What If there was really a serperation of church and state in all governments

[DRSmith]

I'm so tired of the "tax cuts for the wealthy" lie that I want to break things.

Tax cuts for the wealthy did not really help the economy passing tax cuts just for the wealthy would have been posionous, the fact they were given to people who did not need them and they proved to have little stimilus effect for the economy justifies the complaint about them.

---------- Post added April-10th-2011 at 04:38 PM ----------

If you actually think political leaders in the US were focused on gays and such you're too gullible. Look at the transformation the US economic system has experienced since the 80s. The systematic dismantling of demand side economic policy and the weakening of US regulatory systems. Does that strike you as the action of people that forgot about the economy and were focused on gays?

Of course not.

The social issues kept the people distracted and fighting while the economic side was being raped

---------- Post added April-10th-2011 at 04:41 PM ----------

Separation of church and state or the desired ownership of the church which seems to be the jist of this thread. Nazi Germany is a good example.

Actually Nazi Germany the church was with Hitler, if the church had said show respect for the government but do not violate the teachings of the bible WWII may have never happened.

[Hubbs]

Except that the wealthy will find a loophole to hide their money from being taxed like they do now

Erm... have would that logic not apply to any form of taxation? It's a pretty weak argument when you consider the fact that you could use it to shoot down anything you want.

[DRSmith]

absolutely and entirely in agreement on both parties. Show me a party that puts American infrastructure as a priority? None. We're happy to fight incredibly expensive wars, expand entitlement programs, and slash revenues though. Meanwhile we have crumbling bridges, levees, rail systems, and internet infrastructure that is a national embarrassment. Hell we can't even get these clowns to close the loopholes that provide incentives to offshore profits and jobs (and the parties agree on this issue!).

I have no problem with the social safety net, but much like when corporations take government money I believe the government has the right to dictate certain things, like to a degree what the money is used for and unless there is a good reason what you plan to do to make yourself self sufficent.

One reason for not being bothered by this too much is that money that is spent inside the country helps the over all economy.

Now when it comes to taxation, the government needs revenue and cutting taxes does not really make sense unless you do it right and cutting taxes on the wealthy and corporations has failed in North America.

The other part of the Greece story that gets ignored was a tax code with loopholes and a lack of enforcement.

[Thiebear]

Actually Nazi Germany the church was with Hitler, if the church had said show respect for the government but do not violate the teachings of the bible WWII may have never happened.

i thought the bible said: pay your taxes and follow the law but do not forget about God.

No different than the military saying do what your told withough hesitation, unless its illegal.

[DRSmith]

i thought the bible said: pay your taxes and follow the law but do not forget about God.

No different than the military saying do what your told withough hesitation, unless its illegal.

RobT.

I think when it comes to legality a change in law and an order may make something legal for example gather up a group of people and kill them.

Where as with the bible it is a little harder, pay you taxes be respectful but one must obey God as ruler rather than men.

[Spec138]

Actually Nazi Germany the church was with Hitler, if the church had said show respect for the government but do not violate the teachings of the bible WWII may have never happened.

Just wanted to add that Hitler's birthday was celebrated in the pulpit every year during his reign. Separation of church and state is a must if we want to live freely IMO.

[Baculus]

I believe all governments should be secular in nature, coinciding with a representative liberal democracy. It seems to be the "fit" that works best; otherwise a theological dictatorship often takes hold.

[mardi gras skin]

I wonder which church people imagine the American government is beholden to. I know its not my church.

[HoustonSkin]

Getting back to the original post:

The debate over abortion would be the same in an entirely secular world. Some people believe that babies are being killed and some don't. For some people, killing a baby two weeks after conception is the same as killing one two weeks after it has been born. Yes, the Catholic Church believes this and teaches it, but you could be an atheist and believe the same thing.

[twa]

Getting back to the original post:

The debate over abortion would be the same in an entirely secular world. Some people believe that babies are being killed and some don't. For some people, killing a baby two weeks after conception is the same as killing one two weeks after it has been born. Yes, the Catholic Church believes this and teaches it, but you could be an atheist and believe the same thing.

Yes, you must ignore science to believe otherwise

Denying Personhood is a handy escape clause for many,but even that crutch is being whittled away as science progresses.

[DRSmith]

Getting back to the original post:

The debate over abortion would be the same in an entirely secular world. Some people believe that babies are being killed and some don't. For some people, killing a baby two weeks after conception is the same as killing one two weeks after it has been born. Yes, the Catholic Church believes this and teaches it, but you could be an atheist and believe the same thing.

This went much further than abortion as I have seen birth control attacked also, you can believe something and put that into practice, but that is not a budgetary concern unless you are going to out law abortion and then you need to create a fund to care for all the unwanted children and poor pregnant women.

The thing is at the end of the day you do not see large groups of self proclaimed athiests coming out of meeting place organized to put pressure on the government to do as they want or suffer the consequences. Unfortunately you do see a pushing back by athiests and other faiths when people try to get the state to endorse their belief system and try and put for the idea that a nation is just one faith.

The next problem is when you end up with oprression of people inside a country based on faith, look at the attacks in those who want run for president, first Catholics now Mormons. This was one of those things that created a problem in England

[techboy]

I totally agree with the theme running through this thread. Martin Luther King Jr. should have kept his mouth shut and stuck to preaching.

[Baculus]

I totally agree with the theme running through this thread. Martin Luther King Jr. should have kept his mouth shut and stuck to preaching.

A secular state doesn't have to preclude someone from MLK from being socially active, nor does it mean that those who fill public office have to be atheists, either.

---------- Post added April-11th-2011 at 06:57 PM ----------

The next problem is when you end up with oprression of people inside a country based on faith, look at the attacks in those who want run for president, first Catholics now Mormons. This was one of those things that created a problem in England

Such as Herman Cain's "loyalty oaths" that he would demand from Muslims, in the same fashion that Catholics had to take loyalty oaths in England, post-reformation.

[DRSmith]

I totally agree with the theme running through this thread. Martin Luther King Jr. should have kept his mouth shut and stuck to preaching.

Would Martin Luther King Jr needed to act if people had already been acting like Christian and the government had supported a racism that for years had been sanctioned by the church after all the bible and the story of Noah and Cush had been used for years to justify mistreating blacks as had teaching that people were black because of the mark of Cain

---------- Post added April-11th-2011 at 07:07 PM ----------

Yes, you must ignore science to believe otherwise

Denying Personhood is a handy escape clause for many,but even that crutch is being whittled away as science progresses.

Well the denial of personhood also works for justifying things like collatoral damage, shooting buglars etc

As I said before all it takes to kill another person is the belief your life, rights/wants are worth more than the life of another

[AsburySkinsFan]

Erm... have would that logic not apply to any form of taxation? It's a pretty weak argument when you consider the fact that you could use it to shoot down anything you want.

So you're telling me they wouldn't? Because, I believe I have history to back up my side.

---------- Post added April-11th-2011 at 07:45 PM ----------

I wonder which church people imagine the American government is beholden to. I know its not my church.

Nor mine, otherwise there would be no legal gambling and severe restrictions on abortion, not to mention care for the poor would be a priority and warfare would be seen as an evil.

[twa]

Well the denial of personhood also works for justifying things like collatoral damage, shooting buglars etc

As I said before all it takes to kill another person is the belief your life, rights/wants are worth more than the life of another

We don't deny those personhood,nor target them legally.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html

A Libertarian Atheist Answers

"Pro-Choice Catholics"

by Doris Gordon

Libertarians for Life

Copyright 2003, January

torch.gif (3538 bytes)

Many who say they are personally opposed to abortion nonetheless support keeping abortion legal. Such a stance is often taken in the Catholic community, particularly by Catholics in politics. An example is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Calling herself "pro-choice," she said that as a Catholic she believes "what Catholics believe on abortion," and asked, "s it right for government to force Catholic beliefs on every other faith?" (The Detroit News, 9/10/02).

Interesting question. To ask it is to concede that the political arena is about forcing beliefs on others by law. Government is not a think tank that makes political-policy suggestions. Government is force. The power of the sword is implicit in all laws, just or unjust. How are politicians going to use that power?

Abortion isn't a victimless-crime debate; to abort a child isn't like smoking pot. The reason I and others object to abortion is that we find it to be homicide (the killing of one human being by another). The proper use of government force is to oppose killing the innocent, not to encourage it, as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, by legalizing and protecting its practice.

People show severe intellectual problems in saying both that they believe what the Church believes and that they would deny preborn children legal protection. The Church holds that such children are human persons with rights, yet the "personally opposed" hold that it should be a woman's choice to destroy them. If there is a credible reason for such a position, what is it?

[AsburySkinsFan]

I totally agree with the theme running through this thread. Martin Luther King Jr. should have kept his mouth shut and stuck to preaching.

I'm thinking this was said tongue in cheek....at least I hope it was.

[DRSmith]

We don't deny those personhood,nor target them legally.

http://www.godlessprolifers.org/home.html

http://www.l4l.org/library/cathchoi.html

A Libertarian Atheist Answers

"Pro-Choice Catholics"

by Doris Gordon

Libertarians for Life

Copyright 2003, January

torch.gif (3538 bytes)

Many who say they are personally opposed to abortion nonetheless support keeping abortion legal. Such a stance is often taken in the Catholic community, particularly by Catholics in politics. An example is Michigan Governor Jennifer Granholm. Calling herself "pro-choice," she said that as a Catholic she believes "what Catholics believe on abortion," and asked, "s it right for government to force Catholic beliefs on every other faith?" (The Detroit News, 9/10/02).

Interesting question. To ask it is to concede that the political arena is about forcing beliefs on others by law. Government is not a think tank that makes political-policy suggestions. Government is force. The power of the sword is implicit in all laws, just or unjust. How are politicians going to use that power?

Abortion isn't a victimless-crime debate; to abort a child isn't like smoking pot. The reason I and others object to abortion is that we find it to be homicide (the killing of one human being by another). The proper use of government force is to oppose killing the innocent, not to encourage it, as the Supreme Court did in Roe v. Wade, by legalizing and protecting its practice.

People show severe intellectual problems in saying both that they believe what the Church believes and that they would deny preborn children legal protection. The Church holds that such children are human persons with rights, yet the "personally opposed" hold that it should be a woman's choice to destroy them. If there is a credible reason for such a position, what is it?

You deny the personhood when you decide they can be killed and it is okay.

[AsburySkinsFan]

You deny the personhood when you decide they can be killed and it is okay.

And the problem with your statement is the last four words.