Separation of Church and State.

[Arcmanov]

so ultra left wingers in the fold?

no zealots?

really dying to get there feed back on this

Most of those you would talk to generally applaud the gov't for taking any kind of moral stand
on something, especially if it seems that it was religiously motivated.

Case in point.  The 'banning' of the Ash Wednesday 'cooldown' scenario.  Oh the religious zealots
came out of the woodwork in DROVES to congratulate the magistrate, and the appeal court for their so-called 'moral stand' against this particualr 'fete'.  The organiser correctly said "not everyone goes to church on Ash Wednesday".  So is it because its a christian holy day, i should not 'cooldown' on the beach? Bullsh!t!!!  What if I'm not christian?


The magistrate also vented her opinion on the matter, for which she was rightly criticised by the appeal court judges for so doing.  In my opinion, her decision was motivated by some kind of religious influence, as the parish priest for the area complained very visibly in the media about the 'disruption of church services'.  pfffttt.  It went on for years, all of a sudden its a disruption?  So thousands of people were 'affected' because of a few persons' so-called 'moral' values.  Not to mention the untold sums of money spent by the organisers.

[Cross]

Not to stray from the point but wasn't the 'Cooldown' banned because of the lewd behaviour of some of the people at the event last year? And the 'on-going' investigation?

I support this reason.......to a point......imo they could have still had the cool down just no competition......or rules or someting not bann the whole thing...wda


And the whole 'disruption of services?' poor excuse.......if the people wanted to be in church they would have been there....

[Crixx_Creww]

woops

if they could ban an event cause of lewd conduct that took place LAST YEAR
they woulda ban carnival EVERY YEAR
and clubs EVERY DAY

the reason it was shut down is cause the churchinites kicked up a fuss cause of low attendance at church and traffic for the few church goers.

Ridiculous nonsense

perfect example of WHYYYYYY seperation of church and state MUST exist

[Arcmanov]

^^^EXACTLY!!!  Take care those SAME 'churchinites' (lol) don't get the authorities
to ban Carnival too next year.

[Synchronomyst]

Bad news guys...


They just banned "Life".

[Cross]

^^^EXACTLY!!!  Take care those SAME 'churchinites' (lol) don't get the authorities
to ban Carnival too next year.

LOL this is trinidad..........that not happening

[TrinireturnofGamez]

  Wanna be church based intellectuals have too much power in society... you see the fuss they make over a few cuss words in a secondary school book? They obviously not living in Trinidad to think it would have any negative impact on them children, or have any appreciation of literature to think cuss words can't be used.

[Crixx_Creww]

ok wanted to reinvest in this


for most of the seperation of church and state thread ive mainly focused on the ills of the good ole catholic church.

Now i move to focus on living evidence of why church and state should be seperate.

And that my friends, is islamic or sharian  law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sharia



i know some of you may be muslims and some of you may know of the laws.

There are stupid laws in the bible and there are equally (and in some cases even more stupid) rules in sharian law.

But for the most part, the catholic laws are not enforced by LAW anywhere in the world.
Stupid laws like stone to death any child that disobeys there mother or father. Yes thats a law in the bible, utter rubbish of course, not enforced anywhere thankfully.

UNLIKE in islamic states where there laws are definately enforced.
We know the ones like chopping off the hands of bandits and so forth, which some people may think is as good an idea as death penalty.
But in so supporting that law, they are supporting the existence and the enforcement of laws like

any woman that is claiming to be raped, must provide FOUR MALE WITNESSES TO THE RAPE!
if she does not and can not provide for male witnesses to the rape, then she is charged with bearing false witness ANDDDD also with the crime of adultery!!

ADULTERY, IS OF COURSE PUNISHABLE BY THE STONING TO DEATH OF A WOMAN!
a man accused of adultery can also be stoned to death, but in the case of rape, if she has no witnesses, only she is accused of adultery.


Please, lets have a lil discuss bout this issue.

[W1nTry]

Hmm... you need to be clear on what part of the bible mentions stoning to death and the like. Most 'Christian' faiths don't beleive or promote such, yes it is in the bible, but the Old testament which imho is in very limited scope to most religions today. In fact the Jews are the only ones that perhaps may take such views and is clearly seen in modern society is not enforced or practiced (at least not on a large public scale). To be honest, imho the bible serves as many things, however it is:
1. A record of the past
2. A guide towards leading a 'good' life
3. A subjective text.
On those grounds I say that I rather you watch your tongue when refering to this text as it can/will be considered offensive to ppl to read that xyz in the Bible or ANY holy text is BS. I leave this post for you to edit crixx. Besides just because a book says kill doesn't mean u must. How ppl react and what they extract from 'Holy Texts' are completely and souly their own HUMAN decision. I for one believe that the Bible was inspired by God and written by man, but has many undeniable truths that still hold true today. I have been reading the bible for some time now, and at no point in time have I seen anything that inspires ppl to kill cause of unreasonable human idealogy.

[Beomagi]

I'm catholic, but here's my understanding of it all. Religion is a great basis for morals on the start.

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."  ‑ 1 Corinthians 13:11


What was childish of me is NOT the bible, but my blind faith in what I was read and told. I believe god gave us free will and intellect for a reason, and that we must think for ourselves. "Am I doing the right thing? should I do X or Y?".

Is god timeless and immune to change? Does it account for the difference in manner of the old and new testament - i.e. the Jewish book and the post-Christ iteration? From a child's near execution and turning Lot's wife into a pillar of salt for obeying that curiosity instilled into her being by he who created her, to "for god so loved the world..."

Not saying don't believe it, but question it. You're not disobeying god by doing that, only questioning the self appointed authors of his doctrine. You do more justice using the gifts god gave you, than not. Disciple, religion and morals ARE mutually exclusive. The inquisition, the racist wars against northern Africa (in the name of god! interpreted as they wished!), feuding between religions - It has been the cause of much death, and the morality most today see, is simply because of their alternative interpretation of it and nothing more. It is because we know the difference between right and wrong, lawful and unlawful that we interpret it today the way we do. It is that higher intuition, the state needs to use.

The first sentence of the first reply says it best - in a multi cultural society, separation of church and state is key. Of course there's other responsibilities of the public for a safe and happy multicultural society. That's respect. Catholic? hey! have some sawine, have some kurma, cause it's extra days to relax eat, drink and be merry! Hindu or Muslim? Have some cake, diet coke's and the fridge, wine if that's your preference, and let's cut up some turkey.

[Synchronomyst]

Hrm. I don't want to disagree with you without first understanding you completely...but I have violent objections to what you said in your second to last paragraph. In my hopefully distorted understanding of what you've said, it just comes off as far too liberal and seccular humanistic; paying mind to the atrocities and not giving enough credit to the innumerable benefits that belief systems have contributed to our human development. It is as double-sided as a coin. Also, the assertion that religion and morals are mutually exlusive is simply a logical impossibility due to the existence of moral relativity.

I don't know if it's just that I'm not understanding what you're saying...because I really feel that's what's going on...but please expand upon those points, if you care to.

[Crixx_Creww]

synch, who yu looking for clarity from? me or beo or winny?

thought my points were pretty concise, silly enforced laws by religions today and atrocities committed under certain religions in the past.

When i first started teh thread it focused more on the catholic churches ills and the reason the separation of church and state was created in the first place.

Now iam focusing on islamic states and some of their enforced laws that are way beyong ludacris.

[Synchronomyst]

Beo.

[Crixx_Creww]

thanks to sync for the post in the wtmc thread

this is yet another example of why this is so important to mankind...http://www.whitelinefirm.nl/node/116718
http://www.metafilter.com/60902/Yezidi-woman-stoned-to-death-in-honour-killing

[Beomagi]

Synchronomyst while I think most people are ignorant and closed, I have faith in mankind. I believe that our social development has been due to an increasing awareness of equality and understanding our fellow man. Those atrocities I spoke of would have still occurred if they weren't done "in the name of religion" - I have no doubt of that, for those societies were bloodthirsty and ignorant enough to do it.

I don't doubt you interpreted me in the manner I had intended. I simply have little faith in that which has been written and much more faith in those that choose to believe it and interpret it morally. I believe people would be as moral/immoral if they don't follow a doctrine. Should people follow the old testament, stoning - i.e. murder - would be typical today. The new testament says otherwise. I believe the bible has some great stories and all, good examples to follow, but there's enough contradiction in it for me to look at it as just a teachers tool, rather an an example of what to follow.  Depends on who interprets it. A moral person would chose the latter. The Inquisition - the former!

Another example 4.7 right to safety. People argue what is meant here. some say it means beat your wife, some say it means show kindness. It's interpretation, dependent on the person. I believe a moral kind person would see it to mean kindness, and the cruel would interpret it in a manner that suits them.

If a preacher tells me the bible says blah, and points to it, I read it, I STILL don't believe that's what the lord tells me to do. He granted me a conscience, and inquisitive nature. THAT I believe is more useful than any book.

[Synchronomyst]

This sits well with me. Thank you.