Have you ever read the constitution? The first amendment clearly mentions seperation of church and state. It protects religions group including those who don't believe. Iran is a wonderful example of how religion and politics blend real well. Have you ever read history? The Spanish inquistion(s) was a lovely event. Right here in colonial American we had the Salem witch trials. Religion has brought such wonderful things to the world such as most of the wars and burning alive mentally ill people
@somethingdiffereable Have you really looked at the history of war, or are you just spewing out atheist propoganda?? Less than 7% of wars, in recorded history, had a religious cause, and 67% of that 7% were started by the Islamic religion. BTW, that's not a knock on Islam, it's a defense of Christianity. That leaves 93%. 93% of all recorded wars were caused by the secular religion, and yes I call it a religion. When was the last war, caused by Christianity?
@somethingdiffereable Atheists like to mention the witch trials, but did Americans kill more witches, or indians?? Were those indians killed because they wouldn't convert, or was it simply a huge land grab??
You guys point to Iran as an example of religious states, but that's a red herring, we're not pushing for a religious state. We can point to the USSR as an atheist state, how did that work out??
@medic85573 Less than 100 people were killed in the Salem witch trials. Sure, bad times and chilling example of superstition running amok but not comparable to colonialism.
(cont.) of course he does not, but you should have the right to eject those who attempt to take away fundamental rights from a group. That was the basic premise of my statement.
Also I don't believe it is as plain as your previous statement, that because others have the right to eject a politician, others can eject those they choose.
An example would be that someone who holds a religion believes thinks that he has the right to beat his child for not believing in his religion. Does he now have the right to remove those in office who do not agree with his views?
@dethcx22 Or denying all religious symbols from public land. You see the difficulty here is you seem to suggesting that religious view are inferior to secular or atheist views. As such you seem willing to treat the religious as second class citizens that must keep their belief confined to stain glass ghettos. Is am say all beliefs have a right to be in the public forum.
For example you talk about religious beatings well what about secular abortions? At least in the beating the person lives.
@Hunterkirk You still don't seem to understand the back principle of my premise. The person being beaten is being subjugated to an act that is influenced by someone's religion. They should not have to put up with it. Abortions are invalid as abortion can be used by both those of faith as those without faith. Only those with faith can use their religion to punish someone.
@Hunterkirk Also, I am not suggesting those with faith are somehow inferior, I am simply suggesting religious views have no place in politics. Those of faith are welcome into a political party, as long as they don't subjugate those without faith to the laws they create/influence. These laws should never be create as it undermines the foundation of your country.
(cont.) only with this method (as far as I can see) everyone is protected. Of course churches can be built, religions can comment of certain events with their views, but any religion person(s) that attempts to control, dictate or deny rights to others in my personal opinion is wrong.
(cont.) a law with their religion. I personally have nothing against religious people (or otherwise) holding a role within a government. It's only when it starts to effect others who do not hold such beliefs.
If your beliefs are greatly effecting others in such a way, who do not hold this believe, an enquiry should be made, and if sufficient evidence is presented then that person(s) should be removed from office.
@dethcx22 "If your beliefs are greatly effecting others in such a way, who do not hold this believe, an enquiry should be made, and if sufficient evidence is presented then that person(s) should be removed from office."
Yet many belief are in place today of progressives and the anti religious. Religious beliefs are of no lesser value then that of the atheist or secularist progressives. So if you are going to eject a person because of their religion then we should be able to eject a progressive.
@Hunterkirk Of course, I simply meant that if a fundamental right such as marriage or the right to vote is challenged, that person (s) needs to be removed from office.
It makes no difference if that person is religious or not, as everyone is entitled to these basic rights. I meant that if a group or person (s) (be it religious or otherwise) attempts to take away such basic rights, they should be removed.
@Hunterkirk Of course, other additional rights can be presented to a particular group or person(s), as long as these rights don't conflict with already established laws, and don't oppress others. The separation is fundamental as it tries to establish a framework, so all who live can get on with each other.
@Hunterkirk Also I did not state I wanted to "eject a person because of their religion". I simply said I believe that if your religious, you should not bring your religion to work with you if you work for the government. Your actions should be solely based on a political viewpoint, with no religious input.
"if your religious, you should not bring your religion to work with you" Then I would suggest you don't understand the nature of religion. Religion is not like soccer or football in which you practice it only at home or on the field but not at work. Religion flavors the whole of your life and shapes how you interact with people and codes of daily conduct.
In a representative government one should expect that the religious flavors will effect the government. To do otherwise is a dictatorship.
@Hunterkirk Actually, using religion within a government role could be considered a dictatorship, as I have previously mentioned, not all of those who reside in America are believers. Creating laws with a religious agenda is religious dictatorship, and only holds the values of the group the law is made for.
While I am unfamiliar with the "laws" of soccer or football, I am aware of the "nature" of religion. One can look through history, religion can be effectively used as a form of dictating.
Any complete control of government by any ideology can become a dictatorship. Environmentalism could become a dictatorship for example and in some way it is attempting to do so. I specifically used the term flavor for a reason. The morality that comes out of a religion should effect a government in which the majority are a member of that faith. BUT the key is that they system must never lock out change or free expression of ideas. So the country can change with moral shifting of its people.
@Hunterkirk I am in agreement that ideologies can become dictatorships. Although I don't believe that religion creates morality. Obviously, religion can provide a structure to form a moral basis, but the religion does not "give" morality.
Also the lesser groups must be taken into consideration, no matter how larger or small. Everyone's view is as valid as the next person's, and I am sure you understand and accept this. Expression of ideas is also paramount, as ideology is a driving force of us
Yes smaller groups need to have some consideration. The smallest group is the individual. This is where laws that prohibit free worship, free speech, open protesting, and so on get in the way of a representative republic. Yet in a representative government some kind of legal structure has to exist and it has to be representative of the majority (with the safe guards for the minority). If it is only representative of the minority then you have a dictatorship not a representative government.
@dethcx22 Another thing you must remember is that religion is not monolithic. Not every Christian agrees with all other Christians. As such with the many denominations of the Christian faith come many flavors of morals that affect the government and its laws. You have liberal Christians who focus of social justice (over God) and you have Fundamentalist who focus on God over the World. You have many flavors between those. You have Christians in name only who rarely attend church.
@Hunterkirk Of course, but it is those who are in power whom I am concerned about. Creating laws and decisions without proper input from others. To brush Christians with a single brush would be ignorant.
@Hunterkirk And for future reference, I am very aware of religion. I was brought up with many members of my family being Christians, and my Grandmother (who was a Jehovah's Witness).
She had her beliefs, as did the rest of the family, yet never expressed them to each other, nor did they preach to me or expect me to believe. I questioned her about her beliefs many a time, and was brought up to think for myself. She believed, as I do, that I deserved to think for myself, and I do, Brilliantly.
@dethcx22 I think most people think for themselves. I just think people who disagree with the thoughts of others (when they see them group up with others who think like they do) assume that all those within the group are not thinking for themselves. The mistake agreement with following or brain washing.
@Hunterkirk Yes, groups are generalised. Those who believe have every right to, and I would be willing to stand up in court or fight for that freedom.
It's only when it's oppressive or dictating to other's is when I try to intervene. Anyone can believe in anything, I don't mind and have no objections, but I do mind when it effects other's of another belief or of no belief.
@dethcx22 Then I suspect you will be continually upset, if you are honest with yourself. :)
I say that because every action of our government is based on a belief of one sort or another and those actions effect everyone in the country. The only solution is a very weak and small central government with only a few laws. For example I like the old bulbs that the government is planning to make illegal in the name of environmentalist beliefs. The new bulbs give me migraines.
@Hunterkirk Yes, I probably will although I won't try to change every little detail of government. I would rather try to create an equal life for everyone. (I also hate the new light bulbs, and they are already illegal in my country).
I understand that someone who is elected may have a certain faith. I also understand that someone's religious beliefs should not effect your rights to being elected, or holding a certain position, be it in the public eye or not.
I personally feel that a secular government is the best as the religious views and beliefs should not affect an outcome of any decision made by any person in government. What I personally have a problem with is when someone who has a religious belief influences ...
People of faith (any faith) should not be denied representation in a Representative government. You may be fond of a Secularist Dictatorship in which all religious thought is forced behind closed doors, but I reject such oppression.
The morality of the country needs to reflect the morality of its people, not the elite rulers.
excellent video. yes, You put it so clearly. thank you. it was to protect the rightsof the people to worship freely and as they saw fit and not have the gvt. hinder such religious expression.
State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. Thomas Jefferson
I find it funny that the letter was only found 60 years ago and that Jefferson had no problem what so ever with the mixing of religion and the state while he live and in several other speeches he made. The funny thing is those who bow to the Supreme court that took this line out of context forget what the founding fathers were against... a state religion and not any interaction between the two... the atheist dream... which is BS.
Please if you don't mind send me a link of him making speeches were he mingled church and state and that his speech was found 60 yrs ago. But you deleted the 1st amendment comment too. WHY? Are you hiding something?
First off you need no know something about the history at the time and what was happening with religion in Europe. It is also important to remember that for 150 years religion mixed with the without becoming a State religion.
Now with that...
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
Also it is important to remember Jefferson ISNT the Constitution so using a sound bite to from a letter to install rule making religion illegal on public lands was in fact UnConstitutional... and a gross over stepping of Supreme Court Powers and should have been a ignored ruling as it was in itself unconstitutional.
As I seem to remember there were more then one person in that room and it was edited many many times by those other people. To claim Jefferson is to soul writer and soul voice put forward in the Constitution is well BS.
Well from understanding a panel of 5 men including Jefferson which the committee choose Jefferson to write the 1st draft which the committee didn't revise it many times but a third of the draft which criticized the slave trade was throught out.
And of the 1st draft which large disappear with the amendments.. lets look at those 5..
Benjamin Franklin: God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?.."
There is more. By what you are claiming the Declaration of Independence is illegal and should be destroyed because it mentions God.
Yes Ben Franklin was a religious. All I know is the this First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
I'm sure you're gonna delete this too.
Which of course doesn't take either side. But to be fair to a diverse country we all should respect each other's beliefs, thus keeping everyone's out of state (being fair). But, racist and bigiots are selfish.
Have you ever read the constitution? The first amendment clearly mentions seperation of church and state. It protects religions group including those who don't believe. Iran is a wonderful example of how religion and politics blend real well. Have you ever read history? The Spanish inquistion(s) was a lovely event. Right here in colonial American we had the Salem witch trials. Religion has brought such wonderful things to the world such as most of the wars and burning alive mentally ill people
somethingdiffereable 9 months ago
@somethingdiffereable Have you ever read the constitution? The First Amendment clearly mentions free practice of religion.
Hunterkirk 9 months ago
@somethingdiffereable Have you really looked at the history of war, or are you just spewing out atheist propoganda?? Less than 7% of wars, in recorded history, had a religious cause, and 67% of that 7% were started by the Islamic religion. BTW, that's not a knock on Islam, it's a defense of Christianity. That leaves 93%. 93% of all recorded wars were caused by the secular religion, and yes I call it a religion. When was the last war, caused by Christianity?
medic85573 9 months ago
@somethingdiffereable Atheists like to mention the witch trials, but did Americans kill more witches, or indians?? Were those indians killed because they wouldn't convert, or was it simply a huge land grab??
You guys point to Iran as an example of religious states, but that's a red herring, we're not pushing for a religious state. We can point to the USSR as an atheist state, how did that work out??
medic85573 9 months ago
@medic85573 Less than 100 people were killed in the Salem witch trials. Sure, bad times and chilling example of superstition running amok but not comparable to colonialism.
MsColdCanada 7 months ago
I must thank you for this debate, as I rarely get a chance to do so. I have to get some sleep, as it's 4.00am here. :D
dethcx22 1 year ago
@dethcx22 It was fun... best wishes.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
Sorry for the extreme amount of posts :D I wish Youtube had a larger Character limit.
dethcx22 1 year ago
(cont.) of course he does not, but you should have the right to eject those who attempt to take away fundamental rights from a group. That was the basic premise of my statement.
dethcx22 1 year ago
Also I don't believe it is as plain as your previous statement, that because others have the right to eject a politician, others can eject those they choose.
An example would be that someone who holds a religion believes thinks that he has the right to beat his child for not believing in his religion. Does he now have the right to remove those in office who do not agree with his views?
dethcx22 1 year ago
@dethcx22 Or denying all religious symbols from public land. You see the difficulty here is you seem to suggesting that religious view are inferior to secular or atheist views. As such you seem willing to treat the religious as second class citizens that must keep their belief confined to stain glass ghettos. Is am say all beliefs have a right to be in the public forum.
For example you talk about religious beatings well what about secular abortions? At least in the beating the person lives.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk You still don't seem to understand the back principle of my premise. The person being beaten is being subjugated to an act that is influenced by someone's religion. They should not have to put up with it. Abortions are invalid as abortion can be used by both those of faith as those without faith. Only those with faith can use their religion to punish someone.
dethcx22 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Also, I am not suggesting those with faith are somehow inferior, I am simply suggesting religious views have no place in politics. Those of faith are welcome into a political party, as long as they don't subjugate those without faith to the laws they create/influence. These laws should never be create as it undermines the foundation of your country.
dethcx22 1 year ago
(cont.) only with this method (as far as I can see) everyone is protected. Of course churches can be built, religions can comment of certain events with their views, but any religion person(s) that attempts to control, dictate or deny rights to others in my personal opinion is wrong.
dethcx22 1 year ago
(cont.) a law with their religion. I personally have nothing against religious people (or otherwise) holding a role within a government. It's only when it starts to effect others who do not hold such beliefs.
If your beliefs are greatly effecting others in such a way, who do not hold this believe, an enquiry should be made, and if sufficient evidence is presented then that person(s) should be removed from office.
dethcx22 1 year ago
@dethcx22 "If your beliefs are greatly effecting others in such a way, who do not hold this believe, an enquiry should be made, and if sufficient evidence is presented then that person(s) should be removed from office."
Yet many belief are in place today of progressives and the anti religious. Religious beliefs are of no lesser value then that of the atheist or secularist progressives. So if you are going to eject a person because of their religion then we should be able to eject a progressive.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Of course, I simply meant that if a fundamental right such as marriage or the right to vote is challenged, that person (s) needs to be removed from office.
It makes no difference if that person is religious or not, as everyone is entitled to these basic rights. I meant that if a group or person (s) (be it religious or otherwise) attempts to take away such basic rights, they should be removed.
dethcx22 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Of course, other additional rights can be presented to a particular group or person(s), as long as these rights don't conflict with already established laws, and don't oppress others. The separation is fundamental as it tries to establish a framework, so all who live can get on with each other.
dethcx22 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Also I did not state I wanted to "eject a person because of their religion". I simply said I believe that if your religious, you should not bring your religion to work with you if you work for the government. Your actions should be solely based on a political viewpoint, with no religious input.
dethcx22 1 year ago
"if your religious, you should not bring your religion to work with you" Then I would suggest you don't understand the nature of religion. Religion is not like soccer or football in which you practice it only at home or on the field but not at work. Religion flavors the whole of your life and shapes how you interact with people and codes of daily conduct.
In a representative government one should expect that the religious flavors will effect the government. To do otherwise is a dictatorship.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Actually, using religion within a government role could be considered a dictatorship, as I have previously mentioned, not all of those who reside in America are believers. Creating laws with a religious agenda is religious dictatorship, and only holds the values of the group the law is made for.
While I am unfamiliar with the "laws" of soccer or football, I am aware of the "nature" of religion. One can look through history, religion can be effectively used as a form of dictating.
dethcx22 1 year ago
Any complete control of government by any ideology can become a dictatorship. Environmentalism could become a dictatorship for example and in some way it is attempting to do so. I specifically used the term flavor for a reason. The morality that comes out of a religion should effect a government in which the majority are a member of that faith. BUT the key is that they system must never lock out change or free expression of ideas. So the country can change with moral shifting of its people.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk I am in agreement that ideologies can become dictatorships. Although I don't believe that religion creates morality. Obviously, religion can provide a structure to form a moral basis, but the religion does not "give" morality.
Also the lesser groups must be taken into consideration, no matter how larger or small. Everyone's view is as valid as the next person's, and I am sure you understand and accept this. Expression of ideas is also paramount, as ideology is a driving force of us
dethcx22 1 year ago
Yes smaller groups need to have some consideration. The smallest group is the individual. This is where laws that prohibit free worship, free speech, open protesting, and so on get in the way of a representative republic. Yet in a representative government some kind of legal structure has to exist and it has to be representative of the majority (with the safe guards for the minority). If it is only representative of the minority then you have a dictatorship not a representative government.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@dethcx22 Another thing you must remember is that religion is not monolithic. Not every Christian agrees with all other Christians. As such with the many denominations of the Christian faith come many flavors of morals that affect the government and its laws. You have liberal Christians who focus of social justice (over God) and you have Fundamentalist who focus on God over the World. You have many flavors between those. You have Christians in name only who rarely attend church.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Of course, but it is those who are in power whom I am concerned about. Creating laws and decisions without proper input from others. To brush Christians with a single brush would be ignorant.
dethcx22 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk And for future reference, I am very aware of religion. I was brought up with many members of my family being Christians, and my Grandmother (who was a Jehovah's Witness).
She had her beliefs, as did the rest of the family, yet never expressed them to each other, nor did they preach to me or expect me to believe. I questioned her about her beliefs many a time, and was brought up to think for myself. She believed, as I do, that I deserved to think for myself, and I do, Brilliantly.
dethcx22 1 year ago
@dethcx22 I think most people think for themselves. I just think people who disagree with the thoughts of others (when they see them group up with others who think like they do) assume that all those within the group are not thinking for themselves. The mistake agreement with following or brain washing.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Yes, groups are generalised. Those who believe have every right to, and I would be willing to stand up in court or fight for that freedom.
It's only when it's oppressive or dictating to other's is when I try to intervene. Anyone can believe in anything, I don't mind and have no objections, but I do mind when it effects other's of another belief or of no belief.
dethcx22 1 year ago
@dethcx22 Then I suspect you will be continually upset, if you are honest with yourself. :)
I say that because every action of our government is based on a belief of one sort or another and those actions effect everyone in the country. The only solution is a very weak and small central government with only a few laws. For example I like the old bulbs that the government is planning to make illegal in the name of environmentalist beliefs. The new bulbs give me migraines.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
@Hunterkirk Yes, I probably will although I won't try to change every little detail of government. I would rather try to create an equal life for everyone. (I also hate the new light bulbs, and they are already illegal in my country).
dethcx22 1 year ago
I understand that someone who is elected may have a certain faith. I also understand that someone's religious beliefs should not effect your rights to being elected, or holding a certain position, be it in the public eye or not.
I personally feel that a secular government is the best as the religious views and beliefs should not affect an outcome of any decision made by any person in government. What I personally have a problem with is when someone who has a religious belief influences ...
dethcx22 1 year ago
So lemme summarize this:
State interfering with religion is bad.
Other religions interfering with state is bad
but...
YOUR religion interfering with the state is OK!
Did we get that right?
obijan42 1 year ago
@obijan42 Nope you got it wrong..
State interfering with religion is bad.
YOUR religion interfering with the state is OK!
Other religions interfering with state is OK!
People of faith (any faith) should not be denied representation in a Representative government. You may be fond of a Secularist Dictatorship in which all religious thought is forced behind closed doors, but I reject such oppression.
The morality of the country needs to reflect the morality of its people, not the elite rulers.
Hunterkirk 1 year ago
excellent video. yes, You put it so clearly. thank you. it was to protect the rightsof the people to worship freely and as they saw fit and not have the gvt. hinder such religious expression.
Great video
RestrainedNoMore 2 years ago
State churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the "wall of separation between church and state," therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. Thomas Jefferson
jobw87 3 years ago
I find it funny that the letter was only found 60 years ago and that Jefferson had no problem what so ever with the mixing of religion and the state while he live and in several other speeches he made. The funny thing is those who bow to the Supreme court that took this line out of context forget what the founding fathers were against... a state religion and not any interaction between the two... the atheist dream... which is BS.
Hunterkirk 3 years ago
Please if you don't mind send me a link of him making speeches were he mingled church and state and that his speech was found 60 yrs ago. But you deleted the 1st amendment comment too. WHY? Are you hiding something?
jobw87 3 years ago
First off you need no know something about the history at the time and what was happening with religion in Europe. It is also important to remember that for 150 years religion mixed with the without becoming a State religion.
Now with that...
"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815.
Hunterkirk 3 years ago
Also it is important to remember Jefferson ISNT the Constitution so using a sound bite to from a letter to install rule making religion illegal on public lands was in fact UnConstitutional... and a gross over stepping of Supreme Court Powers and should have been a ignored ruling as it was in itself unconstitutional.
Hunterkirk 3 years ago
Did Jefferson write our constitution or is credited with it?
And not allowing religion on public land is UnConstitutional? No that's no. Our govt wants seperate church and state, and public land is STATE.
jobw87 3 years ago
As I seem to remember there were more then one person in that room and it was edited many many times by those other people. To claim Jefferson is to soul writer and soul voice put forward in the Constitution is well BS.
Hunterkirk 3 years ago
Well from understanding a panel of 5 men including Jefferson which the committee choose Jefferson to write the 1st draft which the committee didn't revise it many times but a third of the draft which criticized the slave trade was throught out.
jobw87 3 years ago
And of the 1st draft which large disappear with the amendments.. lets look at those 5..
Benjamin Franklin: God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid?.."
There is more. By what you are claiming the Declaration of Independence is illegal and should be destroyed because it mentions God.
Hunterkirk 3 years ago
Where not were.
erchdvd 4 years ago
Yes Ben Franklin was a religious. All I know is the this First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ."
I'm sure you're gonna delete this too.
Which of course doesn't take either side. But to be fair to a diverse country we all should respect each other's beliefs, thus keeping everyone's out of state (being fair). But, racist and bigiots are selfish.
jobw87 3 years ago