Ok so it was a poor pun on words, but it was the best I could come up with. The European Union has recently had their 50th anniversary, but upon the signing of the document to mark the occassion they have left someone out. Namely God. For the first time they have made a completely secular document to the protesting of the Anglican and Catholic Church.
My opinion is that this is a definate good thing. For one it shows that the rest of the world is finally getting the idea of what America stands for, whether we get it or not. Secularization of the world is slowly growing and is now being shown in politics. Discrimination due to religion is one of the last prevailing threats to freedom. Now slowly that is also being shut down.
Please post your opinions on secularization and whether or not seperation of church and state should exist.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
9 comments:
I also believe its a great idea, but I also think that a country has a right to choose. It's kind of a mental conflict. But thats what this blog is all about... to get people thinking.
A country has a right to choose? Who does the deciding then, the majority?
I think secularization, if you will, is a great thing that every governmental committee should conform their doctrines to. However, even though the separation of church and state will finally be true with decisions made as a whole, I think it is impossible to really set aside the effect of a religion on one's opinion while deciding, which way to lean on an issue. My example would be that of Stem Cell Research. I personally believe it is a great thing and should be funded by the nation, however, there are people who's only drawback to the idea of this medical advancement is the religious standpoint on the subject.
I apologize for my absence from commenting for some time, I've had some personal matters that demanded attention. Hopefully they are starting to lessen and I can devote time to this project yet again... On that note, I will be posting a new thread in the next day or two. BUT this is a comment on this thread, so here I go... The problem I see is that you are not calling for religious freedom, but elimination of religion. You claim that not having God listed in the document is eliminating discrimination due to religion. While I'm not saying that the document has to have God in it (in the traditional Christian sense of "god"), but if God were listed I dare say you'd be upset, just as it upsets me at my core to not have it in there. At it's most basic, a person's "religion" is their belief system. We each have a belief system whether we give it a name or not. And our actions are based upon that belief system. A politician should act according to his/her belief system, now they should try and represent the people who voted them in, but inherantly they vote for something that blatantly opposes their belief system. If the masses don't like it, then vote someone else in. The problem is there will never be anyone who decides on legislation and pleases 100% of the people. (Which is why I don't rest all my hopes in my goverment, but that's a thought line for another time) Religious freedom means everyone has the right to believe as they choose, and the government will not tell them how to believe. However, the people of the government have that same right and their choices may reference or promote a certain belief, but you, I and every citizen have a right to choose for ourselves. Some might say, but this is my country, I don't like it. My response is then is to do what you can to change what you don't like... if it won't change, then change countries. And I don't mean that flippantly. If I don't like something I always have a choice. And until the border is closed to all traffic we have the choice to live here or not. Basically, I agree in separation of church and state in the fact that the government should not dictate what a person believes or how a church, mosque, coven, etc. opperates (as long as it is peaceful in action of course) But I don't believe separation of church and state means that "religion" should be eliminated from government, for everyone has a belief system and that is there "religion". Thank you.
(p.s. to the comment above mine... when you say you think the government should fund stem cell, do you mean fund any possible options for studying, no matter what they may be? Just clarifying.)
Okay first off, I believe that any religous tags should be removed from government documents not because of any conflict between myself and that particular religion, but because the titles used in the documents refer specifically to one religion. America is known for being the Great Melting Pot, yet we classify this nation as a christian nation in the pledge of Allegience, for starters. I only argue this point because I want to be fair, I have nothing wrong with God being used in the Pledge because I'm Christian, but I am trying to be considerate of the buddhists, Hindus, Muslums, Shintoists, etc. in this nation who do not believe in the God of the christian religion. Sure you could say God means "insert God of personal religion" but reference has been made by nation rulers declaring that this God is the Christian God. I do agree that one governs their own life based off of personal belief and not national claim, but if we are expected to do so, why then is there any mention of a specific religion at all?
Unfortunately, there must be a seperation completely and wholly. We have all heard George Bush's comments on atheists, and just in case you haven't, he basically said that anyone that didn't believe in the Christian god wasn't a citizen. Now as for the fact that religious persecution of any type is inherent in a system when you believe that your truth is the only possible truth it is a necessary step of leaving god out of our documents. These documents are to represent the people and it can be done without god but cannot be done with him. When you include a god of any type in the system you are excluding a group and if you don't put him in then no one is offended simply because he was not mentioned. Early on in our countries history it was said by James Madison in a letter to the Barbary States that we are in no way a Christian nation, and often Thomas Jefferson the writer of the original document has cited that we are to not to sanction any religion. This is also known as the Establishment Clause. I agree that freedom of religion does not mean freedom from religion, just keep it in the church and at home where it belongs I don't want to see the Ten Commandments for all their worth in a courthouse. If the judge in there follows the true words of the bible we're all screwed.
Amen.
Again, apologies for the delay in response, life is busy as always. There are a few flaws in your reasoning. 1.) You base much of your argument on George Bush. Yes, he is a professing Christian, but he does not speak for me in all avenues, just as he doesn't speak for you. But my view should be eliminated from any government dealings because we both fall under the umbrella of "Christian"? Under that sort of logic (guilt by association) you could be lumped in with him as a caucasian male (yes, it's a stretch, but one that could be made if this line of logic is used.) 2.) You say "religious persecution of any type is inherent in a system when you believe that your truth is the only possible truth" but isn't any belief anyone has a form of their own personal truth? Your "truth" says there is no god, mine says there is. You don't want it in there because it offends you, but ignoring my view offends me. I believe in God (in the context of Christianity) and it is at the core of who I am, and yes it is offensive when you deny His existence. Now you have the right to deny it and to voice that opinion, and I would not expect you to base your personal decisions in contradiction to your beliefs. Just as you cannot expect me to base mine in contradiction to my beliefs. If you separate yourself from a belief, do you truly believe it? This type of belief is deeper than just "I think this way" it's "I am steadfast in this thought and will defend it". If you have a document that deliberately ignores the possibility of God, you say it represents "the people" but it does not represent me. 3.) Finally, you say "just keep it in the church and at home where it belongs" But my belief is not something that I pick up when I enter a "church" or my home. It is who I am. My belief goes anywhere I go. It is not just something I agree with, it is who I am. Now I don't try and force it on anyone else. But neither do I hide it. It's not like my preference to wear tennis shoes over dress shoes. Or my preference to watch espn to mtv. It is who I am. Everything about what I do or how I act is affected by it. To have it completely denied or acted against is more than having my "faith" discounted, it's having my utter being discounted. That is why it offends me to have someone say that it can be "left out" Ok, I'll stop rambling now. Thanks for listening.
My comments on George Bush was an example, this type of persecution against anyone of any faith has existed in our system for a very long time now. As far as including God in a goverment that deliberately excludes the notion as to remain true to the constitution this is the way it must be. When you say that God is who you are, that is fine, so keep it that way. By including God in a document that has nothing to do with God we have a problem. It has been stated many times over we cannot favor a religion over another, if you consider some religions they deliberately do away with the notion of God and include a Great Spirit or even use the Universe as their God. Just by using the word God you automatically exlude those groups. You may bias your decisions to whatever belief you have, but there is no need nor will there ever be a need to include His name in such situations as peace treaties or other such laws. If you can find a situation where God should be included let me know.
Post a Comment