church

[felizitation]

Originally posted by whitelotus religion should not be apart of the government, state, laws, nor politics

we all have different beliefs, if you make religion apart of one big system, its not fair to the others who have other beliefs, this is the reason there is no religion in public schools etc etc. Because someone might get offended . Thats the basic difference between a public school and a private school, the religion that is preached on the kids etc. Private schools are free to do what they want, teach what they want etc opposded to a public school. So that is why most parents send kids to a private school so they can get a strong (catholic <-- for example) upbringing and knowledge about there religion etc. The education is no different, you can get the same level of education and benefits that a kid in private school does in public school with gate programes honors and crap.

apart == herou ?
I was saying that religion should not intervene in government, and the government should not intervene in religion. Which is not the case.
Public belong more to government than private, so it should remain laique. I think we agree.

What about the money stuff ?

[whitelotus]

the church has always funded itself, this is the reason its reached its currupt nature, by scamming people to gain more and more money, to scam people even more

endless circle. If you give them money, they will still want more, if you dont give them money, they will get some by scamming people, and it continues on and on.

thus, its currupt

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus religion should not be apart of the government, state, laws, nor politics

we all have different beliefs, if you make religion apart of one big system, its not fair to the others who have other beliefs, this is the reason there is no religion in public schools etc etc. Because someone might get offended . Thats the basic difference between a public school and a private school, the religion that is preached on the kids etc. Private schools are free to do what they want, teach what they want etc opposded to a public school. So that is why most parents send kids to a private school so they can get a strong (catholic <-- for example) upbringing and knowledge about there religion etc. The education is no different, you can get the same level of education and benefits that a kid in private school does in public school with gate programes honors and crap.

The "Seperation between church and state" in my mind at least, is really silly. "Democracy" has become the religion of the masses. All it was is replacing one form of organized coercion by another. How is that any different? The only difference is the system of thought. Now I am Christian, although not church going, I nonetheless believe in God. Furthermore, it is my personal relationship with God. I wouldn't want it forced on people, as European Imperialism did. Democracy, or Statism, or Secular Government, or "Novus Ordo Seclorum" in the back of your dollar, is simply replacing Church with State. I don't know why we don't call most of Christianity, Churchianity, instead of Christianity, since Christianity predated the Church for a long time, somewhere around 300s AD? not sure about the date.

[whitelotus]

i sure as hell wouldnt want someone to force there religion on me either.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus i sure as hell wouldnt want someone to force there religion on me either.

What about "democracy"? It's sure as hell being forced on Iraqis. Is there any difference? What about us people living within the empire? Do we have a choice to object to the State and its illegal income tax, or the fiat money pumped by the Federal Reserve? You can't object. It's heresy.

[whitelotus]

i agree with you, democracy is being forced on us, but we made that decision when we moved here. So we have no choice but to accept what rules they have made.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus i agree with you, democracy is being forced on us, but we made that decision when we moved here. So we have no choice but to accept what rules they have made.

I was too young to have known what my parents were doing.

No choice? No choice? How many times have I heard people say that. They have no choice. Do you really have no choice, or is it you don't want to or refuse to or are afraid to make the alternative choice? Of course you have choices. Not everyone chooses to choose.

[whitelotus]

the choice ive made is to stay here, if it bothered me that much i would move to another freaking country.

that is what i meant, we make the choice with dealing with it, if we made a choice not to, we would move somewhere else.

[Anonymouse]

Originally posted by whitelotus the choice ive made is to stay here, if it bothered me that much i would move to another freaking country.

that is what i meant, we make the choice with dealing with it, if we made a choice not to, we would move somewhere else.

And how different is that? You must still be taxed for the State, no choice in the matter. And your property rights are violated.

The choice you have is to look at the system critically, as Socrates would, and not vote.

[felizitation]

Originally posted by whitelotus the church has always funded itself, this is the reason its reached its currupt nature, by scamming people to gain more and more money, to scam people even more

endless circle. If you give them money, they will still want more, if you dont give them money, they will get some by scamming people, and it continues on and on.

thus, its currupt

Ok, again, we derivated from the main topic.
I have many things to say on the choices, but this is not the place. What the subject was dealing about is the place of the church in our society.

Now, lotus, go further. You said the church has always funded itself. This is obviously true. But actually, at least during the past centuries, the church used to have a social leading role, as being a divine representative on earth, as being a ciment of society, as being a symbol of mankind rules, etc
Now, except made for the "divine representative", all these roles are assumed, at least on the "paper", by states. So, what is remaining to church ? all the divine stuff ?

As having a social importance, it would have been normal to give to this institution (I recognise that there were some deviations and this is not what i want to talk about) the means to function correctly (ie. money).
Now the role being very restricted, it seems normal that the economical binds between the society and the church are weakened. And the deserted church have to survive on its own.

You are talking about "corruption". Yes, it's certainly corrupted since it tries to survive and people does not see the importance.

My point is the following: religion, and implicitely churchs, have their social role. More widely, we may talk about "sectarism". If this is not known religion, people often stick together with some divine entity upon the group, and belief to sthg more than human always exists.
In a certain extent, we would say that churchs (or mosques or synagogues) have still their social role, even if most of the work is today assumed by states.
So, like schools, it seems to be important to the society (of course, some people would not agree, but take it as an hypothesis). Hence, it should receive some money from the state itself, as any other institution.

The question is the following: in what extent, in the actual society, church should exists, and underlying this: What is the social role of church ? If its social role is recognised, should the state financially support the church ? If this kind of support exists, do you think the way the religion is praised would change ?