Religion and Government. Separate?

I love Jesus Christ, let me start and gladly proclaim that. I will tell anyone that wants to know, come to know, accept, etc., Jesus, that wants. I love the United States. I obey the law.....most of the time....lol, I pay my taxes. I believe in and honor the Constitution. I believe in personal freedoms and small government, and I am a Democrat(not many of those Democrats left)... I do not think that the government has any right, say in, or reason to have anything to do with my religion. The people in the government can be religious, and I will tell any person in the government about my religion. I believe we should be able to pray in all public places. No one religion should be proomoted, nor should it be discriminated against. So if a Muslim and a Christian want to pray on the steps of the U.S. Capitol, then that should be perfectly fine. In the end, our different faiths will triumph within us personally, and I personally believe that Jesus Christ is that one that will triumph. I believe that, and I hope those in the government believe that, as well as others everywhere. The government should not, however, try to promote my religion to others that don't believe, because the belief is a personal choice.


Great article, and 10 stars.

You need to study who the real "founders" of our country were. Not the hangers on, but the movers and shakers. No where in any of the writings of George Washington is there a single mention of Jesus. Jefferson was a deist, and though he admired the moral teachings of Jesus, as a philosophic guide, he wrote his own version of the new testament eliminating everything except for those teachings. Many of the others were just as non Christian in their leanings, and even the ones that were, were totally opposed to religious influence on government. These people were, fairly recently, in the scheme of things, removed from oppressive state sponsored religions in Europe.

Oh, and most credible scholars will tell you that most of the moral teachings of the Christian religion were pre-existing, most notably in Mesopotamian religions, and that English law, which most link US law to, was based on pretexts that far predate the advent of Christianity's rise in the area.

Jeff: I agree with you in the main except for religion being a man-made device to control people. While it has been used for that purpose and while it's fundamental purpose was also for "crowd control" it was not man-made or devised intellectually. Early religions were if anything "superstitious" and not made on purpose for crowd control per se. But you are right about the need for something now to get us under control before we eat ourselves out of house and home. Government alone cannot do it. People are hard enough to get to follow rules and regulations since they have an immense ability to rationalize things for their own personal benefit. This is what is happening with the oil situation and partisan politics. Only religion with it's powerful grab on the human psyche has any chance from a practical point of view of doing anything meaningful for controlling what is going on. I simply wanted to point out that it is not possible to keep religion and religious beliefs out of the governing system of people on a wide scale, especially with the current status of religious institutions and institutional mandates and objectives. If a large enough chunk of the voting populace in this country become Muslims, we will have to turn over our political machine to the control of the Muslim clergy. Have no doubt about that. I think the only question as to how and when is also what. We will go to a religious state one of these days. But what kind is up to us.

Ron W.: As I have said before, the last person I would ask about religion is a religious scholar. They have their own agenda and pretensions. I don't think that your "information" regarding Washington and Jefferson is very pertinent. Most of the founders were church going religionists, even if they did not write about it. It was the way of the times. To think that most Americans (founders or followers like my ancestors) were a very religious people, however denominationally diverse. Remember Salem and it's situation. They are the ones who coined "In God We Trust."

The Honorable Robbie Flynn: Thanks for contributing. I think your attitude is quite typical of most long time resident Americans, and I am proud of all of you. It is something that is all too fast disappearing. But beware. Our kind of "America" is being swallowed up by the intellectual elite, the Hollywood pretenders.

Another ignorant fundie that prefers his own version of history to the truth. Why am I not surprised?

And I think you'll find that the vast majority of our original founders generation were not even church members, it was the domain of the elite.

Any religion that holds itself as the one "true" religion, regardless of how well meaning it may be, should be allowed nowhere near government. Religion is the primary weapon to incite violence against other humans. More people have died in the name of their god than any other reason. The use of religion as a tool for governing makes it too easy to couch arguements into "good" versus "evil," with "evil" being those that do not believe as you do. And, since God wants evil destroyed...do the math from there.

Excellent article, Donald - well conceived and well presented. I was hoping you would describe in more detail the difference between 'religion' and 'church'. There are many churches/denominations/sects but only one religion. Religion, like education, doesn't have a name. Religion is inseparable from all aspects of life including government, but 'church' has no place anywhere.

Julie Ann Dawson: I think you are making the same mistake as most "intellectuals" of today in "throwing out the baby with the bath water." Don't confuse "religion" with "church." They are two separate things. Jesus did not found a "church" for instance. Second, I suggest that don't mistake what "should be" with what "has been." Hopefully, man has evolved somewhat over the last two thousand years, that is, socially. I agree with you that "religion" (i.e. as practiced by churches or man organized forms of practicing religion) has been responsible for hypocritical abuses in the name of religion. But that does not mean that "religion" is responsible. It was the lack of religion in the name of religion that brought this about. Do you remember when one of Jesus's disciples cut the ear off a Roman soldier? Do you blame Jesus for that or his disciple? Was "the religion of Jesus" responsible for the crusades or those who used His name as an excuse for plundering others?

Another thing I think people ignore when taking this violent stand against "organized religion." Did you ever think about what the world would be like without it? Do you seriously think that people would be loving and kind to each other if you were able to wave a magic wand and suddenly remove the influence of the various churches around the world? In spite of all the evil done in the name of religion, people would not be nearly as "civilized" if there had never been any religion. Or are you so naive as to believe that we would have just come around to peace and order left to our own devices without any emotional guidance from an outside source? Just look around the world at what is going on now even with the restraining influence of most religions.

But I also see a very valid point in what you are saying. Given the history of religion (actually churches using the name of religion for their own purposes) it is better to keep churches out of government. However, there is a dilemma here because "religion" (i.e. not "churchianity") is the only historical source of any system of morals and ethics. People who think that modern psychology can do this are entirely mistaken. Any plan about ethics and morals that is left to human authority (i.e. versus an external "authority") is doomed to manipulation by self interests).

Of course, Ron W. will say this is nonsense because his view of history is obscured by his own prejudiced perspective. The fact is that all systems of morals and ethics is derived from the phenomenon of religion, then corrupted by man. Anyway, it is the purpose of this article to stimulate discussion and thought about some things which people tend to forget or overstate in objection even when in the right for the most part.

Anyone can pray on the steps of the capitol, in school or anywhere else for that matter. All you have to is shut your eyes and silently say a prayer. What bothers me is when I hear fundamentalist Christians say that there should be prayer in public schools. What they mean is a prayer out loud in a class led by somone who is Christian and prays in the name of Jesus. That is unacceptable and against the constitutional rights of those children who are not Christian. In fact, it is religious abuse, in my opinion.

I agree that when people of any one religion, whether it be Christian, Jewish, Islam, or whateveer--believes that their's is the ONLY true religion and treats others as if they are wrong in their beliefs, friction and problems develop as a result. Forcing one's religion upon others is against the beliefs that this country was founded on.

Don, I believe that religions are still full of superstition. It didn't end in the time of Jesus. And you're right that it is not the religion that is at fault so much as it is the people who practice it, although some of the tenets, creeds, misinterpretations of scripture and dogmas of a religion (which are also developed by mankind) are at the root of many problems.

Donald,

I often wonder what the world would be like without organized religion. We might have avoided the Inquisition, and the Witchcraft trials, for example. Much of the martyrdom we see in suicide bombers would be avoided, because without the promise of a beautiful afterlife they would have no reason to kill themselves while killing "the infidel."

Humans should be far enough along the evolutionary chain to not need a supernatural rulebook. "Thou shall not kill" is a pretty good idea. I don't need a Bible to tell me I shouldn't kill people, because society can't function if people just go around killing each other. "Thou shall not steal" is, again, a solid idea. It doesn't need to be wrapped up in the trappings of religion to enforce, because society cannot function if people just take what they want.

The problem is that religion is often used to create rules that make no real sense to the greater society. Two thousand years ago, rules against same-sex marriages may have made some sense. There weren't that many humans, and in order for the species to survive it needed to reproduce. But today, there is no threat of humans becoming extinct due to lack of procreation, and the planet is overtaxed by a population explosion. Yet the laws of religion refuse to bend to the realities of survival. In short, the religion of two thousand years ago no longer fits the new realities of survival of the species, yet the adherents of religion refuse to bend.

Furthermore, whose external "authority" do you propose we follow? It is easy to wish to adhere to an external authority when it is "your" authority (i.e. Christian-centric). But would you be inclined to follow an external authority is it was Muslim-centric? Hindu-centric? Suppose we all go back to the classical Greco-Roman ideal, where all the gods are valid and do whatever you want in your own temple so long as you don't bother anyone else?

Laws should exist to facilitate the growth and health of a society. Introducing religious principles into the equation does not facilitate the health of society, and in fact can do more harm than good.

Julie Ann Dawson: Thanks for the considered comment. However, I would like to point out some things that you may have overlooked or overstated. You don't have to agree, of course, but I suggest -- for the purposes of intellectual discussion -- that you at least give these some consideration. First, you do not take such things as "'Thous shall Not kill,' is a pretty good idea," as something that you have arrived at in a vacuum of human history. You are the cultural product of thousands of years of people having accepted "Thou shall not kill," as a dictum. You did not arrive at this 'good idea' on your own. You inherited it. I hope you are not so naive as to believe that people without some moral "guidance" are just naturally good. You do not remember (apparently) what happened in Nazi Germany, in Thailand recently and in Darfur right now. This is the result of humans working in a vacuum of "no religion."

I also suggest that your take on the homosexual situation is influenced by the rhetoric of those who wish to prostitute our natural proclivities to satisfy their frustrating lives. What you say is total BS and the result of following a crowd shouting, "Two legs bad, four legs good." (from George Orwell's ANIMAL FARM). The issue has nothing to do with over population. Abstinence can take care of that problem even better... or try the idea of people practicing self control and restraint of their unleashed appetites. Or is that too great a sacrifice to ask of people, to control themselves and their appetites?

As to my "external 'authority'" you are again mixing your own predisposed preferences of interpretation for what I am saying. God's authority is from religion as a pure unadulterated phenomenon. When you say, "Muslim-centric" and "Hindu-centric" you are again mixing up "religion" with "church." Even in their pure and unadulterated form as originally given to mankind by God, these "presentations of a continuing process" were intended for the people of those times and under those circumstances. As a result, man did indeed evolve and create great civilizations that led to all of what we now find good and wonderful in our own civilization. The Koran lifted the most barbarous people out of the "dumps" and made them the envy of the world and the originators of science and mathematics. To ignore these facts of history is to do a disservice to the name of religion and to our future hopes of solving our own problems. I do not suggest that we must take any of the existing forms of religious expression as politically propagated around the world today and try to fit our "feet" into an "old shoe." But I think that to throw out the idea of wearing shoes when walking on a rocky road just because the old shoes don't fit anymore, is not all that bright.

There are a lot of assumptions in this article that I certainly don't share.

I am certainly not part of the "we" who speaks of exporting democracy. That seems a preposterous idea to me, that democracy could be exported. Democracy is a living idea, people either catch on to it, fight for it, and try to make it part of their lives, or they don't.

But as for your question, I have to say "Yes!!" the separation of religion and state is a wholly desirable thing.

Our Constitutional standard for the separation is all about our individual protection. It creates a completely secular government so that the nation, and the people in it, can not be governed or subjected to rule, by whim of any religious pontificate.

The Constitution forbids our government from favoring one religion over any other, or from suppressing any one religion. Religion is a personal matter, which, according to nature's design, must be wrestled out between each individual and the God they perceive.

It is not the role of government to preach or interfere.

Religion certainly does have effect IN our government. Office holders' thoughts, goals, actions and decisions are always influenced by whatever moral and worldly views that their religions instill, support and nurture within them.

But religion is not the only source of moral upbringing and-or moral guidance for individuals. Some people learn to "do the right things" from a sense of family heritage, or because of some mentor, or from some non-religious inspiration, or because it just somehow makes sense to them.

Representatives are not appointed by some religious figure, nor are they selected by some mystical practice, nor required to meet the dictates of any some specific religious tome.

Let the moral guidance of Christianity continue to express itself through the catalytic vigor of our free market democratic processes; like all other religions must. We (supposedly) let the conscientiousness of ALL people be measured and counted equally. One person, one vote, no preferences.

Besides, "Christianity" is far too generic a term for defining some sway that I would want guiding or government. The bland definition easily encompass far-out aggressive agenda radicals who would trash this nation and string-up multitudes of folk in a heart-beat; and that would not be in the best interest of these united states.


"..if a majority of the population were to become Muslim, they would without question convert our government to an Islamic government.."


Exactly the reason our Constitutional standard for separation of Church and State should be written in stone.

But, nah... the "majority" (or any majority) of our population cannot make such a change. Just look at all the publicly unpopular government activities of late, and how well government has responded to "the will" of the people. Even a true major majority is a pretty weak force in our governmental machinery.

Secondly: converting our government to an Islamic government would take decades. It would require establishing an unbreakable majority within the legislatures, while also taking over the Executive branch in order to stay any veto pen, AND taking over the Judicial branch so as to prevent any injunctions and rulings from interfering.

And having said all, I me realize that American Conservative Christianity is probably perfectly positioned right now, to do exactly that; establish itself as our national religion.

I suppose it will be against the law to not go to church anymore. I wonder what the prison term -- punishment -- will be.

Carla G.: I agree with you. Most "Christian Americans" think not only of "Christianity" when they speak about the saying of prayers in school but of their particular interpretation of "Christianity" (i.e church dogma). This narrowness is what makes the very idea of prayer in school offensive to most of us. It is the propagandizing of any particular view of religion. But that should not necessarily extend to the idea of religion as a general subject. After all, religion -- like it or not, agree with it or not -- has been a most important, if controversial subject in human history. War is ugly and insane, but should we prohibit the study of the role of wars in history?

The reason why religion is historically "full of superstition" is that it IS historical. God is no dummy (in spite of what many people think today). His revelatory process in giving religion to people was to couch it in terms they could understand -- and more important -- efficaciously follow in a productive way. This required the "telling of children that it is storks that bring babies" until they are grown more and can appreciate the complexity of the true story. However, the fact remains -- as I see it and as I think any objective thinker will have to agree -- the result of religion historically has been marvelously productive. Sure there were many set-backs and hindrances and abuses. But the net effect was to "civilize" the world. It is hard for me to believe that any rational and emotionally stable person today would wish to "undo" what religion has accomplished (in spite of all the excesses and abuses, Crusades, Inquisition, Ireland, etc.) in keeping mankind on a road of progress toward a semblance of unselfish unity.

For instance, to think that we have evolved socially so far and are now so advanced morally (thanks to religion, incidentally) that we can now "do it on our own," and dispense with religion (remember, not "church") is a blue print for total disaster. The fight between the haves and the have-nots is still very much alive and well. Our political ineptitude (the party system or "baboon psychology") is so entrenched that it will take something on the proportions of religious zeal and external authority to make any headway that is meaningful. If we don't, we will destroy ourselves with our own unleashed greed and avariciousness.

Donald, actually, in many of those instances you post, they are the result of corrupted religion being used to justify violence. It is not a religious vacuum, but the end result of the corruption of religion. A corruption that we find EACH AND EVERY TIME religion is allowed a place of power.

Your arguement that religion in it's pure form is God's word in effect reflects your own belief that there is only one God to begin with. It is by default flawed, because it is not possible to have religion exist in society in this pure state you support. That pure state never existed. The moment man decided to put on paper these beliefs, they became corrupted, because man only recorded those beliefs that suited him.

As an INDIVIDUAL, allow your faith to guide you in your own path. But as a nation, we need to prevent religion from playing a part in the legal process, because in the hands of men religion is in fact corrupt, and you cannot separate the two.

Note your strong response to my reference to sam-sex marriages. You use the word "prostitute" and dismiss it as their "frustrated lives." Your moral code makes it impossible for you to comfortably accept two adults of the same sex wanted to be in a monogamous relationship, and instead you would rather they practice abstinence and deny themselves of human contact and love instead of engaging in a practice you personally find immoral. In your mind, sex should be reserved for procreation, and if one is not going to procreate one should not have sex. And if one engages in sex without the desire to procreate, there is something inherently "wrong" or weak about that person.

Where, Donald, do you propose we would find this "pure" form of religion that you keep talking about? Where is it? How do we find it? And how do we know what it is?

Bill's Spirit: I understand your points and that is why I wrote what I knew would be a controversial subject, to stimulate discussion and thought.

I would like to point out, however, that you are making the same mistake that most people make in confusing "religion" with "churchianity." Christianity is not "a religion" as most proclaim, but a man-made interpretation and one view of what one particular presentation of religion is. We use the term separation of religion and state but we should say separation of "church" and state. The Constitution says, I think, that the government shall make no laws establishing a religion, that is making some particular church or form of religion the sole interpreter of what is moral and ethical. In fact, the same founders who framed the Constitution included terms like "In God we Trust" in their documents. They explicitly state that the Union is formed under the assumption that there is a Supreme Authority which is the Source of all religion.

I would also respectfully point out the falsity to your rather commonly held opinion that people today now have learned to do "the right things" through family and associates and do not need religion to guide them. Do you think that these family and cultural values just grew up in a vacuum? You (and I, and "we") are the products of thousands of years of religious morality, like it or not. Neither your family, nor you just got up one morning and said (after a "light bulb" went off in their head above them), "Wow! That's neat. We should not kill each other. We should not commit adultery. We should honor our father and our mother... etc."? Be a realist. We are but part of a long history of both physiological and psychological and social evolution. We are just one stage in a long process. We haven't "arrived". We have only come part of the way and may not even make it the rest of the way considering what is going on right now.

Julie Ann Dawson: You have some very good questions and thoughts worthy of dialogue. First, what I am saying is that yes, we do have corruption connected with any human endeavor. There is corruption in our present government, in our industry, in our business dealings, in personal relations, etc. But does that mean that we should not have government, business, or personal relations? I don't think so. With all of the corruption, we still manage to have and maintain a fairly productive and peaceful living environment. Wouldn't you agree? Second, the fact that the practice of "religion" ("Churchianity" as I call it) is quite immature and faulty is not debatable in my opinion. But that does not mean that we cannot devise (or better yet, "find" a better form as directed and imposed by the natural divine process called "religion") a better, more non-corruptible form of religious expression (and entirely new concept of "church"). Our "church" system (which applies to Hinduism and Islam also) was as it was and is because of the exigencies of the time and state of man's receptivity when it was "given" or devised. We no longer drive horses and buggies (well, most of us) so why should we continue to "drive an outmoded vehicle" of religion (i.e. "churchianty" with a clergy, etc.) when we can come up with something better. And better yet, what if God has already done that? Maybe you only have to open your eyes (and your mind) and look around you.

About my strong statement on "same sex marriages," which I consider a perfect example of an oxymoron, with emphasis on the "moron" part of it, I would like to point out some more elucidation. I personally find most homosexual people to be very sensitive and lovable people. I like interacting with them when they control their "preferences around me." But I think that they are making a serious mistake in their lives in giving so much importance to sex. I like to eat but I don't believe in simply gorging myself endlessly because I like to eat. You don't "make love". You "love." Sex is not "love". Sex can be part of an expression of love. I love many people without having any desire to have sex with them. I love my children and my friends. I love people in general and I love God. I love the world that He made for me, the air I breath and the animals and trees around me. But I don't go around trying to "hump" everything that I see. Homosexuality is an extreme case of this misplaced emphasis on the true desire to have and be loved. It is not only a problem with homosexuals. It is a problem with the vast majority of heterosexuals. This is why so many marriages end in divorce. Pornography is simply one example of this misplaced and "blown out of proportion" emphasis on sexual activity. The worst thing about this same sex marriage idea is that it helps to promote confusion in the minds of young people and divert their attention away from the real solution to their loneliness and frustration. It promises something that it cannot deliver. Plus the fact that it is just "one step for mankind" on the way to pedophilia, which is another distortion of the idea of sex being a substitute for Love.

Lastly, I know where and how this new religious expression exists. But you must find it on your own. Otherwise, if you become lost in the future when I am not there; you will not have a way of finding it again. Seek and ye shall find. It is not in any of the (or forms of the) existing major religions (such as Hinduism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, or Islam). Take that as a clue.

I hope you will forgive me for making "the mistake." I've never heard anyone say that Christianity is not a religion.

Please explain how Christianity is only a "churchianity" and not a religion?


The idea that Christianity is not a religion seems totally foreign, and perhaps that is why I am obtuse about it; especially since your article seems to paint Christitianity in the light of a religion that is already rife in our government.


As for the quote about separation of church and state: it is the beginning of the Third Article in our Bill of Rights...

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;.."

I can agree that the framers gave an acknowledgement to the idea of a Higher Power (God), but they clearly did not want any man or law in the government they were forming to dictate, proscribe or establish any limitations or specific directions on who God is, or how he-she-it are to be worshipped.

That part seems pretty clear.


As for "the falsity" in my other opinion: you flagrantly miss-quoted me. I never said people did not need religion to guide them. I said that some people learn to "do the right things" from a sense of family heritage, or because of some mentor, or from some non-religious inspiration, or because it just somehow makes sense to them.

You may be right, that no one "just got up one morning and said (after a "light bulb" went off in their head above them), "Wow! That's neat. We should not kill each other. We should not commit adultery. We should honor our father and our mother... etc."

...but, I am a realist; and it is wholly possible that people who witnessed and-or were victims of carnage from other people, did, in fact, one day come to the conclusion that killing brings more pain and trouble than not killing, that philandering can cause all manner of heartaches and body aches, and that being destructive towards your parents can ruin your own life and even lead to your individual demise.

These "realizations" do not require ancient tomes, nor tablets scribed by fiery deific finger; just plain thinking can lead straight to the conclusion that gentle living leads to a less strife filled life. Although I suppose that having that realization might feel like lightening from above, it is really just the power of realization.


On another note: your portrayal of homosexuals as sexually out of control folk that simply want to "hump" everything they can is ghastly offensive and totally inaccurate.

Most gay and lesbian folk I've known are not replacing or mistaking sex for love. They genuinely feel Love (compassion, care, concern and affection) for their partner.

What you are describing is Nymphomania or sexual obsessiveness; and that trait is found in all the varied sexual orientations of our world's population, in equal proportion.

If you haven't met any old gay or lesbian couples, you would be completely surprised at how many of them live and act just like old hetero-married folk.

Your idea that same-sex marriage is a covert path towards the legalization of pedophilia is outrageous. Being homosexual (a sexual preference for a member of the same sex) is not the same as being a pedophile (a sexual preference for young children).

Check your statistic, the majority of pedophile crimes in our country are heterosexual, not homosexual.

Your confusion of the two is completely misguided, quite harmful and totally wrong.

I agree with you Bill's Spirit. Most gays and lesbians just want to be able to have a legal marriage like heterosexuals. I just read about a lesbian couple who had been together for 50 years and finally are now allowed to marry. They are together because they love each other and not because of sex. Science is now finding links to homosexuality in men and birth order, which would prove that there is something genetic or biological which causes it. We need to stop judging and making character assumptions based on homosexuality.

OK, folks. I got it. So why don't we simply address these matters one by one and try to remain intellectually honest.

First, Bills' Spirit: It is true that when most people speak of "religion" they mean some particular form of religious expression. But I look at "religion" as a process that is divorced from capture by human imagination and transformed into a formalized system of spiritual governance. For instance, Jesus was not a Christian. Jesus was a Jew and worshiped in a Jewish Synagogue. He even drove the money lenders our of the synagogue with a whip. Which was a particular instance where He showed that He (and therefore God by implication, at least to Christians) was not always tolerant of what people did. In this instance, He did not "turn the other cheek." In fact, He "smote the other cheek." Christianity is a form of organized spiritual worship based somewhat on the teachings of the historical figure, Jesus of Nazareth. I say "somewhat" because obviously not all those forms (the "Churchianity") are the same or in agreement as to what constitutes Christianity. Christianity is not "a religion". It is a form of worship based on religion and the religious process. In fact, in my view there is no such thing as "a religion." There is only "religion". Religion is from the word religio meaning to "bind together." More than three hundred disparate and sometimes violently opposed "churches" or denominations of Christianity do not serve the purpose of "binding together."

Thanks for the quote from the Bill of Rights. I didn't have it handy. But I think this is grossly misinterpreted for socio political purposes. Having prayer in school, for instance, does not involve congress making a law and it certainly does not "establishment of religion." That's my point. Whether we are psychic enough to know what the framers thought when they wrote this, the fact remains that the words speak for themselves with authority that is indisputable.

I don't see that I "misquoted" you in regard to people not needing a God to know that something is bad. I am sure that a thousand years ago, or ten thousand, or whatever, people knew that some things were not necessarily beneficial to them in the long run. But until religion came into play and "codified" a system of morals and ethics without subjecting the details of it to a popular vote (and thereby making such an agreement unfeasible) there was just a lot of personal opinion that had no common cause. I do not mean to imply that man has no spiritual receptivity except through the intercession of others (including God). But when you say, "some people learn to do the right things from a sense of family heritage or because of some mentor, or from some non religious inspiration, or because it just somehow makes sense to them..." I think you are being unrealistic. First, "family heritage" is a history of religious influence as far as morals and ethics is concerned. It comes in the form of the standard of the society itself in which the family is a part and that is inherited historically from a religious beginning and perhaps thousands of years of practice. To think that our family "invented" right and wrong is total nonsense and very unrealistic. In fact, I have found in my own life that there is a lot of "brain washing" from society and expected norms that I didn't realize I had received and thought was quite "my own" until later events showed me how wrong I was. All of these things you mention as non-religious influences are in fact the direct result of religious influence, pure and simple. There is nothing in rational thought to suggest that what we have and know as moral and ethical is "as obvious as the leaves on the autumn lawn" that anyone can pick up with surety.

As to homosexuality: Do you not find it a strange coincidence that with all the Catholic Priests who have been "caught" abusing children (pedophilia) it almost never involves a heterosexual relationship? I have known many homosexuals, some of which have been and are very dear friends. But I also have a close "friend" who is in prison probably for the rest of his life who was first co-opted into homosexuality under circumstances that were known by the offender to make him particularly vulnerable, and then he was led by these same people into pedophilia. A conversion to homosexuality was attempted on me when I was young at a particular time when I was extremely vulnerable as known to the party who attempted it. So please don't talk to me with this BS rhetoric about how harmless homosexuality is. I never said that homosexuality is the same as pedophilia. I said -- or meant to say -- that one can lead to the other as a natural extension of a perceived perversion to another perceived sexual perversion. I think that trying to justify sexual perversion (from the intended purpose for which sex was obviously designed) is to lead down a very slippery slope for our society as a whole. You may follow with your, "Two legs bad, four legs good," bleating, but I will not. And I do not judge the individuals (some of whom are very dear and sincere friends) but I do judge and condemn the practice.

Carla G.: You say of homosexual couples you know, "they are together because they love each other and not because of sex." What nonsense is this? I am sure you are too intelligent and reasonable to actually believe this. There are many same sex people who live together and enjoy each other's company without having sexual relations with each other. One is not at all related to the other. To think so is to confuse the two. Sex is not love. Sex can be an expression of love or it can be a completely asexual gratification, such as masturbation. You say, "We need to stop judging and making character assumptions based on homosexuality." Why not? It is an offensive practice in the eyes of the vast majority of the world's people and will not become less offensive with all this justification rhetoric. Those who defend homosexuality are giving in to the selfish wants of a small minority of people. When you say that "science is now finding links to homosexuality in men and birth order which would prove that there is something genetic or biological." Such nonsense. I have seen nothing but professed "indications" and no proof per se. Scientists are all the time proving something that becomes false tomorrow. Besides, which -- as I said once before and no one wants to acknowledge -- scientists are also proving genetic proclivities for people committing murder and rape. Should we issue permits for murder and rape because some people can't control themselves based on a genetic predisposition that they have no control over? Please, let's be real.

Donald,

You need to open up a book and study the psychology of pedofilia. It is not the same as homosexuality. Most pedofiles identify themselves as heterosexual. Pedofilia, like rape, is not about sex. It is about control of another human being. Homosexuality is a consentual act between consenting individuals. Pedofilia, like rape, involves force...not consent.

In the case of the Catholic priests, it is more often than not about ACCESS, not preference. Altar boys are easier to get to, and control, than young girls (who are rarely alone with the priests). Again, such abuse is about control, not consentual sex.

But this again only proves the point regarding religion. Religious thought lumps everything deemed a sexual perversion in the same pot, and doesn't bother to understand the differences. There was a time when religious thought told as unterracial relationships were wrong, and that it would be the downfall of society if we allowed them. Well, we did and society is still here.

I'm sorry about the incident from your childhood, but homosexuals do not "convert." Rather, pedofiles attempt to control their prey. These are two very different things. I think your personal experience has narrowed your view, and understandably so.

I saw a show ('show'?) on t.v. just last night about a baby born with 8 limbs. Yes, eight. Viewers could count them. I'm not kidding. Strange things happen at birth. It wasn't the baby's fault. Anyway a team of doctors and surgeons removed the offending parts. The surgery was successful and the child was rendered 'normal'. Homosexual orientation and homosexual behavior are two different things. One is how one IS and the other is what one DOES. A person can be a homosexual but NEVER commit a homosexual act.

Wow... Intersting article. I'll have to come back later when I have more time! :)

You need to open up a book and study the psychology of pedofilia.

Preferably a book not from the 1950s.

Julie Ann Dawson: I'm sorry but I can't "buy into" the psychological mumble jumble about "control". The fact that a lot of people (including "authorities") say so and think that way doesn't make it correct. Almost everybody believed that the world was flat at one time. Some people still do. But my best guess is that the world is generally "round." The reason people want control in the situation of rape is because they want control of the sexual activity. People are unreasonably driven by their sexual urges and many people are simply not mature enough or self controlled enough to "wait their turn." Just as they blame the world for their plight in not having this and that and not being "fortunate" etc. they blame women for their own lack of character quality in being unable to attract women as sexual mates. I have not said that homosexuality and pedophilia are the same, only that the cause of one leads inevitably to the other if left unchecked, particularly in the less responsible practitioners. Homosexual people are just as much sexual predators as are heterosexuals. The difference is that the "prey" of one is quite natural and socially acceptable where the "prey" of the other is not.

You say that there was a time when religious thought prohibited interracial marriage. What are you talking about? It isn't in any scriptural material on this planet that I know of. If you are referring to the actions of supposedly religious people twisting "religious" passages to infer a prohibition against interracial marriage then I can agree. But that is not the fault of religion. You cannot blame Jesus (or God) for the wars fought in their names. If you do, then that is your problem. It is again, "throwing out the baby with the bath water."

The last comment above my post (that I have read w/o a refresh) is 4:35 ... there should be a law that these threads cannot advance so far before I come across them. :-)

First off, too much has been said for me to comment adequately, so I touche on a couple things before just reposting an earlier comment on another of Donald's threads today.

Modern psychology has been further modernized via "Transpersonal Physchology" and through that one COULD come up with the answers mankind needs to correct the problems of our societies current thinking. (do a google on "Paths Beyond Ego" ... a book I highly recommend).

Also that the Spirit of God IS inherent withIN each of us already via our own INtuition ... so we do NOT NEED religion(s) because we have already a natural and generic Spirituality just waiting to be recognised and utilized ...

Now, my promised "earlier" comment (rather than typing most of it over, I am lazy at the moment). :


<<< I will have to enter the discussion with this: "" God's laws for us to obey are for our own good and not God's. I think that when and if we -- "learned" as we may think we are spiritually -- get too proud of ourselves and think that we have mastered the spiritual powers of investigation on simply an individual basis without regard to the rest of man, then we are treading on very swampy ground.
Donald Hawley, Jun 22, 2008, 5:25pm EDT ""

I enter with that because I see it as so very applicable to my own way of thinking from what I call a "spirituality" perspective. I thus envision the author (Donald) even having me in mind in the writing of it ... be that so or not is irrelevant on a personal level, but overall it is very relevant from "my" perspective in that my view of God is that S/He has NO "rules" as such, only some "recommendations," rules are "made" (man-ufactured) by "religions" which are thus "institutionalized" (hierarchically organized) ... thus come under the designated "brand(s)" of said religion(s) ...

I realize Donald that you want to keep "religion" a word defining something other than "churches" ... but I say that it is far too late for that because churches have already too far contaminated the word religion for it to have any better meaning.

On the other hand, "spirituality" to me is still relatively far less contaminated and thus stands for a a more pure "generic" neutrality based upon the Truth of God which is UNconditional Love ... and as I see it, the entire WHOLE of the UNIversal Creation which is a Trinity of (+=-) that actually ALLOWS all of the negativity that we introduce into it from the fullness of that "potential" ... such being really then a "subjective" determination anyway, as like beauty, being in the eye of the beholder.

As I have said elswhere before, my view is panentheistic, making all of creation the "body" of God and the interconnective spiritually intelligent "energy" (including karmic accounting) being the "mind" of God, thus God is the equal but opposite of creation, as creation is the equal but opposite of God (+=-).

We being made "in the image of" simply means that we are as is God, as god(s) in our own realm, meaning that here we are also the creators of our own realities ... as well as co-creators of our shared social reality ... meaning to me that there are NO rules other than the ones we ourselves impose upon our thinking and acting ... God has initially granted us the "free agency" to play it all out as we see fit in that regard, or any other regard.

It being a "theistic" view of God as a creator and enforcer of rules that so many relate to ... a God OUTside of themselves.


Thus I see the INdividual has having priority (short of God the totality) ... and I see "religions" as standing for "groups" of like thinkers ... who have shared standards and "rules" that they prefer to impose on any others that they will relate to acceptably.

Which came first, the chicken or the egg ? ... The Individual or the group ? AND, in THIS case, IS there an INterconnective SPIRIT INvolved ? AND just what does that Spirit represent or stand for ? Rules, or freedom to learn via the Golden Rule of Cause and Effect ??

If there is truly available the God and Spirit that I envision, then there is also "separation" between the righteous and the unrighteous ... there are NO accidents and true karmic accounting will properly separate us from unwanted and unneeded "experiences" ... in other words, there can be homosexuals doing homosexual things and there can be murderers doing murderous things ... but spiritual karma will keep them doing it to each other, NOT the rest of us that have a different "spiritual" reality ... which will reflect in our manifested reality likewise. ... I have the faith in just that ... and I suggest that we all could, if we wanted to bad enough ...

IMnsHO.
Jerry Kays, Jun 23, 2008, 3:18pm EDT >>>

Psychology has been about as destructive to society as religion has. Both are a form of brainwashing.

The topic here started out about religion and goverment, and homosexulaity has nothing to with either. So, back on topic, I would say this:

All religion is full of manmade dogma. The problem with some belief systems is that part of their dogma says God has ordained all rulers. Hubby and I were discussing this last evening, because this is what the church taught us as youngsters. I think that's how most of the old world believed, and I do think it was about mind control if you read up on the Angelican Church in the days of our forefathers.

I read somewhere that worship came before religion, though, in the form of the first humans worshipping nature. So religion was the organization of worship in our evolution. I don't think it was either a good thing or a bad thing, it just happened as a part of our growth and in every culture. I also believe that we will grow beyond it, just as some of the older beliefs have now become myths. Many cultural belief systems have blended together, just as race has.

So what we're actually talking about is what we need right now at this point in time. We're in a deep struggle about what we should do about religion and what we should do about race. There are still cultures who do not believe in interracial marriage, but I believe that it is only a matter of time. I believe the same is true of religion. I see the world as a huge melting pot.

Separation is not a reality, except in man's mind. Everything on Earth is connected, and yet it is fleeting. For me there is something much more important than religion or government. It is called Spirit, and I believe this is what will balance the melting pot. I don't have a clue when mankind will come together as a whole, some think it will happen soon or the world will collapse if it doesn't. I don't think this is anything we really have control over in our human existence.

I will say this though, at this point in time, it is an individual process, and something the government has no authority over. I believe we are beyond the point of one cultural belief controlling the whole world. Religion has broken into many pieces and is being blended together. It's like mixing all the ingredients in the soup recipe, and coming up with something not even similar to any one particular ingredient. Although a carrot is still a carrot, the mix is not called a carrot soup.

Rosa See Ya: Well, thanks for contributing and bringing us back on subject. You and I have different "takes" on what is religion. But it can still be an interesting subject to discuss and consider from other people's point of view. Your view is, I think, rather typical of what could be expected to evolve in the age of naive realism (Newtonian Physics) where anything that cannot be measured with an instrument of some kind is suspect and usually totally ignored as unworthy of investigation. The funny thing, though, is that science has itself moved beyond that epistemological model into what might be called radical empericalism. Modern science realizes that we can not get knowledge of something from pure sensory perception since simultaneity and pure objectivity is impossible. Everyone sees everything from a unique perspective both in time and place. We are now -- in science -- probing into such elusive and rather abstract realities as "dark energy" and "dark matter" among other rather fanciful and materially elusive concepts.

What I'm driving to in this is that I have consider the possibility that even more elusive and improbable than "dark matter" is the proposition intuitively suspected from Day One that there is a Master Controller of the universe (or more broadly, "ALL") that has been called God for want of a better name. In fact, it is also somewhat reasonable to assume that since we have what we call reasoning ability, intuition, spiritual aspirations and other human qualities beyond the usual purely mechanical paradigm, that whatever or whoever created us cannot be less than what we are. This is where we come to the concept of God.

Unfortunately, religion and church and God and the spiritual have come into some sort of disrepute recently because of the asinine antics of those who are stuck in the "middle ages" of spiritual thinking. But in my case, I have never been a follower and never the ploy for my "peers". I am perhaps deficient in that I insist on thinking for myself. But I am also deficient in many people's minds because I not only insist on thinking for myself but in not simply rejecting anything just because others do or because it is not in vogue just now. Perhaps hopefully, you have a touch of this sort of madness also.

My opinion from years of introspection and consideration as well as "world experience" shows me that not only is there a God but that we are a special part of the entire universe with a special mission (now shown to be true by quantum physics). I also consequently believe that part of our natural evolutionary paradigm is to be guided in our social evolution by direct "sunlight" from that "divine Source, God." That we have not been able intellectually in the past to fully appreciate this and to keep our hands from spoiling the "broth" does not mitigate the reality of that process. This process is called "religion", which is a natural part of the order of things and not an invention of idle minds. Our bungling of the secondary process of trying to translate the religious "guidance" received into a real world environment is understandable if regrettable, considering our sad state of advancement spiritually and socially.

Thus I see religion, unlike you do, as something that is not man made and part of the developing mental state of man but simply part of the process. We learn as we grow.

But what about the separation of religion and state? Is such a thing even desirable?

Absolutely! Ethics are necessary and they do not belong to religion.

Sandy Knauer: How did you interpret the word "religion" in your quote from me? Do you mean, as I did, "religion in the generic sense" or "religion in the sense of 'church' control"? Where do you think we get our sense of ethical values? Do we get it from a psychology book? Do we get it from a board of "experts", all of which inherited their ethical values from a long history of religious teachings on the subject? Do you think that we humans have ethical standards as a matter of simple pragmatic reasoning? Do you think that we can get a world wide consensus on ethical and moral standards without the powerful suggestive force inherent in religion (not church)? Just asking?

Donald, there is plenty of scientific literature on the possible courses the evolution of our ethical sense might have taken. These theories, while a work in progress, already do a better job of explaining our ethical reasoning, together with its quirks and prejudices, than the idea that "religion" as some higher force would have originated it.

On the contrary, it's religions that are built on the ideas that people had about fair treatment of others just as they are built on other features of our minds, such as our desire for immortality and protection, the misfirings of our overactive agent detection device, and our obsession with ancestors. To this religions added bits and pieces of various ideas people had about their own history and about the nature of the physical world at the time of formation of the religion--and that's how they ended up as the hodgepodge of contradictory and often outdated ideas they are.


However, there is a dilemma here because "religion" (i.e. not "churchianity") is the only historical source of any system of morals and ethics.

It only appears so. The reason for this is that in pre-modern times all "knowledge" was integrated--the whole cultural package was one. Science was not distinguished from the body of folk beliefs we call superstition today, nor from "religion" (whatever the difference might be). History was not distinguished from mythology or story-telling. Religion was mixed up in everything, and everything was mixed up in religion. This doesn't mean that religion originated ethics, science, history, or fiction writing, only that these various areas emerged from a single cultural mix and slowly separated from each other.

As for your interpretation of "religion", you're trying to avoid the reality of what religions are, how they come about and change, and how they function in society by talking about some purified, generic essence of religion. If you're going to argue for a role of religion in the government, you'll have to talk about religion as it actually is, with the mess and and all.

Aniko: I find it interesting but a bit pretentious that people today can come up with all sorts of rationalizations to explain why what obviously happened really didn't happen that way. The problem with "science" is that it has taken on itself the role of being purely objective when science itself has shown that we cannot be purely objected since we are subjective perceiving nature and from every differing perspectives. Let me ask you one simple question: How can you explain in materialistic terms the fact the Ali, the desert Arab nephew and the First Caliph of Islam said, thirteen hundred years before science invented the atomic bomb, "Split the heart of the atom and lo! thou wilt find a sun."? And how can you explain Baha'u'llah's statement (Who died in 1892) "A strange and wonder instrument exists in the earth; but it is concealed from the minds and souls. It is an instrument which has the power to change the atmosphere of the whole earth and its infection causes destruction." Or how about the statement by Baha'u'llah's son, Abdu'l-Baha, "Scientific discoveries have increased material civilization. There is in existence a stupendous force, as yet, happily, undiscovered by man. Let us supplicate God, the beloved, that this force be not discovered by science until spiritual civilization shall dominate the human mind. In the hands of men of lower material nature this power would be able to destroy the whole earth."? This statement was published as is in English no later than 1911, two years before Einstein's Theory of Relativity.

I believe that it is you who are not being realistic about the role of religion based on biased "scientific treatment" for it's own sake. When you say, "If you're going to argue for a role of religion in the government, you'll have to talk about religion as it actually is, with the mess and and all." You see, you are making the mistake in my mind of blaming religion for the mess created by people's interpretation of "religion" and it's commandeered prostitution for their own selfish and ignorant reasons. I am talking about religion in the generic sense as untainted by human mental pollution. And incidentally, I am not in favor of any religious "church" getting involved in government as much as I am interested in some religious thoughts on morals and ethics getting involved.

The problem with "science" is that it has taken on itself the role of being purely objective when science itself has shown that we cannot be purely objected since we are subjective perceiving nature and from every differing perspectives.

Still, airplanes fly and magic carpets don't. Not admitting this is the "problem with" this sort of subjectivism and relativism. There is also, of course, the issue that if your position is that we can never be objective, it's not entirely clear how you can argue with me here and claim that whatever you're saying is true. In what sense is it? Are you right and I'm wrong? But if nothing is objectively true....

(My point is that such "everything is subjective and relative" arguments are used only when one has nothing better to offer--the moment the subjectivist has facts supporting him, he turns into an objectivist and starts making claims he expects others to agree to.)

How can you explain in materialistic terms the fact the Ali, the desert Arab nephew and the First Caliph of Islam said, thirteen hundred years before science invented the atomic bomb, "Split the heart of the atom and lo! thou wilt find a sun."?

The law of large numbers predicts that in a large body of of text there will be things that will appear significant, even prophetic, to us. If we're dealing with poetry, this is all the more likely. Who knows what Ali meant by atom (what word did he use exactly?), and the suns? I read a parody of this sort of interpretation that "argues" that the beginning paragraph of Dickens's A Tale of Two Cities is a prediction of Quantum Mechanics. (Best of times & worst of times, etc, at the same time=Schrödinger's cat dead & alive at the same time.)


The same thing applies to Bahá'u'lláh's and his son's prophecies, with the additional circumstance that these two were very much interested in science and following what was going on in their time. Most of what they said reflects the ideas floating around then: they thought there were living things on every planet in the universe, and they believed in the ether theory--two ideas that turned out to be wrong. In other words, two numbers that didn't happen to be drawn in the lottery that such prophecies really are--in materialistic terms.

When you say, "If you're going to argue for a role of religion in the government, you'll have to talk about religion as it actually is, with the mess and and all." You see, you are making the mistake in my mind of blaming religion for the mess created by people's interpretation of "religion" and it's commandeered prostitution for their own selfish and ignorant reasons.

You're missing the point. It's not a question of blaming religion for what people did wrong or not blaming it. I may perceive religion to be a social phenomenon including the wide array of things that go with it in a real society, and you may prefer your Platonic pure-idea interpretation. Both may have validity, but the question is, which one are we going to deal with if we allow religion to meddle in government and government to meddle in religion? Do you have a special plan that will ensure that this time, your generic-sense religion will not be misinterpreted, misused, prostituted etc. for people's selfish and ignorant reasons? I doubt you do. That's what I meant by that sentence: if you put religion in government, you'll get religion as a social phenomenon, business as usual--not your idealized version.

Aniko: Thanks for your very well thought out and written comment. You have some very good and pertinent points.

First: As to objectivity vs subjectivity, I am addressing the new paradigm of physics that arose from Einstein's Relativity, etc. It was realized that naive realism (Newtonian) was intrinsically faulty because "knowledge" is a human perception and there can be no true objectivity in human perception. Each human is different in time and place. No scientific observation (as "seen" by a human) can be separated from the human perceptive translation, which is seen from a specific angle and view point in time and place. No single human, even, can "see" the same thing precisely the same at two separate times. Therefore, it was realized that the idea of learning from pure experimental data is false to begin with. We must work our subjective nature with prospective intuition to form a theory of reality, which then may be tested to see if "the shoe fits the foot." Objective science is workable on a very basic level but not when it comes to more abstruse subjects of interest.

Second: I don't know about the Arabic words of Ali in the original but I have seen the English translation as quoted to you that was printed in 1911, two years before the Theory of Relativity. And I don't buy the "infinite number of monkeys typing" idea since we cannot have an infinite number of monkeys or anything else in the real world. Being skeptical is a healthy thing if not taken to absurd lengths. Just the translation of Ali's statement is beyond reasonable coincidence. Of course you can be skeptical. But skepticism is it's own worst enemy. Can you prove that we exist? Not beyond skeptical denial. As to those statements by Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha, one has to be practically brain dead to imagine that they are coincidentally accurate in prophesying the future. First, neither Baha'u'llah nor Abdul-Baha were educated at all... none, zip, nada. Second, their specific words (translated into English prior to the events and so published) are far too coincidental. They say that is is an "instrument in the earth." What does that mean? It obviously specifically means something naturally occurring underground (plutonium?). They specifically say, "discovered by science." This is not vague but specific. It will not be discovered by a prospector and dug up. It will not be discovered by accident. It will be something that will have to be uncovered not only physically but intellectually in order to be in "working order." It will not be something dreamed up by an enterprising businessman and marketed. It will be discovered by "science." They also say that it has tremendous power capable of destroying the whole Earth and polluting the entire atmosphere of the Earth. Come on, Aniko, prior to 1945, such a thing was unimaginable. You would have been laughed out of the room had you suggested such a thing. At the very least both Baha'u'llah and Abbul-Baha were bona fide geniuses. Are you or I then going to question their claims about religion if they are geniuses? Not me, that's for sure.

Third: You ask if I have a special plan that will ensure that this time my generic-sense religion will not be misunderstood, misused, prostituted, etc. for people's selfish reasons? The answer: Of course not. It is not possible to completely eliminate problems from human greed. However, we can sure as hell improve what we have now. Do you honestly think that our government or any government without religion involved is free of being manipulated "for people's selfish reasons?" At least when religion is involved it is on the face of it wrong. With pure political involvement there is no "wrong" or "right."

Government and religion are synonymous activities. Religion deals with what is moral and ethical while government deals with implementation of morals and ethics in every day life. There is no such thing as a moral and ethical code outside of religious tradition. All such systems or ideas today that think differently are the inherited values from our religious past and traditions. We think that we "invented" good and evil because we have a natural repugnance for evil and an attraction to good. But that is not something borne in a vacuum. We inherited it from religion even when bastardized by those who manipulated religion for their own selfish purposes.

Interesting ... makes me want to insert here my earlier comment on the other thread:

Maybe in the base essence of the thoughtful choices as to our present and our projected future ... we have two base choices ... according to the argument here now.

1) Go with Religious tradition based upon the historic past, and generally only as interpreted back then, relying upon a very few "books" that are deemed inviolate as regards to the truth ...

Of course there are differing Religions with differing concepts about all of that, and they seem not to be able to agree, or even to agree to disagree, in too many cases, resulting in much conflict world wide. A conflict of differing hierarchies and their dogmas ... Or ...


2) Take the route of Science based upon research ongoing, always seeking "the next step" in a purely logical and rational methodology, dealing in pure facts that alone are considered truth.

This type of research then would seem to limit itself to only the common 5 objective senses that man considers "reliable" ... pure objectivity ... the idea that the individual ego is the epitome of evolutionary advancement ... and that the most logical and rational ego that can consistently compile the most facts along with having the ability to defend them, should be the "leader(s)" ...

A scientific hierarchy that is trusted without question by the mere population in general who have not been so well endowed with intellect and "position" within the hierarchy. Trusted leader(s) and the masses of followers just going along ...


Can "such" leaders really be trusted though? What might take place when one hierarchy comes to feel "threatened" by another, and takes the current research from a peaceful use to a weaponized use to control the feared or hated "other" ... Survival of the "fittest" ???

Where does "morality" come into play in all of this ... or does it ?

What about our "other" long history of Philosophy and it's various branches of inquiry into the differences between the noumenal and the phenomenal ?

Do we throw out epistemology and ontology ?? Completely disregard the history of metaphysical questioning just like you would religious inquiry ?

Should we completely reject INtuitive considerations in the pursuit of logical and rational reasoning only ?


Or ... could there be a Third Choice ???


3) Some kind of Balance, a generic spirituality that did take into consideration the potential possibility of a spiritual interconnection that transcends the egoic selfishness of man. ??? A panentheism maybe, rather than a theism. ???

Should we NOT have some consideration for individual inquiry, that cares about the entirety, a possible overarching continiuty to beginnings and endings, having a connection that could be involved with a transcendent loving as the higher truth we all surely seek in our hearts if not our minds ?
Jerry Kays, Jun 25, 2008, 11:12am EDT

Donald, did I say anything about infinite monkeys? Why would we need them? We already have all the text produced by the finite, but large, number of ancient writers. Like we have the millions of people who buy a lottery ticket. Think of each lottery ticket as a line of ancient text--any single one is unlikely to happen to look like a prophecy--but some of them will win.

By the way, I don't think you're brain dead, or pretentious, or naive that you mixed these too ideas up (things that you obliquely called me or other participants in the discussion, expertly planting it in your otherwise genteel and eloquent discourse). I just think you misunderstood--or perhaps projected an easy-to-debunk straw man onto a something you're not willing to consider. (Just for the record--if your argument is good, there's really no need to start it with "one has to be practically brain dead to imagine" and similar gimmicks.)

The rest, I think, is going around in circles.

Oh--wasn't Bahá'u'lláh from a prominent noble family? Wasn't he offered the usual government position that was "due" to someone of his class?

Aniko: I'm sorry, Aniko. You seem very intelligent and I am sure you are. But your arguments are pointedly skeptical to the end result of being rationally absurd. By your reasoning -- as I see it -- the whole of human history can be looked at as a coincidental mixing of meaningless symbols. And your statement about Baha'u'llah being from a prominent and powerful family shows that you have some kind of personal ax to grind, vis a vis, the Baha'i Faith. Since we are "going around in circles" with this exchange, I think it is well that we end it at this point.

It is nothing short of advocating "mind policing" to speak of limiting what citizens, including those elected to public office, may believe and say is true. To cordon off a given philosophical viewpoint, and declare it a "religion", and therefor verboten to be spoken of, or worse yet acted upon by individuals, is clearly discriminatory and tyrannical. Folks can justify such arrogant self righteousness anyway they like, but it is still the attempt to impose ones own beliefs on others, and an anathema to freedom itself.

Goodness, Donald. My point about Baha'u'llah being from a prominent family was simply a response to your saying that he had absolutely no education. My understanding is that he was a literate person. I have absolutely no ax to grind against the Baha'i faith--in fact, I appreciate its universalist and humanitarian approach, which is certainly an improvement on many of the religions it builds on and considers parts of God's revelation.

the whole of human history can be looked at as a coincidental mixing of meaningless symbols.

That is amazing. How does that follow from what I said--that things that people said many, many years ago can be misinterpreted by people? That people can project their own meanings into what others said, and that ancient writings provide many such opportunities? That hardly turns history into meaningless symbols. (Who said anything was meaningless? Just because something doesn't mean what I want it to mean, it doesn't become "meaningless".) If you mean my skepticism compromises our knowledge of historical events, I'd say the historical sources we use are quite a bit better than isolated verses here and there. The founding document of an abbey or a volume by Titus Livius are a bit more helpful than Nostradamus's prophecies. (And of course we have archaeological evidence too.) Lack of skepticism, on the other hand, can easily destroy any knowledge we have gathered, by accepting every whimsical theory that ever occurs to anyone--and that's a whole lot of whimsical theories.

Aniko: Assuming, then, that you are up to intelligent, searching dialogue, I can live with that.
First, the fact that Baha'u'llah was from a prominent (and comparatively powerful and rich family) has nothing in this case to do with education. They sent him at first to school, but His teachers sent Him back saying that there was nothing they could teach Him as He knew it without teaching. He not only was literate but in at least two languages (Farsi and Arabic) completely and elegantly so. But He was "self taught" or absorbed it in a way that is not understandable according the lexicon of thoughts available to modern science. He said that whenever He wanted to know something from a past written document, that document suddenly appeared in front of Him. You don't have to believe this, of course, since it is not "reasonable" according to our personal experience and perception of the "real world." But then, the whole event of His Station (as claimed by Baha'is) is not ordinary as we experience this world. By the way, this is also according to what Muhammad declared happened to Him. The Koran was shown to Him by the angel Gabriel and He was told to read it. When Muhammad protested in deferring, by saying, "Read," Gabriel repeated His order, "Read." After three such refusals Muhammad looked at it and was able to read it. That is the "unlikely story" that is told in Islam. But the question remains, unlikely as it is and was according to our normal experience, does that preclude necessarily that there is (as a part of the mix of the laws of physics) a seldom occurring phenomenon such as both Muhammad and Baha'u'llah experienced? Of course it is "ridiculous" in the eyes of we "modern thinking people." Yet we, who pride ourselves in our swamp of newly acquired knowledge about the universe, fail to recognize how abysmally ignorant we are of that which we "don't know."

My point about any history being "reexplained" as "uncypherable" with your reasoning on the statements of Ali, Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha is that you are not being as "realistic" as you think you are. I cannot imagine how any fair and reasonably intelligent person can explain away those statements (all three of them but particularly those by Baha'u'llah and Abdul-Baha) the way you have. They are very specific and have details in them that are inexplicable by normal processes. I agree that a degree of skepticism is important. I have this more than most people. But I can't go as far as you have into what I consider rational blindness with these three statements. Nostradamus and others are not nearly as specific, nor as obvious. Most Biblical "prophecies," for instance, are open to all kinds of differing interpretations. But these three I cited are unarguably accurate and specific and "undoable" by our current standards of knowledge about time and space. I might entertain some of your skepticism if it were not for the fact that we are dealing not with the original language but the translation of these statements, which contrary to supporting your view of them, does the opposite since the printed and published and distributed translations of them are also prior to the time when such knowledge was not even being speculated upon.

Come on, Aniko. If you don't want to believe in the reality of these phenomenal statements in a prophetic sense, don't. But please don't insult intelligence (as well as my own) by saying that they are the result of coincidental happenstance. To do that is to show a mind that uses skepticism as an excuse for denial.

And you go believing in them, Donald. But please don't suggest that skeptical inquiry, even a failed attempt to provide an alternative explanation, is "insulting [anyone's] intelligence". It's the normal procedure for vetting claims in a rational discourse, and if your claims are valid, they will survive such scrutiny. There's no need to view this process in an adversarial manner.

I think our main difference is that you don't seem to think coincidences occur. Not only do they occur, they occur more frequently than we intuitively believe, and we have a strong tendency to attribute meaning to them, to see patterns and causal relationships in random occurrences. Cognitive psychologists have been studying this phenomenon for a long time. This is a basic feature of our mind, and we're all prone to it, just like we all (with very few exceptions) see the same optical illusions. So my point is not that the prophecies you mention could not be real prophecies--they could. I'm merely saying that since our instrument--our cognitive system--is not calibrated properly, it's a good idea to compensate for this, and use a high-skepticism setting. If we don't do that, we'll constantly be believing things that are not true.

Now back to your regular scheduled programming.

I'm glad Aniko led me back here. I forgot about this.

Do you think that we can get a world wide consensus on ethical and moral standards without the powerful suggestive force inherent in religion (not church)? Just asking?

I do not think ethics or morals need a religious foundation. My experience has been that people who have no religion (church or otherwise) are generally the most ethical and moral people I know. They aren't searching, they aren't confused, they don't need approval from any person, group, organization, or book. They do the right thing because it is the right thing to do. It's much simpler that way.

A very interesting and thought provoking article. I really like your well thought out and articulate writing. My feeling is there should be based upon the constitution and precedent a total separation of church and state in this country. Period, end of sentence. Thanks for the article.

Sandy Knauer: I thought I answered this same view of yours but maybe not. Anyway, I think that those who pose the suggestion you do fail to take into account that none of the people you find who are so ethical and moral sans religion are not actually being so without the influence of religion. No one today (or at any time) is born in a cultural vacuum. Whether we recognize it or not, our "common sense values" are the result, not of our own untainted sensitivity but of thousands of years of cultural conditioning, mostly influenced by religion when it comes to morals and ethics. I rather think that if two babies were born on a deserted island and somehow managed to survive starvation and illness, etc., you find only one of them after awhile, particularly if the survival supplies were not abundant. With no books or other exposure to civilization the two babies would eventually kill each other over food or simple anger. Your "nice" friends are the product of thousands of years of suffering and learning through sad experience and if they want to deny the influence of religion now, it is simple ignorance of their cultural inheritance.

Chana M.: Thanks for the comment. I agree with you for the most part because you are certainly thinking of "religion" as it is currently and has been in the past. My only hold back would be a possible exception should true religion somehow evolve without too much "massaging" by misguided self appointed "guardians" of the "message." I would like to point out, however, that your view (and mine) is not all that counts in this world, especially if we realize that we are going to have to make some cultural and philosophical concessions in the future that we might not find palatable. In a democratic world it will be the majority of people who decide these issues and I can tell you, as I said in the article, you and I and the American "separation of church and state" are not the majority view. This is the kind of thing to seriously think about when when you (or anyone) starts chanting "peace, peace." Peace may be possible but not only on your or my terms. There is a world of different views out there and the people who comment on gather are a very, very small minority.

Aniko: I appreciate the need for skepticism, but I have seen (I used to subscribe to The Skeptical Inquirer magazine (or some such name) good demonstrations of it's value. However, I think that there comes a point when skepticism becomes counter productive. A clever skeptic can show you that you don't exist. As I said, I think that your statement about the quotes I pointed out begs serious reasoning -- admittedly as I see it. Too much skepticism can be a death knoll to any positive inquiry.

With no books or other exposure to civilization the two babies would eventually kill each other over food or simple anger. Oh, what a sad view. I believe the opposite. I think they would love and protect one another, the same as animals.

Sandy: What animals? Animals in the wild often kill siblings or hog the food supply until the weaker one dies. The environment makes one competitive. I think we take too much for granted in the comfort of our homes, especially in the US. Look at Darfur. It is not on another planet "somewhere out there." Look into the sorrowful eyes of the children and mothers and you see love and compassion but the moral climate is nil, the people totally barbarous and all so needless.

I think religion comes in many forms. For instance, the religion of environmentalism is making a move on controlling our lives. Religion and blind faith in all forms is dangerous.

Sandy Animals pack in groups and are constantly at war with each other much like humans were before books.

Donald, I know little about animals, so maybe you can help me here. Do they often kill siblings or hog the food out of greed or meanness? I understand that the environment creates competitiveness in a natural, food chain sense, and that humans will be the same in a survival of the fittest situation. I don't think morals are involved if you are stranded with a friend and must eat him or you will both die.

I don't think that compares to humans, who have what they need to survive, consciously making greedy decisions that force others to suffer or die (denying health care, food, shelter, murder, war), simply so those in power can have more than they need to survive. What confuses me to no end is that the people who support religion are most often the people who say things like, "I don't want MY hard-earned money taking care of those people," with no conscience. They assume survival of the fittest where it does not belong, excuse it when it contradicts their religious teaching, and turn on those they've hurt with "what happened to your morals" rhetoric.

Sorry if that went off topic. It's so heavy on my mind that it seems to fit in every conversation about religious beliefs to me.

""""I don't want MY hard-earned money taking care of those people,""""""

You mean the people who's biggest health issues are related to obesity? I don't want my money going to those people either. My money seems to be killing them.

Sandy Knauer: I understand your perplexity. Perhaps we are talking two different things. There is religion and there are "religious people." I don't confuse religion with "religious people." You can't blame Jesus, for instance, for his disciple cutting the ear off a Roman sentry. You can't blame Jesus or "Christianity as a belief" for the wars fought in the name of Jesus or Christianity. There acts (war, for instance) were fought by so called "religious people" but people who were prostituting the name of Jesus and Christianity. It is not the religion that makes the problems nor the "religiousness" in people but the misuse of the name and the purpose; in short, the "lack of religion" in those people who call themselves "religious". Much of what we find offensive about "religion" today is because of the way people have commandeered "religion" for their own purposes and used it's name to and for their own selfish purposes.

People are basically animals by nature but have the ability -- if they so choose -- to overcome their animal or atavistic nature and live in a more controlled and mutually beneficial way. That is what "religion" as I see it is all about. It is the operation of a fundamental law of the universe that helps to propel man into his supra-animal nature through a process of social evolution. It is something that resides exclusively with and about we human beings. This is in direct conflict with those -- a huge proportion of the "modern" thinkers -- who presume that we are simply a particularly smart animal with a large brain. Which I believe does not explain some of the extraordinary powers and abilities we have. But left on our own, we can degenerate into very smart animals, whose brain allows us to carry evil to new heights if we do not learn to control our appetites and desires.

Jeff, if that's all you took from my statement and the best you can respond, I think I'll go back to thinking you aren't worth my time. You think obesity is the only illness out there, and that's all you have to say in response to my comment?

Donald, I hope you understand that I am quite clear about my beliefs. My perplexity is with the duplicity I see with religion, religious people, church goers, bible readers, all things related to Christianity, and most rituals associated with other belief systems.

If I understand you correctly, this feels like the long version of, "they aren't REAL Christians," and doesn't address the real world, as I tried to do in my comment. Maybe you just don't want to go there either?

Sandy Knauer: No, Sandy, not in my case. I am a realist. I am quite puzzled by how people today have become mesmerized by "Christianity" which is a beautiful thing in and of itself. But I will not allow myself to "throw out the baby with the bath water." That is, I also am disenchanted with how Christianity is practiced and has been for the longest time, practically since it's inception. People just don't get what Jesus was all about and are too busy making up fanciful stories to make it a kind of Santa Claus "pretend religion" with snatches of real religious fervor involved at times. It was not intended to be something that would last well beyond it's usefulness. But I don't have any illusions about the "basic goodness" in people that you seem to think is somehow part of our genes. Without religion in history we would not have had less wars (including the religious wars) but more wars and the wars would have been much worse than without it. I can well understand anyone "dumping Christianity" and "Judaism" and all other very old Faiths that have outlived their usefulness through distortion and meddling by special interests. But that doesn't allow me to be dishonest in not recognizing what good has been the result of religion IN SPITE of all the evil that it has done. Science has been responsible for a lot of death and destruction -- such as from weapons of war including nuclear energy -- but that doesn't mean that science hasn't been responsible for a lot of benefits and advances, including medicine.

I will just cut to the chase here and say that the babies without objective intervention would have a 50/50 chance of a sharing loving relationship ... that is because they each will have that God piece within them that is intuitive, which can guide them to all of the better morals available to each of us ... Adam and Eve had and used that, until they were influenced otherwise by outside mind.

The problem with world humanity is that we all share the same mind to some degree or other, and that is a very fearful mind on this planet, therefore the largest share of our thinking is fear based and ego oriented, which can often be very selfish.

Without any human interference (the hypothetical babies out of reach of human minds otherwise) they would know the loving interconnection of God and all would be "good" ... even if food became short to where there was only enough for one to survive, they would probably either share even that or draw straws to see which one remained, the other, knowing that there was a place with God that was at least as good as that island.

In short, the idea about whether religion has been good for us or not, is only a hypothetical "what-if" ... it cannot be truly answered without many conditions proposed, and they would all be what-ifs also ...

So Donald has the negative view and Sandy has the positive view ... I side with Sandy but I would leave the animals out of it. :-)

Jerry Kays: I agree with you to the extent that God does influence all of us whether through the process of "revelation" or directly. On the other hand, I cannot dismiss the fact -- as I see it -- that there have been some quite outstanding and otherwise inexplicable "events" in history such as the appearance of the phenomena of the advent of Jesus and Moses and Muhammad, to name just a few, that have changed human history dramatically. The fact that these changes were not accompanied by a give and take struggle between the two forces -- or proposed forces -- of "good" and "evil" as exemplified by the images of God and "the Devil" does not mitigate but slightly the overall positive influence that occurred. I do not mean to imply that your own take on our abilities to "work on our soul" by our own volition is not valid nor worthwhile. But I think that you would not have come to this conclusion through your own long struggle had you not had the examples mentioned above as a starting point. Even if this was mostly negative, it was still a starting point. I think that life itself, as we know it and experience it (indeed as animals do but as restricted to physical survival) is a case of working to adapt to the changing, ever changing, environment, both physical and social. To me, God's design process is not a one time "drawing up of plans", "sending to the shop for construction" and later "going back to the drawing board" but one of design by experience and adaptation. We build a car that rusts and breaks down. God builds the universe and "us" in a way that constantly redesigns and modifies us and the universe as a complete whole. This involves physical and spiritual evolution. The physical evolutionary process requires that we (our bodies, for we are only talking about our functioning in this so called "real" environment) die and our generated offspring adapt to those changes that are taking place, etc. etc., etc. Our spiritual evolution is a constant process also but "jump started" periodically by the natural infusion into the "mix" of spiritual guidance in that strange process we call "revelation." And this latter -- in my view -- is both directly and personally through the kind of "investigation" you undertook and by the more dramatic and historically dramatic form we call "divine revelation." It happens only every thousand years or so because the indirect form you propose works remarkably well for some people but not fast enough or well enough for the general population to keep up with their own otherwise less spiritual progress (i.e. technology and science). Well, that's one view.

Sandy,

I referred to just the one statement because to me it is wrong to assume people who disagree with your solutions are some how mean and lacking compassion. I understand that there many problems regarding poor people including all the excuses made for them with out any accountability. It doesn't mean I don't care it means I do.

As far as your questioning relativism regarding humans and animals you made some good points that he was comparing apples to oranges.

Donald, I think you know that I respect your view, it is much the same as my own with some possible few exceptions, and of course no two people are ever meant to think "exactly" alike ... :-)

Even our (potentially) major "difference" is NOT an issue between us ... but tends to be for the bulk of the "church" ... that being the "specialness" of the "One" Person "worshipped" ... that being where I differ from them, in that I recognise "specialness" in Jesus the Christ (and others) but NOT in the same way that they do, which EXcludes the "others" (Baha'ullah included).

It being because of their INclusiveness of ONLY the One Person, that causes their EXclusion of ALL others in a "relative" sense ... that same Exclusive concept sets Only Him as the Only source of prophetic truth and revelation from that time forward to "His" return ... and because "they" only see such in their minds "objectively", they await something more related to the "physical" return ... rather than the Spiritual Christ who has been available to each and all ever since Pentecost when he promised the Spirit of Truth to them.

Thus they devalue, or value excessively, depending upon their perception, (which came first, the chicken or the egg) the idea of a separation between the physical and the spiritual, then when they look at themselves they see a physical (ego self) being separated from Christ, call themselves "sinners" (while righteously feeling that all others just have to be WORSE sinners) ... and then just go on with business as usual (with the exception of claiming to be "saved" now) while awaiting either death or the "second coming" ... the "proof" of "that" PHYSICAL reappearance. (thus they "missed" Baha'ullah) ... and more sadly (to me) they completely reject any of us that have had personal revelations imparted to us for "their" benefit ... assuming that "all" of us are false prophets or something else to be FEARED and never trusted ... that because of the "church" imparted dogmatic disinformation and/or simple misunderstanding ... effectively being of the same result in the end ... keeping them willfully ignorant of higher truth ... IMnsHO.

Jerry Kays: Yes, this exclusiveness is pandemic. I think that the most powerful physical sense we have -- as part animal -- is that of security, not sex as Freud thinks or thought. For this reason, I think that it is quite natural for people to want to feel secure, not only in their homes but in their thoughts as well. From birth whenever they questioned their pastors or priests they were patronizingly told not to think about it but to have "faith." This is because the pastors and priests are also in the dark but don't admit it as a matter of professional standing. The result is that we are programmed to accept blindly what we are told and not "think about it or question it." Which goes against the grain of what we are also taught in school with regard to science and modern living, especially in this country. So people, when it comes to religion, usually do one of several things to protect their sanity and sense of security: one, just accept whatever is spoon fed to them and keep their inquiring minds in a state of coma; two, revolt against being mind controlled not only by others but by their own sense of insecurity and bask in the "warm fuzzy" of the scientific paradigm, which has proven so materially successful -- thus dismissing "any sense of security" panic attacks by simply denying any validity to the whole aspect and prospect of "religion" at all; third, by withdrawing from the "church" environment but keeping their own set of unexplained feelings in tact by assuming a pose of being religiously independent on their own terms of whatever they want to devise about it.

So true ...

I believe that we are spiritual beings having a human experience. The fact that we choose to involve ourselves in a religion has nothing to do with our essence, which is spiritual. We, as souls, come to experience and learn from this physical incarnation. We have basic needs, which are necessary for our existance, but there is something greater within us which calls us upward to a higher consciousness and desire to feel our oneness with God and one another. I don't think that we are just animals with greater intelligence. To deny our true essence is to deny the greatest truth about ourselves and the reason that we are here--to awaken to who we are and to live in accord with that truth. This, of course, is my opinion.

Carla G.: We're on the "same page" it seems. I am of the same basic opinion as you.

Wow, great conversation string. I wish I had time to read all of it. Maybe later.

The idea of separation of church and state in the formation of the American republic owes its existence to the history of religious politics in Europe. From the time of the schism between the Eastern and Western Roman empires, from the rise of Constantinople as the centre of Eastern Orthodox Christianity and the source for Russian Orthodox Christianity (and others), through the rise of Lutheranism to the protestant reformation and Anglicanism, Christianity has been fracturing and reforming along political lines for a long time.

Involved in all of this change, tied in most cases to monarchies, to power, to international relations and to war, the church became a tool for influencing societies, for influencing populations, for influencing or controlling powerful leaders. That control led to many excesses and violations and perversions of the source material (the teachings of Jesus Christ and his immediate followers).

The warfare and subjugation that accompanied all of these gyrations filled the history books of Europe. The people who emigrated to the New World and became European colonists there, and eventually founded new nations, were in large part fleeing the endless cycles of war, the oppression and the restrictiveness of these societies that were controlled by church bureaucracy as well as other forces.

Thus the desire to eliminate the influence of the church in the politics of the nation.

In order to do this there was a two pronged approach: that government should not have ties to any church; and that people would be free to choose whichever church they wished to follow the teachings of. There was little public thought given to atheism and the rejection of religion in this context, as these topics were not widely discussed publicly. Atheism was heresy and could lead to one's ostracization and death.

It was a noble thought to refrain from allowing any organized faith to dominate society and control government and we need to preserve this principle.

Oddly, in America where the idea was first implemented the influence of religious groups on government and the public debate is much, much stronger than it is in Canada or Great Britain, where there was never any legal or political move to separate church and state. In fact, both Canada and Great Britain share the same head of state, English Monarch Queen Elizabeth II, who is also defined as the head of the Anglican church. Canada is predominantly a Catholic nation with a significant minority of protestants and a smattering of other faiths (and of course, today, of atheists as well). Yet one rarely hears religion discussed in terms of politics or vice versa. In many American political debates religion plays a serious role.

I think that the religious beliefs of a candidate for public office should be public knowledge but should not be an important consideration in whether or not to vote for them (unless they adhere to a religious belief that is offensive and detrimental to the public welfare -- which would not include any of the major religions of the world).

I think that voters who are people of faith should definitely keep the moral teachings of their faith firmly in mind when voting: not to compare or contrast it with the faith of the candidates but to assess the proposed public policy of the candidates and parties and determine whether their ends are in keeping with those teachings.

I think that elected officials, once in office, must keep their faith out of debates in their legislatures, but must absolutely follow the dictates of the moral teachings of their faith when they vote. This does not mean following the dictates of any priest, minister, imam, rabbi or pope, but to look within themselves for the moral core they have learned and chosen to follow and make sure that they are not violating those core beliefs by anything they enact.

So I guess it is correct, Donald, to say that church and state must be separate (only then can people be free religiously speaking) but religion and state do intersect in unavoidable ways.

Carla: I agree, to a point, that prayer in school amounts to religious abuse, at least in the way that the major proponents of it advocate (which you've outlined perfectly). But time for prayer that would include any and all comers and also welcome the atheist to make statements of personal philosophy I would welcome.

Julie Ann Dawson: While it is true that religions have been perverted to justify war, control and manipulate populations and visit all kinds of travesties on humanity, so has everything else. Political doctrines have been used in this way. Culture has been used in this way. Ideology has been used in this way. This is a reflection not of a failing of religion but of humanity. Religion has also been the source of much good, of much charity, of much selfless volunteer service to one's fellow human beings, of much sacrifice for the greater good of all. To believe in God or not is every individual's choice. To condemn religion and belief in God as the source of human misery and violence is to misunderstand the details of history and the nature of the human race in its cultural childhood.

I may comment more on others remarks when I've had more chance to read them.

Rory, as usual, you eloquently make your point which is a very good one. Before I read on down the line and saw that you covered everything well, I copied the following to elaborate upon:

"" ... (unless they adhere to a religious belief that is offensive and detrimental to the public welfare -- which would not include any of the major religions of the world). ""

Then in "my" nit-picking way, that which attempts to get to the essential basics from where our problems, moral and otherwise, come from, I propose that it is the dualism that has been too long inherent in the very basis of religion that needs to be recognised and transcended to the very essence of the trinity meaning that I propose is our universal truth in the form of the BET as (+=-) ...

This recognition is fundamental in order in order to understand the judgmentalism of duality (+/-) required to transcend it ... IMnsHO.

A few things here: 1. The Declaration of Independence says that "all men are created equal..." - it doesn't say "all men who believe in God/religion are created equal." (it should have said "all people...") Likewise, the 14th Amendment confers equal US citizenship on "all persons born or naturalized in the United States" whether or not they are religious.

Fast forward to the 1960's: there was a move in the US Senate to exclude atheists/ agnostics from protection against discrimination under the religious discrimination clause of the Civil Rights Act. Fortunately, that move was defeated.

Not having separation of church and state leads to discrimination against (second class citizenship status of) the non-religious as well as people of various particular religions. This ends up offending religion (the dominent religion) as well: It is harmful to religion to have people faking religious belief/practices in order to get along.

Tim St. Vincent: If I am reading your comment accurately, it seems that you have a very limited knowledge of what "religion" is all about and have taken a polarized stand based on that limited view. In the first place, "separation of church and state" is not equivalent to the separation of "religion and state." Most people think of "church" as synonymous with "religion." Not so. One can be religious and have not church affiliation. In fact, that is happening more and more all the time. Secondly, most "intellectual people" today assume that their own personal sense of moral values and codes is not inherited from their religious heritage. Not so. Religion has historically been the only source of moral codes and values. In fact, the US Constitution was drafted by people whose values of "right" and "wrong" were inherited from their basically "Christian" background. Indeed, most of our civil and criminal laws are based on Biblical values, both Judaic and Christian. Thus the Constitution is -- admittedly or not -- a "Christian" document.

And while I agree with you that with people as they are today -- having a very limited and distorted view of their own religion -- many "religious people" will attempt to exclude "non-religious people" from protections they want for themselves (in contradiction to their own stated religious values), this is really a travesty of religion and not the fault of some artificial and unrealistic attempt to separate "government" and "governing" from "religion" (not "church").

Donald: I agree. Church and religion are definitely NOT the same thing. Church should definitely be separated from government because church is the dead and decaying cadaver of what religion used to be, and nothing that is dead has a place in modern government. But living, vibrant, relevant religion cannot be separated from modern government any more than the head can be separated from the heart.

Thomas: Agreed. Problem is, as you know, most people haven't the foggiest idea as to what religion is all about. Brain washed by "churchianity" (or "synogoguery" or "mosquery") they have lost contact with God and are in secular seclusion.

Donald: Never a truer word was ever said. Reminds me of that TV commercial: "Help, I've fallen and I can't get up".