A question was asked that basically said that the govt should be able to dictate what people can preach at the pulpit. I stated that I didnt want fundies in my govt but that it meant my govt shouldnt be able to dictate what they said in their church and I got thumbs down.
Isnt it a bit hypocritical to dictate what can and cannot be preached about while at the same time attempting to keep church seperate from state?
2007-06-20 00:51:02 · 20 answers · asked by Anonymous in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
This was directed mostly at a few individuals that sent me some rather fiery email about stopping christians etc.
2007-06-20 00:58:44 · update #1
Daniel- I disagree100% civic policy cannot be determined but what one group believes over another. It should be fair to all. Fundies like you are what is tearing this country in half and I will gladly take up arms to protect this country from small minded fundies such as yourself.
2007-06-20 01:16:56 · update #2
In general, government should stay out of the religion business altogether. Of course there are extreme situations that call for vigilance - for example, a white supremacist church, or a Muslim mosque, that preach and support violence. In these cases it would behoove the government to be on top of the activity of these institutions.
2007-06-20 00:59:06 · answer #1 · answered by JAT 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
You cannot dictate what is said from the pulpit, even when it could be blasphemy.
It could have been the way you worded your response. I get lots of thumbs down from things i think are perfectly logical.
I am sometimes rude and obnoxious.People don't like that.
fundies in your government? so you are DICTATING who can be in government. Who else don't you want? Catholics?Jews? Left-handed Indians?
Separation of church and state has been a mis-used fallacy ever since the atheists have been trying to kill God.
The Government CANNOT interfere with the dealings of the church. Originally, the Baptists in New England heard a RUMOR that Catholicism would become the state religion for the country.
Thomas Jefferson replied by saying that there is an 'inseparable wall' between the church and the state.
Think of the context. Back then, people from around the world came to America to get away from a STATE RELIGION, and worship God how THEY chose.
The intent was to protect the CHURCH from the state, not the state from the church.
All of western law is based on the ten commandments.
America was founded on the precepts of freedom of religion, not freedom FROM religion. If you don't believe in God, that is up to you. You cannot DICTATE who is in office based on what they believe.
That is called discrimination.
2007-06-20 01:13:33 · answer #2 · answered by fortheimperium2003 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Trying to dictate what is preached in a church is a clear violation of freedom of speech and freedom of worship. There really shouldn't even be any arguing over this one in America. To me it shows how far we've fallen in this country. To directly answer your question - yes, I agree. It is inconsistent to advocate dictating what is preached in churches and at the same time supposedly advocate seperation of church and state.
2007-06-20 00:58:39 · answer #3 · answered by the phantom 6 · 2⤊ 0⤋
As a christian I do not want to be told by the government what is or not said in the pulpit. So how can I then say another religion has to do what the government says. This all comes down to freedom of speech, start curtailing it and the next thing you know we will not be allowed to type **** and **** on sites like this one
2007-06-20 00:58:10 · answer #4 · answered by Jim 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Religious doctrines do not belong in government...human management must remain neutral to all to be fully effective.
Censorship does not teach, and is dictated by a board of few, based on opinion alone--also not condusive to neutrality & growth, ergo, does not belong in governing systems.
Unfortunately, church has never been separate from state...in fact, many early rulers of the man-regime were advised greatly by their religious leaders, just as they are today. Care must be given to the right to vote--knowledge is power--know your candidates, and their beliefs!
2007-06-20 01:10:49 · answer #5 · answered by MsET 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
To me, the hypocritical or strange section is that I even have acquaintances that make purely above Min salary. They paintings hard, doing the job they are qualified for, and are happy with their lives. yet, they Pay for their own nutrients, lodging and needs. regrettably, they have not got funds left over for I-telephones, information superhighway or Cable. they do no longer ask for Public tips to pay for their nutrients so as that they are in a position to have those needs. i don't understand why we pay a lot for Privileges, and Niceties. people in huge numbers have an incredible sort of needs, yet say they are in a position to't arise with the funds for nutrients for their young toddlers. this is the section that particularly bothers me. I thoroughly understand being unfavourable and not being waiting to arise with the funds for the advantageous issues. I grew up in Sears undeniable wallet, while all i wanted grew to become into Levi's Bell Bottoms. My mom made all of our shirts out of cloth on the Seconds Racks. They could no longer arise with the funds for college, and that i grew to become right into a unfavourable scholar to declare the least, so I joined the USAF, discovered the thank you to think of, and Lead, and have been Gainfully employed prevalent considering that I have been given out. i will now arise with the funds for Levi's, and a Flat demonstrate and a sparkling Pickup and a huge domicile, and to take care of my ninety 3 hundred and sixty 5 days previous Father in regulation. It purely takes the impressive attitude and a few attempt. watching for somebody to furnish you greater will never get you there. you will continuously purely want greater.
2016-09-28 03:58:42 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes, it is hypocritical. Government is too involved in our personal lives as it is. I see no problem with government regulations as they regard church operations from the business point of view, but the government has no business telling any church what it can or cannot preach.
2007-06-20 00:57:16 · answer #7 · answered by LadyG 4 · 2⤊ 0⤋
I think it was my question that prompted you to write this one. I also dont want religon in any govt but unfortunatley it is. In my opinion the Law is too afraid to interfere in Religon and its wrath teachings, if it does interfere then I would like to know where? The point I was trying to make was, religon and its preachers can slam society and cultures and have no reprocussions, to me this is wrong, it should be one rule for all. What is said in some Churches IS discriminating and should be accountable in the eyes of the LAW....
2007-06-20 01:21:40 · answer #8 · answered by Leah 4 · 1⤊ 1⤋
You are overlooking the fact that Bishops get into the House of Lords by default. Why nobody has kicked up a stink about this I am unclear.
2007-06-20 00:58:52 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Yes.
Hannah J Paul
2007-06-20 00:54:22 · answer #10 · answered by Hannah J Paul 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋