Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Zadok001 · 03-11-2003, 02:20 PM

Hiya all.

I've found myself in a bit of a tight spot. One of the group projects assigned to a mid-level Sociology class I'm taking is a discussion on 'Religon and Politics.' Of my group, I have been found the most educated on the subject of seperation of church and state. Since everyone in the group agrees that a secular government is ideal, we needed someone to take on the role of the devil's (or in this case God's) advocate - Someone to _ATTACK_ seperation of church and state as a _bad_ idea.

Being the most well versed in the subject area, I am that person.

Which means I'm now batting for the wrong team, and I need an idea of how to swing.

What arguments are usually used by Fundies to show that a theistic government is actually superior to a secular one? I can think of a few tricks to pull (societal cohesiveness requiring a central doctrine, ideally a religious book), but not enough to fund an entire debate.

Any thoughts?

Alonzo Fyfe · 03-11-2003, 02:42 PM

Well, one of the most fruitful lines of argument would be the "atheists are immoral" argument. Politicians should have strong moral convictions (we do not want immoral politicians in office) -- and that requires faith in God. No God, no morality, society crumbles.

Toto · 03-11-2003, 03:05 PM

I would take the tack that 1) religion has too much protection in this country, and 2) religious diversity is a source of problems, and everyone should just follow one religion, preferably a modern sort of religion that doesn't ask anyone to do anything stupid.

It is the First Amendment that prevents the US government from clamping down on abusive cults like Scientology, Jim Jones, all those televangelists who just bring scorn on the idea of religion anyway.

You might get some ideas in this archived thread:

The French Model of Church State Relations

ZiprHead · 03-12-2003, 06:26 AM

Some ass-bag wrote in a letter to our local paper that the seperation of powers embodied in our government is inspired by the Bible in Isaiah 33:22. Of course he only gave the verse number, not the verse itself, so I looked it up. Here is the verse below:
For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

How someone can equate that line to mean a *seperation* of powers I'll never understand.

dangin · 03-12-2003, 06:59 AM

Even Jefferson "supported" paying clergy with government dollars. Jefferson allowed federal funding to go to clergy who were building churches in Native American areas to serve the Native American converts.

Jefferson didn't fight to stop the congressional chaplains.

The declaration of independence is full of god talk.

Then there's the whole, "the founders wanted the wall to keep government out of churches, not to keep churches out of the government".

MortalWombat · 03-12-2003, 07:48 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by dangin

The declaration of independence is full of god talk.

You can read the Declaration here. In the 1300+ words of the Declaration, the word "God" occurs once (in the phrase "Nature's God"), and the word "Creator" occurs once. Hardly what one would call "full of god talk."

Shadowy Man · 03-12-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by MortalWombat
You can read the Declaration here. In the 1300+ words of the Declaration, the word "God" occurs once (in the phrase "Nature's God"), and the word "Creator" occurs once. Hardly what one would call "full of god talk."

Besides the fact that the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the structure of the government.

Shake · 03-12-2003, 10:13 AM

Hiya Zadok! Have you seen this article from the II newswire? It seems like it's somewhat related to your topic.

dangin · 03-12-2003, 10:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Shadowy Man
Besides the fact that the Declaration of Independence has nothing to do with the structure of the government.

Hey, I know, I know, I'm just giving him the same stuff I hear from the fundies I debate. The preamble of the DofI is where all the god stuff is mentioned, pretty heavy up front. But, as has been pointed out, most societies invoke the deity when they are making proclamations of war. Just look at Bush today.

ruby-soho · 03-12-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by ZiprHead
Some ass-bag wrote in a letter to our local paper that the seperation of powers embodied in our government is inspired by the Bible in Isaiah 33:22. Of course he only gave the verse number, not the verse itself, so I looked it up. Here is the verse below:
For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.

How someone can equate that line to mean a *seperation* of powers I'll never understand.

ZiprHead, the person who wrote that letter must've been a reader of Barton's infamous works. Look here for more info on it:

Sects, Lies, and Videotape � David Barton�s Distorted History

Specifically, the seventh paragraph from the bottom:

Quote:

Finally, some of the arguments Barton makes are simply so convoluted or bizarre that they can be dismissed out of hand. For example, he claims that the doctrine of separation of powers--the constitutional principle that provides for "checks and balances" among the three branches of the federal government, springs from the biblical book of Jeremiah 17:19. This is, to say the least, a creative interpretation of the passage, which reads, "Thus said the Lord unto me: Go and stand in the gate of the children of the people, whereby the kings of Judah come in, and by which they go out, and in all the gates of Jerusalem."

(Likewise, Barton asserts that our country's three branches of government were inspired by Isaiah 33:22. The passage reads, "For the lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us.")

Talk about some serious intellectual dishonesty...

D

03-11-2003, 02:20 PM	#1
Zadok001 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Two Steps Ahead Posts: 1,124	Playing for the other team! Hiya all. I've found myself in a bit of a tight spot. One of the group projects assigned to a mid-level Sociology class I'm taking is a discussion on 'Religon and Politics.' Of my group, I have been found the most educated on the subject of seperation of church and state. Since everyone in the group agrees that a secular government is ideal, we needed someone to take on the role of the devil's (or in this case God's) advocate - Someone to _ATTACK_ seperation of church and state as a _bad_ idea. Being the most well versed in the subject area, I am that person. Which means I'm now batting for the wrong team, and I need an idea of how to swing. What arguments are usually used by Fundies to show that a theistic government is actually superior to a secular one? I can think of a few tricks to pull (societal cohesiveness requiring a central doctrine, ideally a religious book), but not enough to fund an entire debate. Any thoughts?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

03-11-2003, 02:42 PM	#2
Alonzo Fyfe Veteran Member Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: 920B Milo Circle Lafayette, CO Posts: 3,515	Well, one of the most fruitful lines of argument would be the "atheists are immoral" argument. Politicians should have strong moral convictions (we do not want immoral politicians in office) -- and that requires faith in God. No God, no morality, society crumbles.

03-11-2003, 03:05 PM	#3
Toto Contributor Join Date: Jun 2000 Location: Los Angeles area Posts: 40,549	I would take the tack that 1) religion has too much protection in this country, and 2) religious diversity is a source of problems, and everyone should just follow one religion, preferably a modern sort of religion that doesn't ask anyone to do anything stupid. It is the First Amendment that prevents the US government from clamping down on abusive cults like Scientology, Jim Jones, all those televangelists who just bring scorn on the idea of religion anyway. You might get some ideas in this archived thread: The French Model of Church State Relations

03-12-2003, 06:26 AM	#4
ZiprHead Veteran Member Join Date: Oct 2002 Location: SagNasty. Posts: 3,034	Some ass-bag wrote in a letter to our local paper that the seperation of powers embodied in our government is inspired by the Bible in Isaiah 33:22. Of course he only gave the verse number, not the verse itself, so I looked it up. Here is the verse below: For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king; he will save us. How someone can equate that line to mean a seperation of powers I'll never understand.

03-12-2003, 06:59 AM	#5
dangin Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2000 Location: The Middle, Kansas Posts: 2,637	Even Jefferson "supported" paying clergy with government dollars. Jefferson allowed federal funding to go to clergy who were building churches in Native American areas to serve the Native American converts. Jefferson didn't fight to stop the congressional chaplains. The declaration of independence is full of god talk. Then there's the whole, "the founders wanted the wall to keep government out of churches, not to keep churches out of the government".

03-12-2003, 10:13 AM	#8
Shake Contributor Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Folding@Home in upstate NY Posts: 14,394	Hiya Zadok! Have you seen this article from the II newswire? It seems like it's somewhat related to your topic.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.