There has been a bit of discussion in other threads about the meaning of the separation of church and state and what sort of behaviour is acceptable from people trying to share their faith. I was at the Jefferson memorial in Washington DC recently and came across this inscripted on the wall:

http://www.monticello.org/reports/quotes/memorial.html

"Almighty God hath created the mind free. All attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens . . . are a departure from the plan of the Holy Author of our religion . . . No man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship or ministry or shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief, but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion. I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively."

Jefferson is a famous proponent of the separation fo church and state and arguably the most effective. Yet here he is arguing that this includes the right of religious people to publicly profess their faith and argue for it. Opposition to this is opposition to freedom of expression. His quote sums up my personal views and how I think religious expression should be viewed on this forum.

Another quote from Jefferson:

http://www.politicalcortex.com/story/2007/3/6/112212/4989

"It is comfortable to see the standard of reason at length erected, after so many ages, during which the human mind has been held in vassalage by kings, priests, and nobles; and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1786. ME 6:10

From the first site:

(Born April 13, 1743, at Shadwell, Virginia; died July 4, 1826, Monticello)

Thomas Jefferson -- author of the Declaration of Independence and the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom, third president of the United States, and founder of the University of Virginia -- voiced the aspirations of a new America as no other individual of his era. As public official, historian, philosopher, and plantation owner, he served his country for over five decades.

I think that prior to Jefferson's new laws in Virginia, the state government compelled the payment of donations to one of the churches by it's members.

These quotes are absolutely in line with what I said earlier in the other thread. Express your views, do not insult people in the process or use tactics that aim to insult the opponent or make them feel inferior (no matter how passive these tactics are). Use your religion as a foundation for moral values, do not attempt to forge debates in areas of politics or science that are based on arguments of faith instead of proof and reason.

SIMPLE SH!T REALLY?

do not attempt to forge debates in areas of politics or science that are based on arguments of faith instead of proof and reason

Why not? If that's how people approach the topic then they are obviously going to frame their arguments in those terms. As for don't insult people, people take offense very easily to some things. That shouldn't bar others from bringing the topic up.

freediver wrote on Apr 13^th, 2007 at 1:48pm:

do not attempt to forge debates in areas of politics or science that are based on arguments of faith instead of proof and reason Why not? If that's how people approach the topic then they are obviously going to frame their arguments in those terms.

Because those are not universal terms that everyone can relate to, they change from person to person and are not dependant on proof and reason, thus they do not belong in politics or science. Simple really?

If you allow faith as a valid argument for political decisions and scientific pursuits then anything goes. What is to stop me from saying that we must sacrifice goats every thursday to solve both global warming and end world hunger... if I say that is what I believe?


Quote:

As for don't insult people, people take offense very easily to some things. That shouldn't bar others from bringing the topic up.

There are certain things some people will take offence to what they shouldn't have, I agree. However there are certain things that almost everyone knows almost everyone will take offence to, like I don't know, say telling people they are inferior? telling someone they must follow laws based on faith arguments that they do not agree with?

This is the line freediver, political argument must be based on provable argument, not feelings and faith. Faith can guide you, it cannot be used as a justifiable argument directly, in politics you must be able to demonstrate that policy will have tangible results and be implemented for tangible reasons, tangible meaning anyone of any faith or any background can understand and relate, or at least respond in kind.

Lets look at it the other way around freediver. Suppose you pass legislation based purely in what is written in the bible, suppose then that particular legislation turns out to be an utter disaster and people want an explanation (as is most often the case in a democracy), is it reasonable to expect your elected officials to turn to you and say "the bible said it would work, so that's why we did it" is that at all reasonable in a democracy? It is absolutely not reasonable because you need to be able to demonstrate that legislation works because of X and did not or will not work because of X. Where X is any REASONED and/or PROVABLE argument.

By no means do I think faith should be removed from the political process, I think faith has done many wonderful things for this world and despite being a staunch secularist and only interested in tangible provable things I believe (unlike many) that faith should remain an important part of our society. Faith should also be there to guide people through their reasoning and choices (if they are followers of faith) and to provide moral and ethical grounding in decision making. It is not, however at all reasonable or justified to argue for or against a particular political policy or piece of legislation based only on arguments of faith, tosimply say 'god says so' if you will. Not reasonable at all. If you notice, even the mad monk Tony Abbot did not even think of justifying his arguments against stem cell research and RU486 solely through his faith, he produced tangible reasoned arguments that could more or less be proven, he and his fellows were of course struck down NOT because of his faith, but because his tangible, reasoned, provable arguments were weak. This is the political process, this is separation of church and state.

...but all men shall be free to profess and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion.

Note carefully, that Jefferson said that while men should be free to profess their opinions in matters of religion, they must maintain those opinions by reasoned argument. If they cannot provide a reasoned argument as justification, then they have no continued right to profess that opinion. Resorting to misrepresentation or obfuscation of genuine reasoned argument doesn't qualify as a justification in my book.

I think religious figures are quite entitled to comment on any matters of public interest they see fit, at any time. They and their followers are also subject to the law of the land, as determined by the (secular) parliament, just like everyone else. There is an interesting dynamic there.

I think it is a bad idea for public money to be dispensed to religious institutions - that includes churches, schools, think tanks, etc. I can't really see a problem with churches making political donations, as long as it is public knowledge.

Because those are not universal terms that everyone can relate to, they change from person to person and are not dependant on proof and reason, thus they do not belong in politics or science. Simple really?

You think that is a valid criteria by which to prevent people from expressing their views? I think you would have trouble expressing any political view in truly universal terms.

If you allow faith as a valid argument for political decisions and scientific pursuits then anything goes.

But anything does go in politics. Science has methods of eliminating useless arguments, whatever they are based on.

What is to stop me from saying that we must sacrifice goats every thursday to solve both global warming and end world hunger... if I say that is what I believe?

Nothing. That's what free speech is all about.

This is the line freediver, political argument must be based on provable argument, not feelings and faith.

No it mustn't. Such an assertion invalidates almost all political discourse. Most political debates hinge on competing values, not proof. Trying to restrict the set of values that may be used or the way in which people can express them is a direct attack on freedom and democracy.

Note carefully, that Jefferson said that while men should be free to profess their opinions in matters of religion, they should maintain those opinions by reasoned argument.

That is not what Jefferson said.

Quote:

Note carefully, that Jefferson said that while men should be free to profess their opinions in matters of religion, they should maintain those opinions by reasoned argument. That is not what Jefferson said.

I was paraphrasing, of course.

Given the second quote you provided from Jefferson, how else can you interpret his requirement that opinions need to be maintained through argument? He does endorse freedom of speech, but he does not endorse the unqualified maintenance of unreasonable opinion. He believed that in free and open discussion truth would eventually prevail, not that anybody was entitled to hold to any old notion passed down through the ages.

I was paraphrasing, of course.

By inserting the word 'reasoned' you completely changed the meaning of what he said.

He does endorse freedom of speech, but he does not endorse the unqualified maintenance of unreasonable opinion.

Sure he does. He does that by supporting freedom of speech. He does it by not placing any limitations on the arguments which men may use. He does it by placing the full onus on the person who hears something with which he does not agree to decide whether it has any merit.  

"and it is honorable for us to have produced the first legislature who had the courage to declare that the reason of man may be trusted with the formation of his own opinions"

Any attempt to dictate whether men may argue from reason, faith or values essentially distrusts the ability of men to make up their own mind. Reason is not a filter to be used to limit discussion, but a filter used by individuals exposed to the full range of views.

Basically, people have every right to argue that you are wrong because the flying spaghetti monster says so, and it is up to you to make up your own mind about that. He opposes any moves whatsoever that would prevent someone from saying that the flying spaghetti monster is always right.

He believed that in free and open discussion truth would eventually prevail, not that anybody was entitled to hold to any old notion passed down through the ages.

Those two are not mutually exclusive. In fact they are the same. Only by allowing people to believe and to argue whatever they want are reasonable men able to progress towards truth, or some other noble objective. You cannot have open discussion by limiting what may be said.

zoso wrote on Apr 13^th, 2007 at 7:08pm:

Lets look at it the other way around freediver. Suppose you pass legislation based purely in what is written in the bible, suppose then that particular legislation turns out to be an utter disaster and people want an explanation (as is most often the case in a democracy), is it reasonable to expect your elected officials to turn to you and say "the bible said it would work, so that's why we did it" is that at all reasonable in a democracy? It is absolutely not reasonable because you need to be able to demonstrate that legislation works because of X and did not or will not work because of X. Where X is any REASONED and/or PROVABLE argument.

Please enlighten me as to how reality is any different to what I have said here?

I am about ready to join AN if all this religious bullsh!t keeps up. Again freediver you are talking sh!t, nobody gets away with pushing through legislation on arguments of faith alone.

I am about ready to join AN if all this religious bullsh!t keeps up. Again freediver you are talking sh!t, nobody gets away with pushing through legislation on arguments of faith alone"
==============


This site is under threat.

It seems like only christians are welcome here!!!!!!!


A BIG HINT THERE.

And people like AN asked me why I wouldn't become a member on this site. Should be pretty obvious now.

They should be entirely isolated.
In exactly the same way the legal system, police and armed defences are.
There is no reason for them to be related.

It would gain nothing to have them intermingled and could be disasterous.

Look at countries where the legal system, plouce and army are not seperated. I don't want to live there.

I don't think that religious views should not be allowed freedom of speech, I don't even think they should be barred a voice during political discourse. What I disagree with is that policies and legislation should be able to be based solely on religious views with no other reasoned or provable arguments. Use your religion and faith as your moral foundation, use it to set your beliefs, but to create legislation that is not based on any reasoned argument that can not be tested or contested by others on some secular grounding is ludicrous, and dangerous to religion.

Suppose we did forge legislation solely on what is written in the bible, is it not dangerous to christianity if through demonstration what is written in the bible is shown to be a failure? Suppose then that some christian group, say catholics, interprets the bible in one way and laws are passed based on this interpretation. Then suppose some of these laws fail and some other christian group with a slightly different interpretation of the bible decides that the reason these laws failed was because of the way in which the bible was interpreted, argument ensues, christianity becomes divided...were not any number of wars fought over precisely this situation?

There are any number of very good reasons as to why purely religious arguments are not sufficient in the realm of politics, reason and proof are needed to support any religious position in the realm of politics.

nobody gets away with pushing through legislation on arguments of faith alone

Correct, but not because they are not allowed to try, but because people are capable of amking up their own mind. This is what Jefferson was saying. The state should not try to control what people can say because they fear that people are stupid and will go along with whatever someone tells them. There is far more to fear from those who try to control what we are allowed to say than from those who ignore reason.

It seems like only christians are welcome here!!!!!!!

All people are welcome. If you cannot tolerate freedom of speech then I am not going to start trying to arbitrarily limit what people can say so that you feel welcome.

What I disagree with is that policies and legislation should be able to be based solely on religious views with no other reasoned or provable arguments.

It never will be in a functioning democracy. It will be based on the will of the people.

Suppose we did forge legislation solely on what is written in the bible, is it not dangerous to christianity if through demonstration what is written in the bible is shown to be a failure?

That hasn't stopped them in the middle east. But to even suggest that there is a risk of that happening in a functioning democracy is ludicrous.

There are any number of very good reasons as to why purely religious arguments are not sufficient in the realm of politics, reason and proof are needed to support any religious position in the realm of politics.

Of course they aren't sufficient.

Well thank you freediver you agree with everything I have said then. Note that I never tried to say a religious voice is to be omitted, I said that faith alone is not sufficient in the political (and scientific) process.

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Catholic-MPs-know-better-than-Pope/2007/06/20/1182019197194.html

A number of Catholic NSW MPs believe they know the church's position on stem cell research better than the Pope, says Liberal right-wing powerbroker David Clarke.

The upper house Catholic MP spoke against a bill currently before parliament that would scrap a ban on therapeutic cloning.

Members from all parties and in both houses have been given a conscience vote on the stem cell research legislation, which passed the Legislative Assembly earlier this month.

Members of the upper house are now debating the bill ahead of a vote, expected to take place within the next week.

The debate attracted additional attention after Cardinal George Pell warned there would be "consequences" for Catholic members of the NSW parliament who voted in favour of the bill.

too right good on ya pell

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Howard-Rudd-speak-to-Christian-audience/2007/08/09/1186530537991.html

Prime Minister John Howard hit the right notes, drawing more applause from Christians at one Sydney church while Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd won more votes - just.

Up to 100,000 Christians in 850 churches across Australia watched a live telecast from Canberra of the two leaders pitching their Christian values to the converted in a bid for votes.

About 500 Hillsong churchgoers, mostly aged 25 to 35 years, listened attentively for more than two hours the two leaders, after a rousing round of prayers for good governance and leadership.

Afterwards, five out of ten churchgoers said they would vote for Mr Rudd, while four preferred Mr Howard and one was undecided.

However, it was Mr Howard's stance on Christian identity that drew the only two bursts of spontaneous applause.

Heterosexual marriage and the affirmation of Christianity as the dominant Australian religion were apparently more popular than Mr Rudd's attack on Work Choices, climate change and foreign aid.

Indeed, Mr Rudd's support for state-based same-sex relationship registers only drew suspicion from churchgoers who feared they will only lead to gay marriage and adoption.

Mr Howard's reference to political correctness-gone-mad when citing the example of nativity scenes being banned for fear of offending other religions drew wide applause.

"I always find it odd that you have to demonstrate your tolerance by denying your own heritage," Mr Howard said to vast approval.

---

Joyce attacks Rudd over religion

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Joyce-attacks-Rudd-over-religion/2007/08/10/1186530572220.html

If Kevin Rudd gets any closer to John Howard he will have to get permission from Mr Howard's wife Janette, Nationals senator Barnaby Joyce says.

The barb came after a question about the lack of distinction between the religious beliefs of Mr Rudd and Mr Howard.

---

PM adds to Catholic collection plate

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/PM-adds-to-Catholic-collection-plate/2007/08/10/1186530623754.html

Prime Minister John Howard has responded to the Catholic calling, a day after addressing Australia's Christians, by pitching an extra $15 million into World Youth Day's collection plate.

The head of the Catholic Church in Australia, Cardinal George Pell, and Mr Howard recently have had talks about the 500,000 pilgrims expected in Sydney in July next year for the celebration culminating with a papal mass.

Mr Howard decided the commonwealth would contribute an extra $15 million on top of the $20 million it already has committed after a request from the Catholics for more funding for the event.

---

Church using schools 'to spread message'

http://www.smh.com.au/news/National/Church-using-schools-to-spread-message/2007/08/14/1186857462773.html

A Pentecostal church in Melbourne is under fire for spreading its message in state schools through social events, including a Christian hip-hop concert.

A youth group within the Assemblies of God church had arranged Monday's concert featuring American group Nubian Gents.

Fairfax newspapers report a teacher based at a secondary school in Richmond, in Melbourne's inner east, said he had been threatened with suspension after saying students at Lynall Hall Community School should have been informed the concert was put on by a religious group and calling for an alternate program for students who did not want to attend.

Principal Eddie Crouch denied the threat, instead suggesting Mr Bailey go home to calm down after a confrontation with another staff member.

The teachers' union said the issue highlighted the increasing role the church plays in secular state schools.

David Molyneux, a spokesman for the church's youth arm, Youth Alive, said it had paid for the group to tour Melbourne public and private schools.

"There was nothing Christian about the concert," Mr Molyneux said. "In state schools, we never talk about religion, we talk about young people making positive choices."

It seems there are people saying this site is religiously based???
Let us discuss it, does religion have a place in politics OR the running of this country?

Kevin Rudd thinks it does and so does Fred Nile however i am an atheist so it means zip to me
Where did you learn that this site was based on religion

eta if this is the case it will be interesting how long the Jesus H Christ thread stay up ;D

Read the article about evolution, in the articles section.
Sense(guest) reckons it is, and judging by the evolution article, perhaps he is right.

If it is (A religious site), I don't particularly mind. I enjoy discussing religion.

And no, I don't think religion should play a part in politics, as the separation of state and church is what makes successful societies. -I might allow a bit of religion in school though... that may be a different story.

Religion will play a part in politics for as long as people are religious. People seek moral guidance from religion and follow through on that when they vote. All that separation of church and state means is that there is no offical endorsement one way or the other. The church as an institution has no direct political power - it only has power through voters. Likewise the government does not nominate a state religion or force any choices on people.

And thats where the danger of islam comes in.
Their religion rules the government, and that is dangerous, imagine a country run by the make believe idea of religion! A story made up by primitive people just to stop the fear of death.
It has no part in politics, but still, the churches seem to have their say here. ALL polititians should be Athiests.

Separation of Chrich and state was just as much a way to protect the chruch from the state as it is to protect the state from the church. There were plenty of European monarchs and other dictators who would have taken over the church to cement their power if given the opportunity.

---

http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/China-releases-jailed-Bible-publisher/2007/09/17/1189881434697.html

China has released a Protestant minister jailed for three years for illegally printing Bibles and other Christian publications, a Christian advocacy group said.

In atheist China, printing of Bibles and other religious publications requires state approval.

Bibles cannot be openly bought at bookshops in a country long criticised for intolerance of religion.