| QUOTE (Camac @ 06-Mar-2008, 09:50 PM) |
| ...I have infinite faith in humanity but I will admit at times it is strained. Camac. |
Try living in Oklahoma!
| Printable Version of Topic
Click here to view this topic in its original format |
| Celtic Radio Community > Philosophy & Science > Government And Religion |
| Posted by: Camac 06-Mar-2008, 08:56 AM |
| The Canadian Constitution like all good Constitutions guarantees the separation of Church and State, which is as it should be. For almost 140 years the Parliament of Ontario has opened with the reciting of the Lords Prayer and now there is a proposal to abolish this practice. I for one think this has been long overdue. Our Parliament is made up of many different ethnic and religious groups and it is only right that no one group or religious belief be put ahead of any other. This has of course spawned the proverbial tempest with the Religious Right leading the charge. The Evangelicals use the old stale argument that the "Founders" of the Nation did so under God. Well I beg to differ. The first Europeans here were Vikings and they were just looking for land to farm. They didn't last to long. The next to show up were the Basque fishermen catching Cod followed by the French looking for Gold. They found little gold but they did find something just as good if not better. BEAVER. Then along comes "The Company of Gentlemen Explorers" That of course is the English original name for the Hudsons Bay Company. Religion was the caboose that was dragged along by the settlers. Canada like the rest of the New World was founded by businessmen looking to turn a profit so lets put and end to this hypocrisy about being founded under God. . PS: I doubt that the so called founders consulted with Manitou. Camac. |
| Posted by: John Clements 06-Mar-2008, 09:41 AM | ||
Good morning Dave, you know since I use to strike out the words, (in god we trust) from whatever money that passed through my hands. I couldn’t agree with you more. |
| Posted by: Camac 06-Mar-2008, 12:17 PM |
| Hello J.C. Can't do that with our money. No reference to God on it. Camac. |
| Posted by: FamhairCloiche 06-Mar-2008, 12:31 PM |
| Just don't throw out the baby with the bath water. I absolutely agree with the Seperation of Church and State. But at the same time I vehemently disagree with the idea of the seperation of church from the State and the growing willingness of the State isolate believers. In the wake of the 20th century's proliferation of postmodernist ideals; the core of them being that there is no knowable truth, Western governments have been in a scramble to legislate permanent supports under the weight of society that had been previously held aloft by mutually agreed upon moral authorities. Those same moral authorities that are being systematically removed from our societies. The Western Legal corpus is growing exponentially because our societies have come to interpret the doctrine of "Seperation of Church and State" to mean the freedom from Truth. The result has been a massive game of "wag the dog" as legislators and lobbyists try to appease their respective constituent bases which are proposing (in some cases) vastly different agendas. No one is allowed to say 'yes' to one and 'no' to the other because the sophists defending each argument legitimately have equal footing upon which to stand and deliver their points of view. Which is to say that none of them realy have any footing at all since we've effectively removed all foundations. The end result is that the loudest sophist with the most money and greatest access to the meadia wins! Once upon a time paople held certain truths to be self-evident. Whether or not you choose to believe that they are endowed by the Creator is a personal choice that we all have to make. But that choice doesn't change that those truths that are self-evident. |
| Posted by: FamhairCloiche 06-Mar-2008, 12:40 PM |
| An aside, just for a perspective on point of view. I believe that for the most part the Left/Right divide is a pretty transient. Some think I'm liberal. Some think I'm conservative. The fact of the matter is that I'm a tad to one side or the other of the middle. Don't ask me because I don't know. What matters most to me is the other axis of the political scale. The one that measures the distance between Statism and Individualism. You can bet your last breath that I tolerate Statism only is small doses, and then only as necessary. Deliver the mail, put out fires, incarcerate the criminally violent and the thieves, fix the streets, make sure the toilet flushes, and pick up the trash. Beyond that, leave me alone. |
| Posted by: Camac 06-Mar-2008, 01:22 PM |
| FamhairCloiche You state that you "vehemently disagree with the seperation of church from state" You also say that the seperation of Church and State is interpreted as "Freedom from the Truth". Whose truth. Yours? If I do not agree with your truth am I to be shunned? Is my truth any less truthfull than yours? Without the seperation of Church and State and Church from state methinks we would be on the path towards Theocratic Dictatorship as in the case of most Islamic Republics. This means the abrogation of any fundemental rights that do not conform to religious doctrine. Moral Codes are not just religious they are also societal and most of them were around long before religion or the church got ahold of them. |
| Posted by: FamhairCloiche 06-Mar-2008, 01:43 PM | ||
You state my point exactly! Is murder acceptable? Ever? What about if 85% of us say that it's OK to kill the other 15%? Is it OK then? But what if they're all dirty Jews? The abandonment of "Moral Codes" is exactly where we're heading, and what I in too many words was trying to convey. That's the baby. Religion is just the bath water. Theocratic dictatorship is only one possible response to the abscense moral code. Enlightened oligarchy in the mold of Socrates' philosopher king and beyond the power of the populace is quite another, and in my mind equally terrifying! |
| Posted by: FamhairCloiche 06-Mar-2008, 02:03 PM |
| To me the Seeration of Church and State implies the ability of the two entities to govern their own affairs with an equal degree of respect of one for the other not to intrude in those affairs. The source of this doctrine were the several incursions of THE Church upon the various European govenment (investiture controversies being the most prevalent). What has happened by the State intruding into the the Church's realm is that the State is having to create boundaries in society where religous doctrine used to exist. This is where the exponential growth of the legal corpus is in evidence. Because where the state used to just pick up the pieces, so to speak, of conduct that fell beyond the pale of church authority, now the State is trying to establish that same authority while not building upon the moral convictions of past generations. But in doing so without any heed to any self-evident truths, confusion is only value being cultivated effectively. |
| Posted by: FamhairCloiche 06-Mar-2008, 02:06 PM |
| When I say "church" authority, I mean religious patterns of behavoir. Ultimately, independent of any system of faith, the temperance of people's behavior towards civility is the role of organized religion in society. |
| Posted by: Camac 06-Mar-2008, 02:12 PM |
| Famhaircloice' My Friend; you ask if murder is acceptable? Ever? Yes it is. there are certain individuals who in my opinion have lost the right to be call Human and should be eliminated as you would a rabid dog. Mass murder or Genocide is never acceptable. As to the loss of moral codes, do you not agree that as long as we have the rule of law and that parents bear their responsiblity to pass on and teach the young those codes they will not be lost. Neither of my children were raised in a religious atomosphere but they were taught the difference of right and wrong and what is acceptable behaviour. Camac. |
| Posted by: FamhairCloiche 06-Mar-2008, 02:49 PM | ||
...and when that statement can stand on its own with no strings attached, then we will have truely achieved a respectable level of maturity as a people. You and I don't seem to really have any arguement. I'm not advocating for the imposition of religion upon the government, and I don't think you are arguing for the expulsion of religious faith from society. Just to state the point for anybody reading: For better or for worse, religion's influence is decreasing in the governance of our interpersonal affairs to whatever degree it ever did, and government is trying to fill the gap with laws that nurture the security of all. It just doesn't seem to be doing a very good job in my opinion simply because it is trying be everything to everybody instead of being what it's told to be by those who hold the majority opinion. Basically, let government be government, and church be church. Restrict the government from coming into my bedroom, but at the same time don't peddle your perversions in public. ("your" not being specific Camac). When people start proving that they can conduct themselves without impinging upon others, and when people can not be impinged upon by every supposed misdeed of others, then this will cease to be a relevent subject. Trouble is, that may be another 10,000 years off! |
| Posted by: Camac 06-Mar-2008, 09:50 PM |
| FamhairCloiche Methinks you are right we don't seem to have much of an argument. As to the 10,00 years, I have infinite faith in humanity but I will admit at times it is strained. Camac. |
| Posted by: FamhairCloiche 07-Mar-2008, 06:26 AM | ||
Try living in Oklahoma! |
| Posted by: Camac 07-Mar-2008, 07:57 AM |
| No Thanks. Lived in San Antonio for 2 years. That was enough of the wild west for me. Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 19-Apr-2008, 03:36 PM |
| In reading the U.S. Constitution along with the Federalist Papers it is easy to see the intent of our fore-fathers. They meant that the State could never establish a specific religion for its citizens. They would be forever free to worship however they chose. This was not the case in Europe at that time and before. Our initial laws were based on the Ten Commandments. God is referenced in the Constitution and Federalist Papers regularly. (I used to know how many times but have forgotten) It was never intended that prayer and the pledge of allegiance would be banned anywhere in this country or where our Citizens meet in foreign lands. Since our beginnings we have accumulated too many laws and both the Constitution and Bill of Rights have regularly been misinterpreted! That is what made me a Constitutional Conservative. Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: Jillian 22-Jul-2008, 08:16 PM |
| "The abandonment of "Moral Codes" is exactly where we're heading, and what I in too many words was trying to convey. That's the baby. Religion is just the bath water. Theocratic dictatorship is only one possible response to the abscense moral code. Enlightened oligarchy in the mold of Socrates' philosopher king and beyond the power of the populace is quite another, and in my mind equally terrifying!" Well said. Good topic and everyone's wings leveled out. Nicely done. Jillian |
| Posted by: Jillian 22-Jul-2008, 08:27 PM |
| My above comment was was quoting FamhairCloiche. |
| Posted by: Antwn 09-Aug-2008, 11:17 AM | ||
I don't think moral codes are being abandonded since I don't think they've been universally practiced in the first place, not now or ever, and despite their espousal in various religions, those religons themselves have exemplified history's most egregious examples of their abandonment. So what baby and what bath water are we talking about? The source of the fear I think is that if we don't have religion, where will we get our morality, and what authority will anyone fear enough to adhere to it? Morality is a human invention as is religion. Throughout history mankind has invented some sort of moral code, survived to reconfigure it according to some new religious invention. Perhaps its time finally to ask if we've outgrown the cosmic babysitter paradigm and are ready to utilize the only real authority we've ever used consistently for the invention of moral codes, our conscience. "A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death." --Einstein Well then, mankind seems to have been "in a poor way" for millennia. Perhaps its always been our conscience that has given birth to our moral codes, with or without superstitions. They were just invented to provide some authority outside ourselves to authenticate what we already know and feel to be right. Can we grow up enough to simply rely on ourselves? Our religious fictions remain the source of our most overt and catastrophic immoral events to this day. This is the great lie of religion, that man cannot trust himself but must trust some Big Boss in the heavens, even if it fails him, when all along man has not only trusted himself, but invented his beliefs, his morals and his authorities without any provable outside influence. We may not avert our conflicts by taking my suggestion, but at least we'd take responsibility for them, which might cause us to enact choices with a bit more forethought and wisdom. I don't think we can do much worse than what we've done with thousands of years of religious influence. To use a 12 step phrase, have we hit bottom yet? |
| Posted by: Camac 10-Aug-2008, 08:10 AM |
| Antwn; On the subject of Government and Religion ( and that subject alone) the only thing that can and should be said is "Nary the two shall mix." Camac. |
| Posted by: Patch 10-Aug-2008, 11:52 AM | ||
The bush administration definitely proved that was a BAD idea. I used to volunteer at the Salvation Army. They moved to a bigger building and had a limited budget for their "church." When bush made them the official "charity" to provide aid (with govt. funding) to help the needy they suddenly got new expensive church furniture, and new high dollar office furniture. No matter how you figure it, our tax dollars upgraded their churches. I hope this hasn't set a precedent! Slàinte, Patch |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 10-Aug-2008, 02:04 PM | ||
Mmmm. Any ideas about where this item comes from, or has evolved from? Or why? (Warning -- developmental psychologist, partial Freudian, with considerable attachment to evolutionary theory; not unbiased. But I do want to know how you think about this thing called "conscience," especially its origins.) |
| Posted by: Shelaur 11-Aug-2008, 12:04 PM | ||
Going back to the original post on the CANADIAN constitution, I totally agree with the lords prayer being abolished from Parliament. I am a true believer that what my personal preference is to which religion I practice, is none of anyone's business. No matter who founded my country. Although I thank them for doing so. They may have done so under their god. Still doesn't mean that I have to say a prayer because of that. |
| Posted by: Antwn 13-Aug-2008, 03:25 PM | ||
Well then you're the expert not me. But since you've asked me I suspect its inherent, an evolutionary outgrowth of cooperation most likely. Altruism has been shown in many animal species. I suspect early humans learned that cooperation would bode well for survival more than single family living. An emotional element may have evolved from this or may have been there all along. Whatever speculation one may have, the current presence of such an aspect is most important, and however, if ever it evolved, doesn't matter to my initial point. How about quid pro quo - could you share with us some of the most current thinking on the evolution of conscience? Your own ideas would also be welcome. |
| Posted by: stoirmeil 18-Aug-2008, 11:42 AM | ||
I just popped back in here after losing track of the thread. I'll see what's fresh in the research this year, month, week, and get back on it. |