On the separation of state and church

ctn
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-05-10
User is offlineOffline
On the separation of state and church

Some people need religion, that might be condescending but it's hard to deny it's a big deal to a lot of people.

In the long run people need to be convinced their beliefs are irrational, but since that will take a while; is a state church not a good idea? That way at least we can have at least some control of the insanity. I know this won't help the believers, but don't non-believers have the right to self defense?

 

[spelling corrected by Entomophila]

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
state run churches

      State run churches are perhaps the worst idea of all time,  The U.S.  founding fathers realized that and had it written in (legal) granite.   Power hungry churchmen with a government to run would turn any nation into another Iran, Saudi Arabia, Bhutan,  Vatican City   etc...........

     Rational people would suffer for their non-beliefs.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


ugzog
Bronze Member
ugzog's picture
Posts: 84
Joined: 2007-02-08
User is offlineOffline
Giving a church and

Giving a church and influence in the government (aka State Church), would set back our culture a hundred years.

Man is the only animal in all of nature that cannot accept its own mortality.


ctn
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I didnt mean the church

I didnt mean the church should have any say in government afairs. I live in Denmark our situation looks something like this:

80% of the population is member of the state church, but surveys sujests the majority of those are athests or "culturel cristians".  but around 20% beleve in the talking snake.

the state pays I think 40% of the priests wage, and the church has other small benefits, nothing major.

the church could be alot worse, doesnt really have any dogma and forinstance resently when some of the male priests wouldnt shake hands with the female priests public presure could force them to do so ( so they woulndt lose their benefits)

we also have a lesbian and even a atheist priest.

what I wondered was: if the church and the state where to completely seperate the non belevers could no longer keep the church from evoleving to something more ugly, to the damage of both belevers and non belevers.

am I totally off the deep end here?

 

 


The Doomed Soul
atheist
The Doomed Soul's picture
Posts: 2148
Joined: 2007-08-31
User is offlineOffline
ctn, your just missing 1

ctn, your just missing 1 small point,

yes... the State controls and dictates "X" about/with the Church(s)

But what happens when several zealot members gain some power in government?

thats where all hell breaks loose, as these members can then influence the state and the church to the need of the church.

 

In other words, the only way your idea could ever be a good idea, is if atheists ran all aspects of government forever, which will never happen.

 

If we go the opposite way... the church just becomes "government v.2" for its select brand of followers (which it is now)

 

What Would Kharn Do?


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
church and state

    Trying to apply Denmark's model to the U.S. and Canada would not work out well.   I can't see any religious order allowing a government control over their clergy but I can see the clergy deeply invovling themselves in government policy.  I'm afraid when it comes to North America your idea is off the deep end.    Now about that atheist priest you mentioned, I'd like to hear more about that?  Is there a link to a news story you can set up for us?

                                .

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2517
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
Keep the State and Church Apart

As you say the Church is fairly weak in your country but all it takes is one zealot to force rules and belief on all. Think not. see Iran and Saudi Arabia for proof of how well that works. In the past the Catholic Church did this to many countries as did England. Many US citizens escaped England to practice their own form of belief here. Though they don't always like it separate, none of them would like to have the beliefs of others stuffed down their throats in a state religion so it would never happen.

In the US beliefs even among Christians is so diverse no such thing is possible. They see different aspects to the trinity, Communion, the end of times, and their place in the world. It would spark a civil war over bullshit for one. All it would take to start burning non-believers at the stake would be a zealot in charge. No thanks, keep religion and government apart.

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Nordmann
atheist
Nordmann's picture
Posts: 904
Joined: 2008-04-02
User is offlineOffline
Here in Norway the state

Here in Norway the state church - a Lutheran outfit - is fighting a rearguard action to keep its position in the face of polls showing a healthy majority of people against the concept (in Norway this is a relatively recent trend) and vocal, intelligent and persuasive opposition to its high-profile stances on gay marriage, homosexuality in general and the responsibility of non-church members to contribute to its upkeep.

 

The church states often that it does not exert influence on government policy and that its role as state church is "traditional" and on that basis alone worth preserving. More and more people however are asking the pertinent question - "If you don't, or don't want to, exert influence over state government then what's the big deal abut being disestablished?"

 

Unlike as pertains in other European countries it has been a very long time since the church has had any administrative involvement by assumed right with health, education etc, all of which have been secularised. Its insistence therefore on retaining its status as "official" religion must be related completely to the more prosaic ambition of maintaining its own survival and using the conferred authority of its official position to act as self-appointed moral arbiters to a nation rapidly losing interest in its diktats.

 

With regard to the point made above from the Danish contributor, it is also a long time since the church was in a position to affect the growth of other rival superstitions and cults.

 

It does nothing, in other words. It means even less to most of the population. Yet it is tenaciously holding on to its role. Why on earth would any political system want such a self-serving parasite attached to it?

I would rather have a bottle in front of me than a frontal lobotomy


ctn
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-05-10
User is offlineOffline
ok those are good points.I

ok those are good points.

I Checked up on that atheist priest and the story isnt as good as I remember it. the articles are in danish but he is on wikipedia in english

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorkild_Grosb%C3%B8ll

his congregation was behind him, they didnt care what he beleved

 

 


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 16425
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Doomed Soul wrote:ctn,

The Doomed Soul wrote:

ctn, your just missing 1 small point,

yes... the State controls and dictates "X" about/with the Church(s)

But what happens when several zealot members gain some power in government?

thats where all hell breaks loose, as these members can then influence the state and the church to the need of the church.

 

In other words, the only way your idea could ever be a good idea, is if atheists ran all aspects of government forever, which will never happen.

 

If we go the opposite way... the church just becomes "government v.2" for its select brand of followers (which it is now)

 

 

Lets not fall into the fallacy of "if atheists ruled". That is the trap that theists fall into. If all 6 billion people were atheists, problems would still exist and factions would still exist. If there is no such thing as a Christian utopia it would be safe to say there is no such thing as an atheist utopia.

 

We are human beings subject to the same flaws and to assume that atheists, if in control, could not do bad things to opress others, is as absurd as when Christians assume they have never done that.

 

Power hungrey people can be theist or atheist. If religion is to die, it cannot be done by force of government anymore than Islam or Christianity can use government to force us to believe in their gods. Only reason and criticism and appeal to intelect can make a solid case. Sticking a gun to someones head to give up something, or take up something merely pisses people off.

I am simply warning you, no matter how absurd magical claims are, wishing a utopia on a governmental or global scale is not taking the issue pragmatically.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2446
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
most interesting

ctn wrote:

ok those are good points.

I Checked up on that atheist priest and the story isnt as good as I remember it. the articles are in danish but he is on wikipedia in english

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thorkild_Grosb%C3%B8ll

his congregation was behind him, they didnt care what he beleved

 

 

    Most interesting ctn,  now that he is retired,  is it possible for you to contact him and ask him to post his opinions on this site.  btw  does he speak and write in English?

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


A_Nony_Mouse
atheist
A_Nony_Mouse's picture
Posts: 2880
Joined: 2008-04-23
User is offlineOffline
ctn wrote:Some people need

ctn wrote:

Some people need religion, that might be condescending but it's hard to deny it's a big deal to a lot of people.

In the long run people need to be convinced their beliefs are irrational, but since that will take a while; is a state church not a good idea? That way at least we can have at least some control of the insanity. I know this won't help the believers, but don't non-believers have the right to self defense?

 

[spelling corrected by Entomophila]

 


A state church is fine except in the west that means only one and killing off all the rest. Should some day we get to the level of religious toleration of the Roman Empire the idea won't be all that bad but then the question of why do it? We know people will start their own religions. The state has a rational interest in it only to the point of prohibiting human sacrifice and like -- things which contravene civil law.

Religion is useful for controlling a population which cannot comprehend laws as it keeps things down to the basics. But this is incompatible with democracy as it lets people who are only bright enough to understand the Big Ten vote for people like Bush who start wars for fun and organize to support religious fanatics like the Israelis against US interests.

So the bottom line is people will create religions on their own and don't need the government and a democracy does not need to encourage such a detrimental aspect of society.

Jews stole the land. The owners want it back. That is all anyone needs to know about Israel. That is all there is to know about Israel.

www.ussliberty.org

www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html

www.giwersworld.org/00_files/zion-hit-points.phtml


ctn
Posts: 11
Joined: 2008-05-10
User is offlineOffline
I checked, was unable to

I checked, was unable to find any contact info, but  A press release saying he retied so they couldnt silence him anymore and that he is working on a book titled "once opon a god"  so he will most likely reapear


geirj
geirj's picture
Posts: 719
Joined: 2007-06-19
User is offlineOffline
Nordmann wrote: The church

Nordmann wrote:

 

The church states often that it does not exert influence on government policy and that its role as state church is "traditional" and on that basis alone worth preserving. More and more people however are asking the pertinent question - "If you don't, or don't want to, exert influence over state government then what's the big deal abut being disestablished?"

 

As my fellow Norwegian correctly points out, the state-run church is thankfully on its way out. If the U.S. were to merge church and state, I would argue that it would set us back not 100 but 1,000 years. Norway has had some version of Christianity as the state religion for roughly that long, and it took about 900 years to get rid of it.

Nobody I know was brainwashed into being an atheist.

Why Believe?