CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
You don't seem to understand how the law is supposed to work... churches get tax exempt status, that means they are not supposed to try to persuade their members to vote for one political party over the other... if they do they should loose their political status.
Not if you're a church with tax exempt status! That is the law. Are you allowed to scream "fire" in a crowded theater? I guess you would say yes since you seem to have such a black and white perspective on the issue.
I disagree. Everyone has the right to freedom of speech whether we like it or not. Just chill out. No ad hominim, just debate. I guess we can agree to disagree.
Yes, the First guarantees freedom of speech, but the establishment clause also disentangles the church from the government. So: Church leaders should not be arrested for speaking how they feel about God. HOWEVER, if they do, they should not receive special treatment from the government since they should not have IN THE FIRST PLACE, according to the same amendment that guarantees their freedom of speech. So: they should pay taxes like the rest of us.
Revoking tax exempt status does not infringe upon anyone's freedom of speech. I do not have a tax exempt status, and yet I still have freedom of speech. Please address the argument.
No, you haven't. You have simply repeated you initial claim with regard to what other have said. No one here is saying that churches shouldn't have freedom of speech, and thus you are not addressing the main contention over tax exemption. I have yet to see you even mention tax exemption. Do you know what tax exemption means?
You DO NOT have to change your mind about freedom of speech rights. At all.
In fact, I encourage you to have that opinion!
But there is more to the First than just F.o.S. There is also the Establishment Clause. If the Government dismisses taxation on a group because of its religion, then that could be argued to be a violation of the establishment clause within the first amendment.
There is a GOOD argument you could make against this, but you have failed to do so thus far.
What I am saying is that if a preacher gets arrested for speaking about God, that would be wrong. It would violate the first amendment.
But for a religious organization to not have to pay taxes ALSO VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT.
You are missing the point. Nobody is having their freedom of speech violated. Nobody is being arrested for speaking about God. The Government is not telling them they cannot speak about God. IN FACT: Places where God talk is the bread and butter DO NOT HAVE TO PAY TAXES! They are actually GETTING SPECIAL GOVERNMENT TREATMENT as they SPEAK ABOUT GOD! Which, according to the EXACT SAME FIRST AMENDMENT THAT PROMISES THEM FREEDOM OF SPEECH, they should not be receiving IN THE FIRST PLACE.
This isn't about taking away their rights at all, it is about giving them the same rights as any other organization that does good deeds.
I am not asking you to change your mind. I'm asking you to provide a argument which you still have not done. If you want to maintain an incorrect position, you can very well do that, but this is a debate website. Debate requires an argument. You so far have only made statements, not arguments.
I am done with debate. You have over and over again said that churches should lose their tax exempt status if they use their freedom of speech, and that is a violation of freedom of speech rights. I will not agree with you, so please stop trying. Have a nice day.
This is not an ad hominem argument. Don't throw in philosophical terms just to attempt to make your statements seem more sophisticated. It is really embarrassing.
It is that big of a deal for me as a philosopher. If you think that this is a trivial matter, then it proves my claim that you have no background or understanding of philosophy.
It was ad hominim when he falsely accused me of not caring about the First Amendment.
This is exactly not the definition of an argumentum ad hominem. A person only commits the ad hominem fallacy when he/she tries to invalidate a person's argument by attacking a person's character.
In other words, an ad hominem would read something like, "Ismaila's words are false because she's an idiot." That is an ad hominem argument.
An argumentum ad hominem is defined as "the fallacy of attacking the character or circumstances of an individual who is advancing a statement or an argument instead of trying to disprove the truth of the statement or the soundness of the argument. Often the argument is characterized simply as a personal attack." A simple false accusation isn't an argumentum ad hominem.
I'm not wrong, until you prove me to be so. Honestly, your understanding of philosophy is so minimal that it is, quite frankly, utterly embarrassing to even be discussing philosophy with you.
Also, I am not impeding their freedom of speech in any way. I am saying that the Establishment Clause states that they cannot have special privileges for being religious. READ THE WHOLE AMENDMENT.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Now the Establishment Clause refers to that very first part:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"....
It can be argued, and has been, that giving religious organizations special benefits that similar, secular, organizations do not receive could be considered "establishment of religion". Hence establishment clause.
And yes, the same amendment ALSO states: "or abridging the freedom of speech". HOWEVER, forcing the church to pay taxes would not stop them from exercising their freedom of speech. AND, this act would not put most churches out of business as most churches receive more in donations than their operating costs. Those that do not would have to close their doors if they could not appeal to a wealthy donor, but that is exactly what any non-religious organization would have to go through. Sounds fair to me, especially since most churches would not have this problem.
In conclusion: making churches have to act like everyone else would not violate the first amendment because they could still say whatever they want. Giving them special rights that are unavailable to the rest of us BECAUSE they are religious institutions is a violation of the first because the government is helping to establish religion.
For the record, the good argument you could have made was something like this:
"No religious organizations have to pay. That includes Christians, and Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Hindus, etc."
The problem with that is the establishment clause specifies NO establishment of religion. Which could be taken to mean all religions just as much as any individual one.
Have you ever read Hegel's Philosophy of Right? When Hegel discussed the idea of "right", he referred greatly to John Locke's work on the "social contract". This basically meant that social or political order is said to derive its legitimacy from its ability to uphold and protect the rights of autonomous, sovereign individuals. Thus, if a social contract is not respected, the government has no prerogative to uphold and protect the rights of individuals.
There is a huge difference in the right to free speech...and tax exempt status. The IRS code for 501(c)(3) exemption (church tax exemption) explicitly states:
To be tax-exempt under section 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, an organization must be organized and operated exclusively for exempt purposes set forth in section 501(c)(3), and none of its earnings may inure to any private shareholder or individual. In addition, it may not be an action organization, i.e., it may not attempt to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities and it may not participate in any campaign activity for or against political candidates.
Unfortunately....many churches and religions want to influence legislation as a substantial part of its activities (i.e. gay marriage).
Again, you cannot have it both ways. If a church wants to espouse their beliefs and turn their beliefs into laws or carry them over into the justice system, they cannot be tax exempt.
I am sorry, but comining religion with politics is just bad because civil rights will be violated. Besides, which is the lucky religion? Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Zorastorianism, Kemetism, Hinduism, Buddhism, Shintoism, Sikkhism, Taoism, what? It is utterly illogical to attempt to combine religion and politics, and I don't give a flying fig what Gandhi said. I think for guess who, me!
I am sorry, but comining religion with politics is just bad because civil rights will be violated.
As if they had ever really been, or ever really could be seperate.
Besides, which is the lucky religion?
Generally which ever one is most popular in the region
It is utterly illogical to attempt to combine religion and politics
MANY are too naive to notice that religions are political organizations, and that keeping politics and religion seperate is an impossibility. If you are up to the challenge of exposing the faulty logic of my thinking, create a challenge debate and I'll answer your questions until the contradiction becomes apparent. Or if you'd rather have me expose the faulty logic I think you use, pop in to this debate and I'll show you precisely where it fails.
I don't give a flying fig what Gandhi said. I think for guess who,
me!
Just because I think Gandhi had a better understanding of what religion is than you do, and that I respect some of what he had to say on the subject, doesn't mean I don't practice critical thinking or that I believe it simply because he said it.
As if they had ever really been, or ever really could be seperate. Right, let's go back to rape victims marrying there attackers, stoning unmarried female nonvirgins, stoning gays, stoning people who worked on the Sabbath, forbidding the following: certain foods, mixing fibers (no polyester for you), different crops together, men marrying their brother's wife, polygamy. You are a special kind of stupid if you equate religion with politics. Generally which ever one is most popular in the region And that would violate the rights of the nonreligious. One does not need to have religious beliefs to have rights. Save your theocracy for Saudi Arabia. MANY are too naive to notice that religions are political organizations That is the problem. Religion and politics need to stay seperate, or do you want to go back to burning witches? You seem like you like it hot. ;), and that keeping politics and religion seperate is an impossibility. I disagree. America is a multiwhatever country. If you are up to the challenge of exposing the faulty logic of my thinking, create a challenge debate and I'll answer your questions until the contradiction becomes apparent. It's 12:07 AM here, can I do it tomorrow? I promise on the Constitution that I will keep my promise. Or if you'd rather have me expose the faulty logic I think you use, pop in to this debate and I'll show you precisely where it fails.Just because I think Gandhi had a better understanding of what religion is than you do Appeal to authority fallacy. Experience or authority does not make one right. I would say this right to Gandhi's face. I question everything including God, so what makes this Gandhi fellow so special?, and that I respect some of what he had to say on the subject, doesn't mean I don't practice critical thinking or that I believe it simply because he said it. I disagree with you because of your position on the subject, not why you have that position. Ima get at you tomorrow, okay? It's a date.
The thing is, even though church and state are not to combine, somehow, someway it happens all the time doesn't it? We have been to court, we have made Amendments, we have took the 10 commandments out of courthouses in Alabama, but it's always some crazy, unwilling person not wanting to do the right thing, hard headed!! For some reason, "I can't figure it out to save my life" why people insist on trying to push their ideas off on others. Im glad it's a seperation of church and state, not everyone practices the sameway, if they practice a religion at all. I wouldn't want my child to go to school and have someone preach to them, when they're there to learn an education, not go to church, it's a difference and it should be made to stay that way forever.May 8th, it's an amendment one vote coming up, I am gaginst it totally. It's to ban same-sex marriage, but that's not all. It also affects straight couples who aren't married but live together, it's more to it than they want to admit, to try and get enough votes by homoscardiacs. It will affect childrens insurance, domestic violence laws for women in straight unmarried relationships, how sad is that?Yet the only issue that they care to get out there is that this will not recognize gay marriages in this state, just a man and woman. Sound familiar? It should, many years ago blacks and whites were not allowed to get married, women were not allowed to vote, this sounds like a civil rights issue to me also. Our country split into two, because man thought it was okah to have a human for a slave. I like to think that our way of thinking has evolved, i know it has to a degree anyway. It's still those people out there that wont to push their "Bible thumping" ways off on pople, who might even be an Atheist. When they learn that everyone is different and nobody is the same, we might get along a little better in this country!
no, there is no true separation of church and state. this can be seen within topics such as gay rights and marriage, which Christianity has quite a bit of power over.
It's virtually impossible to have total separation of church and state while a very large majority of the populous is religious. The religious usually want to impose their rules on everyone else. Whether that is good or not is a different debate.
It's virtually impossible to have total separation of church and state while a very large majority of the populous is religious.
That's enforcing a generalization. The way you make it sound, is that if religious people exist that there is no total separation of church and state. People can be religious and believe in the Separation of Church and State idea.
While your statement can be valid - people can be religious and still believe in separation of church and state - history tells us that this cannot be. 50-60% of America is, in some way, affiliated with the Christian religion. Thus, we have had multiple instances of biblical beliefs crop into the justice system. Look at the various Islamic nations, where religion is forced upon people. The United States fought for their freedom from oppressive religious laws that were declared in England. Unfortunately, the same thing is slowly happening in the United States. The religious majority will always impose their views, because they believe they are doing the world a favor in doing so. That they are somehow 'saving' the rest of us.
While your statement can be valid - people can be religious and still believe in separation of church and state - history tells us that this cannot be.
History tells us that people don't try to be or that they don't care to be. Not that it's impossible. I didn't say that it commonly happens. I simply said it's possible by using the word "can be".
I have a religion and I firmly believe in separation of church and state, for a multitude of reasons, which I'm sure any supporter would have as well. Even if the government wanted to implement my religious beliefs as law, I would vehemently protest their plans to do so.
That was all I was saying by my post is that it is possible for people to be religious and believe in the separation of church and state.
There is not a lot of transparency between religious affiliation and electibility. At least in the United States, it seems every presidential election has had moments in which it became fixated upon the candidates' religions. Many politicians, particularly Conservatives, stress the role of Christianity in guiding their policies.
Articulate a distinction between what a church is and what a state is and I'd be surprised if I couldn't quickly show there's essentially no difference.
A church is to a religion as a state is to a country
As a tv is to a house. All of which are very common, but not guaranteed or required.
So? There is no correlation.
Both a state and a church have governing laws and authorities
And? Schools also have governing laws and authorities. Does this mean religion and schools are also the same? Or is our schools our government?
Just because you can connect them doesn't mean they're synonymous; as you said "essentially no difference".
When I specified governing laws and authorities, I mean of a country, city, country, etc. Where citizenship and diversity ensues.
In the United States, we have three governing branches aside from the public vote, which creates, interprets and enforces our laws. That is what I mean by a governing authority. Some religions act as a governing authority of their own followers. Doesn't mean they're the same as the actual government.
The state enforces the dominant religion as it always has and always will. Tell me why I'm mistaken.
And if they are, as I said before, is something to argue not something to concede to.
Not all governing bodies enforce religion, in the United States, while there is many things to argue that ARE enforced which are specific-religion favored, doesn't mean that it all is. There are many cases where the state enforces the separation of church and state as described in the First Amendment and I am thankful for those right choices. They protect everyone's freedom.
As a tv is to a house. All of which are very common, but not guaranteed or required.
So? There is no correlation.
Your statement was "Church=Religion". Each of these two words has multiple usage definitions which makes it a challenge to establish when someone is committing the fallacy of equivocation while using them in logical argumentation. I introduced the analogy hoping to avoid hashing out each definition then pinning down which one you were referring to in your equation. I will grant that a certain usage definition of "church" is synonymous with a certain usage definition of "religion". This is the case when both terms refer to a "religious sect". But a religious sect or "church" is not the same thing as religion itself.
And? Schools also have governing laws and authorities. Does this mean religion and schools are also the same? Or is our schools our government?
They don't just have governing bodies, they are governing bodies. They are branches of the same tree.
Just because you can connect them doesn't mean they're synonymous; as you said "essentially no difference".
If you were to list differences I could reduce them to what would clearly be a commonalities.
When I specified governing laws and authorities, I mean of a country, city, country, etc. Where citizenship and diversity ensues.
Churches and governments are interpersonal organizations who define more or less imaginary boundaries, which they attempt to secure through whatever means they have at their disposal. Neither will tolerate diversity beyond an authoritatively established standard. Both have members who are only so conditionally.
In the United States, we have three governing branches aside from the public vote, which creates, interprets and enforces our laws. That is what I mean by a governing authority.
So if a church were to emulate that, would it thereby cease being a church as long as it fits your definition of a governing authority?
And if they are, as I said before, is something to argue not something to concede to.
All contention is over belief/value system (religion) issues. One can vie in the interest of their religion, or against belief/value systems (religions) that are contrary to their own but attempts to separate religion from government are flat out illogical. As illogical as trying to keep government and government separate. Come on dig in, attack my logic.
Not all governing bodies enforce religion, in the United States
Yes they do.
There are many cases where the state enforces the separation of church and state as described in the First Amendment and I am thankful for those right choices.
You are thankful while religious values you identify with prevail.
They protect everyone's freedom.
Including murderers as long as they are doing the murdering for an approved cause.
This is why you are mistaken.
Hmm try again. Dig dig dig or give up. I am used to the latter :)
Your statement was "Church=Religion". Each of these two words has multiple usage definitions which makes it a challenge to establish when someone is committing the fallacy of equivocation while using them in logical argumentation.
I was simplifying the epithet "church and state" into it's elementary, generalized terms I could think of without getting leading the debate astray with semantics. If you didn't get it, they were meant to be generalized and encompassing many definitions and categories. And if you still did not comprehend the mere basics: Any religious matters should stay as far separate from legal matters as humanly possible. And just because there is not a "true" separation between the two; just because there is a grey area; does not mean the phrase and it's processes are impossible or nonexistent.
I introduced the analogy hoping to avoid hashing out each definition then pinning down which one you were referring to in your equation.
I apologize if I am incorrect, but I call bull. Your very first refute seemed particularly aimed at focusing on a game of marry-go-linguistics.
This is the case when both terms refer to a "religious sect".
Not necessarily. Items, beliefs, symbols, may all be included.
But a religious sect or "church" is not the same thing as religion itself.
Which I never stated nor implied.
They don't just have governing bodies, they are governing bodies. They are branches of the same tree.
If you wish to go that route, the same could be said about the government / legal matters. But I argue not, I argue that a school has a governing body. There are followers with no power; thus not a total governing body.
If you were to list differences I could reduce them to what would clearly be a commonalities.
And we can do the same about reality and delusions or hallucinations depending on how philosophically extreme you wish to be.
Churches and governments are interpersonal organizations who define more or less imaginary boundaries, which they attempt to secure through whatever means they have at their disposal. Neither will tolerate diversity beyond an authoritatively established standard. Both have members who are only so conditionally.
Wait, are you telling me you're one of those "governing hating, world hating, authority hating who demands from people to prove the difference between reality and what other possibilities may exist"? Ideally governments respect and accept diversity, realistically it doesn't always happen that way but in many areas they do the best they can. Our systems are not perfect, and we have a lot of bias, but that should not rule out another process because it does not work perfectly.
So if a church were to emulate that, would it thereby cease being a church as long as it fits your definition of a governing authority?
Again, you previously argued wanting to avoid a definition debate, yet here you are, enforcing such debate.
But to answer your question, yes it would, in the right context. This group would have to enforce the Constitution as well as live up to it which is all included within creating, interpreting and enforcing our laws. This group would have to be voted in or "hired" on by another governing authority simply because this is how our government works when adding in new people, but other than that, yes they would be.
A governing authority personally does not have to strip themselves of religious ties completely, but when enforcing laws on the public and speaking for the country as one, they either have to ignore religion all together or advocate diversity of beliefs ranging from religion and non religion. Why? Because it's the only way to include everyone in the country regarding matters of religion.
One can vie in the interest of their religion, or against belief/value systems (religions) that are contrary to their own but attempts to separate religion from government are flat out illogical.
For one, every statement in the paragraph from where this quoted statement comes from is refuted by my grey area and imperfection argument.
As for this quoted text, that is a statement you must prove, you have asserted a claim.
Yes they do.
Prove it.
You are thankful while religious values you identify with prevail.
You have again asserted a claim. Where is your evidence for this? What religious values do I identify with and how do you know these prevail?
Including murderers as long as they are doing the murdering for an approved cause.
I was simplifying the epithet "church and state" into it's elementary, generalized terms I could think of without getting leading the debate astray with semantics.
At this point unless you want to talk semantics I really can't address your logic.
If you didn't get it, they were meant to be generalized and encompassing many definitions and categories.
Perhaps (regardless of how general or specific you try to be) it's entirely logical to view religion as a form of government, and vice versa....just maybe
That a government can remain neutral in regards to religion...is delusional unless religion isn't about idea propagation.
And if you still did not comprehend the mere basics: Any religious matters should stay as far separate from legal matters as humanly possible.
Poor me who doesn't understand the MERE basics of your logic!
And just because there is not a "true" separation between the two.........
You have conceded my whole point here.
.......does not mean the phrase and it's processes are impossible or nonexistent.
that the phrase and it's processes are possible and existent (albeit founded on faulty logic), I will concede.
I apologize if I am incorrect, but I call bull. Your very first refute seemed particularly aimed at focusing on a game of marry-go-linguistics.
That in general I am keen to engage in linguistic forensics (merry-go-linguistics sounds so pejorative) is true, and my tendencies ARE to try helping people (and solicit help from them for myself through conversation) to have a sound logical basis for the terms they use. I was trying to make my point in as few words as possible would have been more truthful. Your BS detector (less pejoratively your intuition) is spot on here. :)
And we can do the same about reality and delusions or hallucinations depending on how philosophically extreme you wish to be.
I like you use of "philosophically extreme" here....:)
Churches and governments are interpersonal organizations who define more or less imaginary boundaries, which they attempt to secure through whatever means they have at their disposal. Neither will tolerate diversity beyond an authoritatively established standard. Both have members who are only so conditionally.
Wait, are you telling me you're one of those "governing hating, world hating, authority hating who demands from people to prove the difference between reality and what other possibilities may exist"?
I believe that legitimate government depends on the consent of the governed. I was hoping for you to address the prior snippet a bit more directly but...its ok
As to your "prove its" I'd be happy to give a go at convincing you, unless you are perfectly satisfied with your opinion on the matter already. Otherwise if you notice something clearly illogical about my use of language and would take the time to help me comprehend the MERE basics that would be mighty friendly of you.
What are you talking about?
I suppose it merits an entirely separate discussion.
At this point unless you want to talk semantics I really can't address your logic.
Then you are stuck in your own perspective.
Perhaps (regardless of how general or specific you try to be) it's entirely logical to view religion as a form of government, and vice versa....just maybe
No, that is called a theocracy; which is a form of government. Just because religion is can and is used to function a government, does not mean the terms "religion/church" and "state" are essentially synonymous.
Many groups of all types can act like a government of their own followers/members, but it does not mean they are--as I said before-- synonymous.
That a government can remain neutral in regards to religion...is delusional unless religion isn't about idea propagation.
That is up to the people, not a government body as a whole. A government official who is suppose to uphold Separation of Church and State within our laws can be influenced by their religious views or others religious views, but the fact that it's a possibility and does occur does not mean it's required or guaranteed.
You seem to assume much simply by the negative influences in governmental affairs. We're talking about a concept, which works just fine if the people would adhere to the concept instead of violating it. It's not expecting too much of people either.
Poor me who doesn't understand the MERE basics of your logic!
Is this necessary?
[[And just because there is not a "true" separation between the two.........]]
You have conceded my whole point here.
I have not. You did not argue no "true" separation, you argued there is essentially no difference between the two; which is incorrect regardless of whether or not you can have an entirely full separation or not.
What I meant by "true" separation is that there are exceptions or rules that might make the separation a bit unclear or up for debate. Like freedom of speech, while the United States has that guaranteed freedom; it is limited. And with a logical backing behind why it should be limited.
You can have spaghetti for dinner without eating all the spaghetti in existence. You do not need to have all spaghetti in order to have spaghetti; there is a clear line. The same logic is applied to freedom of speech or separation of church and state; except the line is clear with a fuzzy outline. Why? Because most people are not sensitive over spaghetti, but they are over religion.
that the phrase and it's processes are possible and existent (albeit founded on faulty logic), I will concede.
What faulty logic?
That in general I am keen to engage in linguistic forensics (merry-go-linguistics sounds so pejorative) is true, and my tendencies ARE to try helping people (and solicit help from them for myself through conversation) to have a sound logical basis for the terms they use. I was trying to make my point in as few words as possible would have been more truthful. Your BS detector (less pejoratively your intuition) is spot on here. :)
Which I would normally applaud such a helpful cause, however, when you sound like an ass with your first post and then proceed to only be interested in semantics itself instead of the argument; no one will want your help or see your cause.
I like you use of "philosophically extreme" here....:)
I felt as if this was your main intention, to aim in the direction of relativism or solipsism. Which boils down to philosophy, and while I love philosophy, there is a limit on it's productivity in debate. And as for the rest of the post, my responses really don't change when you refer to the previous paragraph.
Who's not though seriously. I am giving a go at understanding yours and others as I participate in a website specifically for that.
So I might better scrutinize your perspective, list some differences between religion and government. I bet I could list more similarities.
No, that is called a theocracy; which is a form of government.
I don't see any value in categorizing governmental dictatorships as theocratic. Tyranny is tyranny regardless of what popular misconceptions are taken advantage in order to gain power.
Just because religion is can and is used to function a government, does not mean the terms "religion/church" and "state" are essentially synonymous.
True, but if the differences are only in what metaphors are utilized to establish the authority structure then perceived differences are as far as I can tell illusory.
Many groups of all types can act like a government of their own followers/members, but it does not mean they are--as I said before-- synonymous.
All a group needs to do to BE a government is to act like one, the same is true of a religion. How about this...Tell me something true of a government that is not also true of a religion. <
That is up to the people, not a government body as a whole.
A government body is made up of people, so that's another false distinction. If you view religion in it's broadest sense (a belief/value system), it's easy to see how such matters are something no person or interpersonal organization can be neutral about. Like that Rush song points out "if you choose not to decide you still have made a choice".
A government official who is suppose to uphold Separation of Church and State within our laws can be influenced by their religious views or others religious views, but the fact that it's a possibility and does occur does not mean it's required or guaranteed.
A persons religious views represent their most deeply held beliefs/values. Claiming that people "can be" influenced by them is a gross understatement. Like it or not, neutrality on such matters is an impossibility.
You seem to assume much simply by the negative influences in governmental affairs.
Historically, what interpersonal organizations are most responsible for promoting the belief that violence is an effective, even admirable way to settle differences? Religious or Governmental? Neither and both....they are fundamentally indistinguishable IMO
We're talking about a concept, which works just fine if the people would adhere to the concept instead of violating it. It's not expecting too much of people either.
Works just fine? How in the world could matters of fundamental beliefs and values be kept separate from governance. A person or groups actions are flat out dictated by their belief/value system. You're right, it's not expecting "too much", it's expecting the impossible.
Is this necessary?
No. That was a response to what I interpreted (perhaps mistakenly?)as an also unnecessary attempt to degrade..to wit: "And if you still did not comprehend the mere basics". So if we can dispense with what usually leads to pointless bickering, and work to expose which one of us is lacking a sound logical basis, I'd be pleased. Go ahead and ask any pointed questions you can come up with, and I'll be sure to answer them. If you'll do me the same courtesy, we'll have some rapport.
I have not. You did not argue no "true" separation, you argued there is essentially no difference between the two; which is incorrect regardless of whether or not you can have an entirely full separation or not.
You cannot have "true" separation. You cannot have "entirely full" separation. And you cannot tell me the difference between religious and governmental concerns.
Since I think that government and religion are basically the same thing, I suppose attempts to separate them are based on an illusory notion that it is possible at all. An institution, be it labeled political or religious cannot be neutral in regards to other institutions who may be promoting ideologies contrary to their interests.
What I meant by "true" separation is that there are exceptions or rules that might make the separation a bit unclear or up for debate.
I'd replace "might" with "definitely" and the phrase "a bit" with "extremely"
Like freedom of speech, while the United States has that guaranteed freedom; it is limited.
It's limited when a determination is made that such speech is contrary to it's interests. The defining of interests is a belief/value system thing. Government is dogmatic. Face it.
And with a logical backing behind why it should be limited.
And the premises of that logic are that the institution is worth preserving at any cost.
What faulty logic?
The same logic behind any claim to non-bias
Which I would normally applaud such a helpful cause, however, when you sound like an ass with your first post and then proceed to only be interested in semantics itself instead of the argument; no one will want your help or see your cause.
I could say you were being an ass and therefore I shouldn't bother engage you but I have better manners than that. You can shrink from inquiry and be disrespectful if that's your disposition.
I felt as if this was your main intention, to aim in the direction of relativism or solipsism. Which boils down to philosophy, and while I love philosophy, there is a limit on it's productivity in debate. And as for the rest of the post, my responses really don't change when you refer to the previous paragraph.
I try to aim in the direction of deeper thinking. I am looking for challenges to how I think, and to challenge others. You can of course decide that conversation with me is not worthwhile, it's your prerogative.