Community | March 01, 2012 | 51 comments

Separation of church and state, a vital and contentious issue, which is actually a non-issue, a Realist perspective

For many, the "issue" of whether one is for or against separation of church and state may seem quite daunting, not knowing what, if, or how much there should be a separation of church and state.

What I'm about to propose, is that in fact it is not so daunting at all, and can be broken down into two broad based terms, in relative terms, and absolute terms.

In relative terms, yes, if a society is going to function as anything which remotely resembles a true democracy, then absolute separation of church and state are essential, because without that separation, laws that are supposed to be legislated for the purpose of social cohesion and societies general welfare, give way not to reason, but to belief, which is how primitive societies function, which is not to say that primitive societies cannot function, but they cannot function within the boundaries of a 21st-century society, and inherently therefore threaten such a society, which is exactly the position that America and any other 21st-century industrialized nation finds itself in today.


For example, America "tolerates" the lifestyle of the Amish/Mennonite's which is based on irrational and dysfunctional beliefs held by those religious groups, but the vast majority of Americans do not want, in any way, to go back to the technology (beliefs) of the horse and buggy days of centuries before, (good luck if you need an ambulance or emergency helicopter airlift) yet if such groups had their way, that is exactly what they would legislate, without question, just as any "true" conservative (longtime bedfellows of religion) believe that" marriage" constitutes the union of one man and one woman.

In America however, this distinction is actually quite moot, because we do not live in a democracy.

The "issue" of separation of church and state is only an issue, because it supports the interest of a plutocracy. Without going into the many reasons why this is so, I will state the very simplest reason, because the "issue" which by any rational criteria should be a nonissue, reinforces tension and division amongst the masses, which is a vital element of control in any plutocracy, if the ruling elite, the people who own this country, can have the "lower classes" constantly bickering and fighting over something which is ultimately idiotic anyway, the citizens don't spend their time focusing on real issues, and demanding appropriate social change, like I said, there is much more to it than just this, but this is one of the most significant and primary reasons, it's the old divide and conquer strategy, and to date it has worked very well indeed, now for the absolute terms.

In absolute terms, which of course would entirely bypasses the tedious, totally unnecessary and idiotic "debate" mentioned previously, this "issue" is completely solved by the complete and total elimination of religion, any and all religion, as a necessary precursor, to eliminate all the problems associated with primitive belief systems, you can not have a truly advanced and wonderful society (we obviously have technology, but the appendix of primitive belief systems, such as religion, stifles our social progress) until this condition is realized, so ultimately, it is not the Herculean effort of clearly defining separation of church and state that matters, but the elimination of church entirety, which would solve the problem.

As always, I remain, (in constant battle against ignorance) V
  1. groups:
    Community
  2. tags:
    Politics
  3.     
    |

51 comments // Separation of church and state, a vital and contentious issue, which is actually a non-issue, a Realist perspective

  • mspray11
    • 0
      mspray11  

    • Here is a thought, Jesus could be the people as a whole! We are already dieing off for the sins of the Government and the Corporations. AKA Whitney Houston, Amy Winehouse, Kurt Coban,,,, and on and on... and I''m agnostic. hmmn

    • 1 year ago
  • deane
  • noxidereus
  • maasanova
    • 0
      maasanova  
    • Image

    • "it is not the Herculean effort of clearly defining separation of church and state that matters, but the elimination of church entirety, which would solve the problem."

      Getting rid of religion means that a vast majority of people would have to succumb to the demands of an minority that is intolerant of religion. Not only that, but it is an outcome with a ridiculously high improbabilty.

      In my opinion, intolerance on breeds more intolerance.

      "in constant battle against ignorance"

      Co-existence and the spread of information about why you think religion is no longer feasible vs the eradication of religion is a much more logical position to hold in a world dominated by one religious dogma or another.

      Furthermore, perhaps the atheist crowd would like to put their money where their mouth is and take "Maasanova's Seperation of Church and State Challenge" and take on one of the most brazen displays of disregard for "seperation of church and state" in the United States.

      http://www.chabad.org/news/article_cdo/aid/1376175/jewish/Lighting-Up-in-Public....

    • 1 year ago
  • good_stuff
    • +2
      good_stuff  
    • maasanova:

      Again, this is a non-issue that you are making a big deal out of. If we didn't waste money putting up christmas trees and lights, then it wouldn't be required to put up a menorah and other crap. Why can't we just let private property owners put up whatever they want and not waste the money putting anything up on public property?

    • 1 year ago
  • noxidereus
    • +3
      noxidereus  

    • I agree completely. Ancient outdated war-god religions, like the Judeo-Christian religions that arrogantly elevate man above nature, in which man believes the Earth belongs to him (but not everyone, just the chosen people), in which all of the symbolatry is meant to be taken literally (eliminating any coherent message the religion may ever have had) make people ignorant. It makes them controllable by the so-called leaders (who serve the elite) and they are thus tricked into supporting the agenda of the elite rather than that of the majority of the society in which they live. It divides people and makes them hate "sinners" and it makes them want to legislate laws to take away their rights as citizens. Also as mentioned it makes people argue over things that are actually non-issues so that people aren't paying attention to the issues that really matter. We would be better off without such religions.

      This is not to say that all Judeo-Christians are fundamentalists. Some people only take the good parts of their religion and they don't fall prey to the hate messages, nor do they want to legislate their religious beliefs and they understand the need for the separation of church and state. These would be attributes of the individuals and cannot be attributed to the religion itself, for this way of thinking is to break from much of the dogma of the Judeo-Christian religions.

      Less harmful are the spiritual religions in which there is either no symbolatry or the symbolatry is not taken literally, in which man understands his place in nature and that man belongs to the Earth (not the other way around). This form of spirituality helps some people cope with the absurdity of life (life has no inherent meaning, yet man's nature is to find meaning in everything, and much of life is sorrowful). It can also help people think of humanity as one and can foster respect for the environment in which we live. Even some Judeo-Christians who don't take their bible literally can come to these same sorts of conclusions, if one is able to think independently enough to reject much of the negative aspects of one's religion.

      I don't think religion can ever be eliminated, but it would be a very good thing if at least the ancient war-god religions as described in my first paragraph were eliminated through education -- an enlightenment. Or if not eliminated, at least taken symbolically to mean something good rather than to be taken literally. Christianity was created a long time ago in a very different sort of society than we currently have. It does not reconcile within our more advanced civilization or our far more advanced understanding of science. It is a malfunctioning religion. Since there will always be spiritual people, some form of religion will always exist. A functioning religion that finds accord with 21st century living would at least be better than what we've got now.

      As it is now, religion is used as one of the many strings attached to the population that lead back to the grubby greedy pristine unlabored hands of the elite puppet masters.

      I personally believe that it is irrational to believe in any religion or spiritual realm of existence. I am however what some people confuse with spirituality. I am an emotional, empathetic person who cares about the fate of humanity and wishes for more happiness and less suffering for human beings in general. I don't need to believe in any gods to feel this way.

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • Kelpie
    • +4
      Kelpie [removed]  

    • Religion is a medical condition- a chronic, incurable mass delusion. If a 35-year-old said he still believed in Santa Claus, he would likely be treated for schizophrenia, and might wind up in an institution. What is wrong with people that they will stand by and watch a bunch of crazies legislate from their 2,000 year old book of hallucinations, lies, bigotry, misogyny, and willful ignorance, and instead of trying to stop it, we're all supposed to honor this sickness, and even sacrifice our individual rights for it!!! What the FUCK???!!!

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • Frosty46
    • +4
      Frosty46  

    • The flush of upcoming elections always means the right will use their media outlets to trot out religion, the marriage scam, the abortion scam, the gun rights scam, the war scams and most unsettling of all their usual budget deficit scam.

      They could not make any of this work without the ownership of US media outlets who sadly make public sentiment through propaganda methods that work much too well in the US.

      I still must enter a church here in Missouri to vote which is a direct violation of separation of church and state.

      Wallowing in religion has been a valuable tool of the right since the Red baiting era; from which most of the lies about America and religion have originated. Our society can ill afford to be stupid in this era when most of the industrialized world has stepped over that pitfall!

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • mspray11
  • mspray11
  • mrpuma2u
  • jubal
  • Milieu
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • gypsysailor
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • sunny1
    • +4
      sunny1  

    • Religion - mass hypnotisim. I really hope someone counts from three to one and wakes us all up. The fact that a candidate for president has espoused his religion (which we all need to "believe" in) is the rightous way this country should proceed is so frightening. Rick says he will not seperate church and state. WTF. This country should be outraged, and yet, most of the country doesn't even know what these candidates are saying, let alone what they believe. I am not so sure even a fraction of us do believe in radical idiot dogma, I think we are just too stupid to educate ourselves and too brain dead to think this is a problem.. Millions of us just don't care. Listening to a sound bite here a headline there and- eeny meeny mighty mo, that's my choice. Stick a fork in it, we are all done. Just saying...

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • jubal
  • jimstoner
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +2
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • jimstoner:

      well Jim, I feel that "lock" has little to do with it, but a concerted effort from an educated populace, which is something that you obviously are trying to do, thank you. };-)

    • 1 year ago
  • jimstoner
    • +3
      jimstoner  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      I suggest that it will take luck, and I did say luck, because religion will not be eliminated in the next 20 generations without it. Maybe the luck of contact with a peaceful alien race or some kind of undeniable scientific discovery would enlighten the populace. No scratch that. No matter what the proof, so called believers will always deny science, and our Christian and Muslim friends would have nothing to do with an alien race that did not believe in their monotheistic God. Religion has been used by the powers that be for a long time to keep the masses in line, and I see no reason to believe they will not just keep on doing it. An educated populace would be a good start, but you aren't going to find one of them on this planet any time soon. The average education for the population of the world today is 6.2 years. I'm all for the idea, and I agree it's time has come, but in my opinion, it's not coming. This is a great post V, so don't let my skepticism dampen your enthusiasm or belief.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • +2
      jubal  
    • jimstoner:

      Perhaps some of the architects of the constitution understood this, but left freedom of religion in there so as not to incur the wrath of all Europe.

    • 1 year ago
  • jimstoner
    • +3
      jimstoner  
    • jubal:

      It's a good thing they did include freedom of religion in the constitution, along with separation of church and state. Adding freedom of religion dictates that the country is secular, or the inclusion would be redundant. Had they not added freedom of religion, Conservatives would have said a Christian state was implied and the U.S. may well be a theocracy by now.

    • 1 year ago
  • jubal
    • 0
      jubal  
    • jimstoner:

      Well in the context of history, true, but we have moved into a new context wherein religion's meddling into American politics threatens the security and safety of the populace.

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • jimstoner:

      I totally understand where you're coming from. as far as "don't let my skepticism dampen your enthusiasm or belief." you don't have to worry about that, because I am a realist, it is virtually impossible to have my enthusiasm dampened.

      Many people who are not familiar with the philosophy of realism, misinterpret a given realistic assessment of a situation for skepticism, so objectively speaking, I don't see what you wrote as being skeptical of all, but an accurate assessment of the situation based on the available data.

      My only point of contention, what I am trying to say, is that mankind has only had the ability to wipe out their own existence for roughly 60 years, but bearing that in mind, if groups of various religious lunatics (particularly those of the US and the Middle East) get control of the nukes, there is a far far greater probability that mankind will prematurely annihilate themselves, in addition to just the general horribleness of living in a society which wants to turn back the hands of time around 500 years, the prospect of a worldwide "holy war" with nukes falling like rain-hell, maybe even without the nukes-is not something I think any rational person would want to contemplate, as the stakes- of very human existence itself-are much higher now, it would take a concerted effort, but based on the available data, I firmly believe that all traces of religion could be eliminated within two generations, any thoughts are welcome.

    • 1 year ago
  • jimstoner
    • 0
      jimstoner  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      My belief that it would take 20 generations to end the power of religious belief comes solely from the fact that science has been with us for the last 300 years or so, and has not seemed to do anything to change the hold mythology has over the world. One should consider, I admit, that many of the industrialized nations have been created as secular entities, but even the founding fathers of the U.S. knew that religion would be a necessary thing to address in the constitution. Mankind having the ability to wipe themselves out is also a myth. All out nuclear war would not kill all the people on the earth, but it would certainly hit the restart button, and religion would be the first thing survivors would reintroduce. Many people on earth still live in what we would consider centuries past, but they have not been taken back 500 years, they have always been there. Granted, their are some in the industrialized world who seem to be calling for nothing short of theocracies, but again, I do not think that's going to happen any time soon. You are right, in your earlier post you said education is the key. I agree. The only way, unfortunately, to bring education to all people is to first bring them out of poverty. If that can be done in the next generation, then ending the hold religious myth has over the world may very well be eliminated within the next 75 years.

    • 1 year ago
  • eden49
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +1
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • eden49:

      Thank you much, you are from "down under" if I remember correctly, my understanding, ( bear in mind I am a Yank) is that generally speaking, Australia is much more progressive than the US, is that correct? Or does it simply mean which state (or province I don't quite understand how Australia works that way) is? please forgive my ignorance, but generally speaking, I believe that Australia is fairly progressive not fascist like the US, am my correct? (BTW absolutely no offense intended if you are British, I personally do not hold to such nationalistic values, and I do not mean to offend)

    • 1 year ago
  • eden49
    • +2
      eden49  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      ...well, to simplify it, we don't have any politicians mouthing off about a direct line to the great beyond...that's not to say, we don't respect religion, and individual choice of religion...

    • 1 year ago
  • eden49
    • +3
      eden49  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      ...lol...well, I come from a long line of Irish barmaids, with a tinge of British blueblood...(other side of the blanket, I'm sure)...keep up the great posts, mate...

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • 0
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • eden49:

      Thank you, you never did answer my question though, are you Australian, or are you in the UK? it just helps me to understand things better if I have a better idea of who I am talking to. };-)

    • 1 year ago
  • eden49
  • mrpuma2u
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • eden49
  • eden49
    • 0
      eden49  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      ...or my nice side..."fair dinkum"...honest, down to earth, takes no crap, can sniff out a dickhead at 10 paces, a meal and a bottle of wine doesn't get your breakfast...and that's the short list...

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • kennymotown
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • kennymotown
  • VFORVENDETTA
  • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +2
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • COMMONSENSEFORCOMMONGOOD_COM:

      That's absolutely true, but the terms, radical, crazed and extreme are the eventualities of any religious belief system, all religions have an agenda, and it is ultimately subjugation, even those who are not "Bible thumpers" still vote, and you can best believe they always vote for their agenda.

    • 1 year ago
  • Kelpie
    • 0
      Kelpie [removed]  
    • VFORVENDETTA:

      The Amish aren't supposed to vote, because that's their justification for not participating in the military forces. But they do vote, and usually for conservative candidates.

      Great article, and very courageous of you to post it!

    • 1 year ago
  • VFORVENDETTA
    • +1
      VFORVENDETTA  
    • Kelpie:

      Your insights about the Amish are absolutely correct, here is another little tidbit of information that perhaps you may not know.

      Here in the United States, there are two or three national chains-not to mention quite a few independent stores- that specialize in selling Amish furniture, which the Amish are very well known for, handcrafted top-quality furniture which of course is US-made and is very expensive.

      What many people do not know, is that a great deal of the money which goes to the Amish who produce those products, goes to support various right wing agendas, and those bastards don't have to pay any taxes either, pretty sweet deal huh? Remember,were not talking about the romanticized view of just a few Amish working on their quaint little farm and producing a few tables and chairs, this is a multimillion dollar business, and multi-millions of dollars buys a LOT of influence, and you can best believe that all that money sure as hell isn't going into buggies and horses. Any thoughts?

    • 1 year ago
  • Kelpie
VFORVENDETTA
more from Community:
from the community

top videos