Separation Of Church And State

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Guest TheProudDuck]

Tao, you've just articulated one damn fine public program, with the possible exception of item #3, "Scriptures representing ALL RELIGIONS in our courts". I'd limit that to religious texts that have played a significant role in the development of the American law practiced in those courts. That is, there's no need to post Mormon scriptures, the Koran, material from Eastern religions (unless someone documents the Mahayana Buddhist influence on Hamilton in his drafting of the Federalist Papers) the Seven Aphorisms of Summa, or the tenets of any religion that has more commandments than members; on the other hand, even though there's no "need" to do so, we might still want to include other famous religious "lawgivers" in a monument to law, like Mohammed or Asoka.

[Lindy]

Originally posted by pushka@Apr 23 2005, 02:08 PM

I was taught in a Catholic school until the age of 6, when I was transferred to a 'special school' for disabled children...We were taught there a basic knowledge of God and Jesus, without any particular emphasis on any one religious belief. I am sure that there were other pupils in the school, belonging to other Religious denominations, and that they received their 'main' religious education outside of school hours, as I did when I took my First Holy Communion Lessons...I don't see why this cannot be the situation in schools now...not teaching one particular religion, but teaching about others' beliefs in God and Jesus and just a general teaching of Christ's message to 'love thy neighbour as thyself' or words to that effect!

Pushka~ I was taught in a public high school in Oregon, and after listening to my science teacher give his spiel on Darwin and evalution ...I asked if he could counter that theory with the knowledge that others have about God and creation. He told me he couldn't, that religions was not allowed to be taught as a theory in the high school, because of the church and state laws. I told him I couldn't sit there and listen to Darwin any longer, and left the classroom. He later told me that he understood my feelings, and was sorry he couldn't do anything...his hands were tied.

The principal of the school, however, allowed us to hold prayer/bible meetings in the mornings in the auditorium before school hours (as to not interfere with any school teachings). Glad that the UK has some sense when it comes to what is important for school children.

Great ideas you have TS...you, as usual, have some very interesting thoughts.

Oh....and this one...

Speaking of the Laws of Moses, hasn't anyone noticed that most of the laws are just "borrowed" from the Code of Hammurabi (which was written, I think, 500 years before Moses was born)?

Maybe Hammurabi got his inspiritation from the same source as Moses did?

[pushka]

Thank you Lindy and Tao...I must admit that I forgot to include that schools should also teach about the Hindu and Buddhist religions, as Tao suggested, comparatively to Christianity/Judaism/Muslim doctrine. I think in the UK, only guessing tho, that if you live in an area in which Christianity and Muslim are the dominant religions of the populace, those are the religions you are taught more about, comparatively...so, for instance, in Manchester where there is a large Jewish community, perhaps the children in Secular schools are taught to understand the Jewish religion and culture as well as Christian religion and so on...I do think that it is time that ALL religious doctrines/philosophies were taught, perhaps some of them might be better understood by teenagers, Tao? Buddhism etc.? than by primary age children, perhaps not...I might be undermining the intelligence of our younger pupils.

On the issue of the Ten Commandments being in courtrooms, and the 'laws' of other religions being there too...I don't really have a clue! but I feel that it's time PD, that you left behind what originally inspired the 'founding fathers' of America to create their constitution/laws etc, and realised that the country is now multicultural and so should be reflective of all the cultures within it.

[Guest TheProudDuck]

As long as the American form of government continues to be based on the ideas of consensual government that formed the basis of the American founding, those ideas ought to have particular recognition.

What does it mean that America is "multicultural"? Sure, we have multiple cultural traditions in America, either the cultures that immigrants brought or the ones that existed in the territory America expanded into, like Indian cultures and the culture pre-1848 Hispanics in the Southwest. At the same time, to say all these cultures have had equal influences on the present blended American culture is just silly. Like it or not, the assumptions based on which American society functions are predominantly the product of Western European cultural thinking -- a combination of classical philosophy, Semitic monotheistic revealed religion, and northern European tribal independence.

The fact that some millions of Muslims have come to the United States over the years does not require us to incorporate Islam into our national culture, or pretend that Sharia has had any influence at all on our legal system. By all means, share your kebabs and preserve your folklore -- that spices up our society and keeps it from becoming monoculturally bland -- but if you want to cut your daughter's throat for holding hands with a guy in public, well, you're going to have to leave that particular part of your culture behind.

I feel that it's time PD, that you left behind what originally inspired the 'founding fathers' of America to create their constitution/laws etc.

Like consensual government, the rule of law, individual liberty, egalitarianism, limited government and the assumptions about human nature argue for it, etc.? No thanks. There is a reason people come to the United States from all over the world instead of the other way around, and it's not because the United States was founded on outdated, irrelevant principles. We've got something that works pretty well, and I'm not inclined to muck it up just because some guy just off the boat from Upper Vulgova is peeved that we don't do things the way they did in the old country.

Europe is presently in the process of transforming itself, by a combination of puny native birth rates, high immigration, and lack of cultural self-confidence, into Eurabia. I would not be surprised to see Sharia become the law in one or more European states within fifty years, given present trends.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@Apr 26 2005, 02:22 PM

Speaking of Church and State, does anyone want to hear my idea for Marriage laws?

Currently, we have people interpreting the word "marriage" and making decisions based on that.

This is wrong.

My proposal:

Legal Marriage will not exist in any form, even for heterosexuals.

The word "marriage" will only be used in churches, temples or in other non-legal ceremonies.

Legally, there will only be "financial unions" (a better word than civil union). These are not necessarily based on sexual relationships. They are based on sharing benefits, inheritances, finances, etc.

So in theory, you could have a civil union with your brother, or your roommate, or your parents, if you wanted to share a financial destiny. Maybe there would be a limit to those involved in one financial union...maybe not.

"Marriage" would cease to have a legal meaning.

(why did it ever have legal meaning, except for financial reasons???)

"Marriage" would be a word used for joining a man and a woman, among more conservative religous people. Heterosexuals would be married in non-legal ceremonies in churches, temples, etc.

"Marriage" would be a word used by homosexual "partners" who commit to life together, possibly in a liberal church, or just had a private family ceremony and exchanged rings (or any symbol). Christians would not have to recognize these marriages...but would have to recognize any financial union that occurs after the marriage (see below).

We would be free to use the word marriage ANYWHERE in ANY WAY, except in legal situations.

People who are married (by their definition) would then enter into a "financial union", if they wanted to do so.

Government, insurance companies, etc. would NEVER ask if you are "married". They would ask if you have a "financial partner".

The only problem I can think of is how to regulate Polygamy. But there must be a way...

Since I am not a lawyer, I don't know if any of this is possible.

Maybe PD can answer that...

Who created the world? Who instigated man and woman coupling up? Why does the moon do what it does?

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 26 2005, 02:58 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 26 2005, 02:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Apr 26 2005, 01:45 PM

Who created the world? Who instigated man and woman coupling up? Why does the moon do what it does?

I don't know the answer to those questions, but they are irrelevant to the law, unless our government changes its laws and runs the nation with the laws of the Old Testament.

(in which case, you will know what it is like to live under the Taliban, because those Old Testament laws are almost, if not as bad, as Islamic laws)

Anyway...re-read my post.

All I am saying is that legally, MARRIAGE WOULD NOT EXIST.

It would be a religious ritual, like baptism.

Homosexuals would legally be allowed to share their financial destiny, but NEVER ALLOWED TO MARRY (unless they belonged to a church than considered that ok).

Heterosexuals would legally be allowed to share their financial destiny, but NEVER ALLOWED TO MARRY.

See my point? Marriage will have NOTHING to do with law.

Since YOU believe in the LDS Church as the only valid church, it is literally impossible for homosexuals to marry, because there is no way they can enter the Temple!

So what can you possibly be worried about?

If homosexuality is a sin, it will still continue to exist. Just like people will continue to lie, disobey their parents, use the lord's name in vain, worship false gods, etc.

Its all legal, so let the Church deal with them!

Well if there were no world, it would seem a little more relevant.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 26 2005, 03:31 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 26 2005, 03:31 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Apr 26 2005, 02:24 PM

Well if there were no world, it would seem a little more relevant.

If the world does not exist, then the Buddhists are right and the Christians are wrong, and everything we experience is an illusion. Why would we worry about silly laws if life is an illusion?

And since this is off-topic, here are some questions for you:

1. Why is marriage considered a legal issue? Shouldn't it be strictly a Church issue?

2. What do you think of my proposed system for religion in our schools?

3. What do you think of my ideas for displaying scriptures in courthouses from all the world's major religions?

Even if it is all an illusion, to make any value of that illusion, there must be order and knowledge. When one comes to the full knowledge, they are either Mormon, or just in an illusionary space.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint+Apr 26 2005, 04:24 PM--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Taoist_Saint @ Apr 26 2005, 04:24 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin--Amillia@Apr 26 2005, 02:59 PM

Even if it is all an illusion, to make any value of that illusion, there must be order and knowledge. When one comes to the full knowledge, they are either Mormon, or just in an illusionary space.

I just wanted some feedback on my ideas.

You seem more concerned with telling me that I live in illusionary space.

Well I believe we ALL life in illusionary space. You just fail to see it...LDS or not...

You are the one who said you believed we were all living in an illusionary space ~ I wasn't more concerned with telling you something that you told me first. That just doesn't make sense.

Especially since you reinterated it again just now.

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Deleted to Remove Anti-Mormon Lies

[Guest Taoist_Saint]

Have a nice summer!

[Amillia]

Originally posted by Taoist_Saint@May 1 2005, 02:59 PM

In the Doctrine and Covenants,”the Constitution” refers to the Constitution of the United States of America, which was divinely inspired in order to prepare the way for the restoration of the gospel.

Constitutional law should be befriended, D&C 98: 5-6. The Lord caused the Constitution to be established, D&C 101: 77, 80.

End of discussion.

Church and State need to be unified.

And I am not talking about just Christianity and State.

I am talking about One True Church and State.

In the next election, we need Hinckley or one of our Apostles to run for President of the United States.

Brigham Young proved that unity of church and state works great! Look at SLC under his leadership. Those were the good old days. Imagine if the ENTIRE NATION could be like 19th Century SLC!

An LDS Government led by our Prophet would be the next best thing to Elohim himself being elected President.

I'm talking about a Utopia, man.

hmmmmm.

[pushka]

Hehehe...I'm enjoying reading this thread more now that Tao has deleted his replies...thanks Amillia for quoting them for me!!!! Tao, please stop deleting your posts...for my sake only :)

[butsam]

Actually, separation of CHURCH and state is good. Separation of RELIGION and state is wrong.

Indorsement of a particular church by the federal government, or by a state, is wrong. This practice was done away with a long time ago, early in the history of our nation, when several founding fathers were still alive and in governmental power.

Sam