Welcome to Gaia! ::

Please forgive me if a topic such as this has already been made, but I am getting really irritated with all the 'homosexual rights' threads in ED because whenever I post something that is relevant and thought provoking some dumb a** always goes: "I don't care, the bible says..." or something along those lines. Because theese religious people with religious sticks up their religious asses are really starting to get on my nerves. It seems anymore in ED, no matter what the topic is, politics, gay marriage, even suicide, religion is always a factor. More specifically, Christianity. "You're going to hell if you..." Ya know what? I don't care.

In a truely better society, religion and law/the gvmt will be seperate.

But "Separation of Church and State" is a more complicated issue than one would initially believe. Don't get me wrong; I'm with you guys on this. The best government would be one based on humanitarian morals and ethics, not the system of any specific religion (especially when the politicians themselves don't follow the rules of their own pre-determined religions, i.e. in America).

But it's a deep and philosophical argument at the same time: when are we sure that our code of ethics is NOT based on a religious system? Can such a code be created? Moreover, can such a code be created that doesn't step on the toes of pre-existing religions in the society? In order to have separation of Church and State, you first have to have clearly defined lines for both, especially the ethical background. And then, to even enact such a system, it needs to be compatible in such a way that any other religion would merely *add* moral laws to what's there, instead of subverting them.

Separation of church and state is ideal, but not simple.

Different religions treat the value of life differently, chessiejo. Christianity happens to be in the forefront of America, and is noted for treating all life as equal. But this isn't the approach of all religions or codes of ethics; nor do war or capital punishment have the same effect as abortion in everyone's eyes.

Sad truths about the world:
War is not always wrong, and the valor of dieing for your country does not diminish the value of human life (in some cases).
Capital punishment is nearly necessary in cases in which rehabilitation or ability to recover are forever lost. The same argument can be applied to medical suicides (in some cases).
Abortions are not outright wrong for destroying human life. Besides the debate of when something is considered human or alive or not, there are cases where the death of a child (or the very elderly) relieves a great strain on everyone involved (but only a few cases).

The grandiose, profound truth of the world is that nothing applies everywhere, all the time. You can't expect everyone to compare abortion, war, and capital punishment with the same logical reasoning; not all of these devalue human lives in everyone's (or every religion's) eyes.

Side note: my personal views are pro-abortion, anti-capital-punishment, and anti-war.

I'm going to a private school right now, because of it's small size and my aversion to crowds. It is a Baptist school, and I have heard much of what they have to say. I've asked often what is so bad about gay relationship, and the answer has always been something along the lines of "It's a sin against God." Frankly, it's starting to get on my nerves. Why is it a sin against God? They either refuse or are unable to answer why. until someone is able to answer that why, I will not regard gay relationships to be a sin...Still think the whole concept is kinda icky. *shudders*

I belive it is part of novos policy to be open-minded and accepting of others oppinions. That means we are free to say what we feel as long as we are not intending to hurt anyone. I'd say what you have to say regardless of who is here.

I believe it can be said that a true separation between church and state is impossible. Not all people are the same. I'm in agreement that the religious nutsoids need to listen to George Carlin's third commandment "Thou shalt keep they religion to thyself" and stop trying to cram it down people's throats and need to open up their world view and think what is right for the population not their morals.

However, these morals are fostered by religion. Religion and government will always have some influence on each other from the least to the greatest, no matter how annoying that is. I think that the religious nuts need to just stop asserting that they are right based on their religious beliefs and start THINKING for once!! It's not illegal yet, you know.

Sure, there's some overlap, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that morals exist before religion. Yes, I believe you can create a moral and ethical code outside of religion, and that a government should have *that* code as its basis; but there are many, many more morals that derive directly from religions, and these are the ones that are contested in government.

But there's a distinct problem there; people who are a part of that religion don't know that certain morals are derived from their religion, and don't understand why they would be contested. I may be a bit harsh on this subject, but I think it really comes down to that kind of ignorance. Moreover, because these religiously-bound people are already in office, and constitute the majority thereof, it becomes extremely hard to contest.