably you will have politicians whose policies are influenced by their religion. The only true way to separate religion from the government is to ban religion, in which case the separation of church and state becomes meaningless. Of course, banning religion in today's society is a ridiculous idea, since there are so many practitioners, so I think it's simply unfeasible to prevent religious influence in the government.
Here's the problem though - when people think of "separation of church and state," they think that means religion (or religious ideas) should have no influence in the government.
[/quote]
And that's a common misunderstanding : church is not religion, it is the institutionalisation of religion and that makes a hell of a difference (it is technically possible to practise a religion without agreeing with the church related to it...). In "separation of church and state", "church" does mean "church" and not "religion" so the whole issue of politicians being influenced by their religion is *irrelevant* just like that of politicians being influenced by vegetarianism or fondness in a particular music would be.
Last edited by Guest on 13 Nov 2009 02:29:37 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ah-blabla
Newbie
Joined: 28 Oct 2009
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2009 02:36:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
fullmetalcoder wrote: calc84maniac wrote:
Here's the problem though - when people think of "separation of church and state," they think that means religion (or religious ideas) should have no influence in the government.
And that's a common misunderstanding : church is not religion, it is the institutionalisation of religion and that makes a hell of a difference (it is technically possible to practise a religion without agreeing with the church related to it...). In "separation of church and state", "church" does mean "church" and not "religion" so the whole issue of politicians being influenced by their religion is *irrelevant* just like that of politicians being influenced by vegetarianism or fondness in a particular music would be.
And I would definitely prefer politicians to be motivated by religion, rather than by greed which one *could* say many seem to be motivated by
Last edited by Guest on 13 Nov 2009 02:36:51 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DarkerLine
ceci n'est pas une |
Super Elite (Last Title)
Joined: 04 Nov 2003
Posts: 8328
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2009 03:50:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| It's not an either/or. Politicians can be motivated by greed, or they can be motivated by religion and greed. In the former case, at least they will only do terrible things if it helps them out personally, which tends to limit the damage they can do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
fullmetalcoder
Member
Joined: 01 Aug 2009
Posts: 139
|
| Posted: 13 Nov 2009 11:41:01 am Post subject: |
|
|
DarkerLine wrote: It's not an either/or. Politicians can be motivated by greed, or they can be motivated by religion and greed. In the former case, at least they will only do terrible things if it helps them out personally, which tends to limit the damage they can do.
Almost, but not quite, true.
A slightly more accurate view is to make a distinction between "egoistic dickhead" and "altruist dickhead" (sorry that's just a rough translation that may or may not convey my point...). The difference between these two is that the later is convinced (or pretends to be, doesn't really make a difference) to be acting for the "greater good" and end up doing a lot more damage than the former could ever do. Under this classification most of the famous dictators of the past (Staline, Hitler, Mao to name but a few) were "altruist" whereas your average politician, no matter how much you dislike it, would be "egoistic".
Again, the (pretended) source of that "altruism" is *irrelevant* for anything else than history : it is merely a context. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
Open Topic & United-TI Talk => General Open Topic
