Separation of Church and State

That colonies that restricted religion were very much in the minority, and thus to claim otherwise is wrong.

Trust you to miss the obvious conclusion and reach for something that is(1) missing the point
(2) obscurantist
(3) irrelevant in the endCare to try a second time? Especially when to claim that they did not exist at all is false.Especially when to claim that people never moved away from them to other colonies - and to both of the other types - in order to experience religious freedom would be false.Especially when to claim that all of this was not well known by the founding fathers is false.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I`ve always thought it odd that a nation founded by, among others, religious groups fleeing persecution by mainstream church/state alliances, should have descendants who want to revive the unholy union as a mainstream. Here we are,the most educated (knowledgewise)generation in the history of the world, and trying to resurrect failed formulas. If it never worked in the past, why bother? Probably because it is all about CONTROL.

No one is trying to revive marriage of Church and State. We are trying to prevent the same thing occuring with a marriage of secularism and State.This message has been edited by randman, 12-07-2005 10:47 PM

I don't know what you are talking about RAZD, and I suspect you do not either. I pointed out Mass very early on the thread, but that does not negate Rhode Island and Penn, nor does it entail rule by the clergy. Lots of places have had an official church, or religious laws, that are not altogether theocracies, which I believe means rule by the priests or clergy.As such, Saudi Arabia, the most religiously oppressive state on earth, is not a theocracy, but a kingdom whereas Iran is a theocracy because the mullahs hold the final say.You seem incapable of understanding this point.This message has been edited by randman, 12-07-2005 10:48 PM

Don't you realize you are the one playing semantic games?Both RAZD and I have made very clear how we use the term secular. And we have both shown support for such terms in popular usage.You on the other hand have only cited one definition and indeed ignored that the second half of the definition supported our usage, in order to try and play the word "secular" as necessarily meaning atheistic.Now it is silly and childish to continue playing the game you are doing but if that is the way you want to conduct yourself, fine. I do not need to use the term as it is properly used in order to maintain my position. My position does not hinge on one word.So for sake of argument with you right here and now, I will use secular=rejection of religion from all things, disbelief.In that case I will coin a new term called "civil separationist" (CS for short). This means a person who believes that govt is best run, and should be run, by dealing only with practical nonreligious issues, and not invoking religion for its policies. It makes no difference why a person may feel that way, just that they feel that way and fight for it.Now what you can do is go back and read my posts and anywhere where it says secular, you can put CS. My posts will mean the same thing, and your responses will stand out as glaring pieces of semantics.That is you are arguing that no matter how I used a term, you would treat the word I used according to your own definition and construct an argument around that. In other words, build strawmen of my position and those of others.Now lets review, using the new terminology:Anabaptists were not secular, but they were CS. Anabaptists argued for this in large part due to a religious doctrine which suggested civil and spiritual issues should be treated separately.The founding fathers... especially the major constructors... were not anabaptist and few were secular, but they were CS. They argued for this, even the nonsecular ones, in a wholly different way that the anabaptists. They argued from reason based on practical results and nontheological philosophical concepts of rights as found in writers like Locke. Thus as would any exemplar of enlightenment age thinking.Are you getting it yet?PS- don't forget post 43 is for you.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Here's another set:Group 1 has {A} {B} and {D}
Group 2 has {A} {C} and {D}
group 3 has not{A} {C} and not{D}What correlates with {A}{B}?
{C}?
{D}?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Especially in light of the fact that when given a chance to be the ones in control, the formerly persecuted ones became the persecutors. Within a lifetime too, it wasn't the next generation that did it but the first.And in spite of the fact that this was readily obvious to the founding fathers. Did randmans answer answer this for you?

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

I never know where Randy is heading. :-p

False by definition. That it is ruled by a {king\family} does not contradict the requirement of theocracy to be "A government ruled by or subject to religious authority" -- they are still subject to a religious authority, therefore they are still a theocracy.You continue to use half definitions.You still haven't answered:Group 1 has {A} {B} and {D}
Group 2 has {A} {C} and {D}
group 3 has not{A} {C} and not{D}What correlates with {A}{B}?
{C}?
{D}?This is another way of representing the same question as before.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

You are using only one definition of theocracy, one that is, imo, wrong. A theocracy is rule by the priests, clergy, religious rulers, not simply a nation that enforces religious rules.If what you were claiming were true, then every form of government on the earth that I know of in history up until Rhose Island and Pennsylvania would have been theocracies. So your politicized, 21st century revision definition is just false here.

Well not every, but certainly a good proportion, and definitely involving the cozy relationship between certain european monarchies and the catholic church ... as a case in point, from A Wall of Separation (click): (emphasis mime) Wikipedia (click): The English hangings and burning of 'heretics' is another example.Or do you think it was more like Monty Python -- tea and a comfy chair? LOL. Disagree all you wan't it won't change the fact that theocracies involve the enforcement of religious issues, whether the enforcement is done by a religious establishment or not. Theocracy is not synonymous with "church state" which is a subcategory of theorcracy.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Theocracy is rule by the priests or clergy. It is only primarily being defined as states that have religious discrimination because of the political debate. Studying history at some length, I never heard the vast majority of states in history described as a theocracy, but according to your definition, nearly every kingdom on earth has been a theocracy.The Roman Empire and all the Great Empires on earth would have to be reclassified as theocracies, as well various kingdoms and other states.Basically, your and the wiki definition are bogus politicized definitions, somewhat useless in fact.

You are conflating {Church State} with theocracy. It is not just {Church State} but any state that enforces a religion, and it is the enforcement of the religion that makes it a theocracy. So? What does that have to do with whether another government is a theocracy?From Religious Intolerance (click): Are you saying this was a good thing for the Roman Emporers to do? That it was fair to the Christians? Should we adopt this here in America? And build a temple to Diana? Or would Bacchus suit better? The definition comes from dictionary.com and is taken directly from The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.Politicized? LOL. Or is your paranoia showing? If wikipedia is always wrong ..... there is a reality disconnect in operation.Enjoy.

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Your link showed you wrong again. The Romans required everyone participate in a common sacral rite, and those that refused were sometimes killed. They required a universal religious sacrifice and persecuted those that refused. Your link can call that religious liberty all day long, but it's religious persecution and oppression, and moreover, it shows that they beleived soceity, even one with many religions, had to be held together by a common rite.As such, they were a theocracy according to your definition. Sorry, but you lose here.