christians scare me

[Wind_Walker25]

If they believed what you assign their beliefs to be, then you should be scared. First, you should learn what they REALLY believe. THEN, decide whether it is scary or not.

I agree! And in the USA no war was start over religion, well Maybe 9/11 was started by one.
as for seperation of church and state. that was to protect the Church from the State..

[fetishdj]

I agree! And in the USA no war was start over religion, well Maybe 9/11 was started by one.
as for seperation of church and state. that was to protect the Church from the State..

Nope, 9/11 was not over religion despite what many (muslim and christian alike) would claim. It was about money and power and control - all three of which can be gained through religion but in this case the religion was just an excuse. This is the main reason why organised religion is something I do not trust while supporting personal faith and spirituality.

My personal opinion is this: I have nothing against any religion, you are free to beleive whatever you wish so long as you do not try to convince me that your way is the 'one true way'. Extreme dogmatism is, to my mind, wrong (one of the reasons I did not become a Catholic). I respect a healthy, open mind with regards to religion - an ability to question your faith and test it against all odds. Some protestant groups encourage this behaviour - interpretation of the bible in your own way not the way your preacher/priest tells you to interpret it. Others are insistent that their way is right and every one else is wrong.

[John56{vg}]

I agree! And in the USA no war was start over religion, well Maybe 9/11 was started by one.
as for seperation of church and state. that was to protect the Church from the State..

I respectfully disagree with this assumption. This is one of the lies that the Christian Fundamentalist right has assigned to the U.S. The other one being that the U.S. was established as a Christian nation. It was not. Most of the founders of the nation were very secular and wanted to create a nation where ALL religions could feel comfortable and would belong.

At the time of the forming of this nation and for hundreds of years before, the ruling monarchy decided what religion his or her subjects followed, including, of course, England. And religion was a political tool of the government. The founders of this nation wanted to create a nation where religion was never used as this tool and all people could worship as they chose.

What the fundamentalist Christian right wants to create is the same thing that has been created in nations such as the Taliban created in Afghanistan, or as Atheism was used in the former Soviet Union. So they spread the lies that this is a Christian nation, it was not seen as such by the founders, not at all.

The separation between church and state was established to protect the PEOPLE from Monarchic and Theocratic tyranny much more than to protect a church. Fundamentalist leaders love to change history and obfuscate science for their own aims.

[fetishdj]

The separation between church and state was established to protect the PEOPLE from Monarchic and Theocratic tyranny much more than to protect a church. Fundamentalist leaders love to change history and obfuscate science for their own aims.

And ironically, the seperation of church and state in England is far more pronounced now than it currently seems in America (though this is merely my personal observation from way over the pond here ). I have heard tales of laws being passed because they satisfy the beliefs of a particular faith (laws against contraception in some states, for example) whereas here that sort of thing would never be allowed to happen.

As an aside, I do have my own opinions on the historical imperative of countries formed by revolution...

[Thorne]

And ironically, the seperation of church and state in England is far more pronounced now than it currently seems in America (though this is merely my personal observation from way over the pond here ). I have heard tales of laws being passed because they satisfy the beliefs of a particular faith (laws against contraception in some states, for example) whereas here that sort of thing would never be allowed to happen.

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that. In fact, most state governments promote contraception (through the use of condoms, at least) as a means of protecting against the spread of STD's. It is possible that some states have banned DISCUSSION of contraception in public schools, simply because it brings up that awful specter of sex to our wondrously pure children. But I don't believe an actual ban would get past the Supreme Court. At least not as it stands now.

As an aside, I do have my own opinions on the historical imperative of countries formed by revolution...

I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY country that didn't undergo SOME form of revolution in their past. Even when those revolutions fail they tend to have a pronounced influence on the country. Yes, even England.

[John56{vg}]

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that. In fact, most state governments promote contraception (through the use of condoms, at least) as a means of protecting against the spread of STD's. It is possible that some states have banned DISCUSSION of contraception in public schools, simply because it brings up that awful specter of sex to our wondrously pure children. But I don't believe an actual ban would get past the Supreme Court. At least not as it stands now.



I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY country that didn't undergo SOME form of revolution in their past. Even when those revolutions fail they tend to have a pronounced influence on the country. Yes, even England.

No probably no bans of contraception. But the Abstinence programs spread known misinformation about them. Most tell participants that condoms do not work. And, as I mentioned above, now we have a pronounced increase in STDs for young teens. SARCASM: Another major success for the administration in power and the religious right.

[Moonraker]

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that.

Contraceptives were illegal in Ireland until 1978 in accordance with a Papal Encyclical, entitled "Humanae Vitae" which banned artificial contraception. “Unnatural” contraception and the promotion of such was illegal and could lead to prosecution under the 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

[Thorne]

Contraceptives were illegal in Ireland until 1978 in accordance with a Papal Encyclical, entitled "Humanae Vitae" which banned artificial contraception. “Unnatural” contraception and the promotion of such was illegal and could lead to prosecution under the 1935 Criminal Law (Amendment) Act.

Yeah, I can believe it, but that's not part of the US, which is what I was referring to. Nations, on the other hand, HAVE, and some still DO, criminalize contraception. But I would be willing to bet that in every case there is a religious proscription behind the law, as in the Encyclical you mention.

[mkemse]

I've never heard of any states passing laws against contraception and a quick Google search didn't come up with anything about that. In fact, most state governments promote contraception (through the use of condoms, at least) as a means of protecting against the spread of STD's. It is possible that some states have banned DISCUSSION of contraception in public schools, simply because it brings up that awful specter of sex to our wondrously pure children. But I don't believe an actual ban would get past the Supreme Court. At least not as it stands now.



I think you would be hard pressed to find ANY country that didn't undergo SOME form of revolution in their past. Even when those revolutions fail they tend to have a pronounced influence on the country. Yes, even England.

Thorne,

I agree, I beleve it was a mandate by the Church and not a State Laws to prohibit Condom use, please correct me if i am wrong

[Thorne]

Thorne,

I agree, I beleve it was a mandate by the Church and not a State Laws to prohibit Condom use, please correct me if i am wrong

I haven't done much research on this, so I'm mostly doing some guesswork here, but I would venture to say that any laws restricting the use of condoms were instigated by church mandates.

[John56{vg}]

And ironically, the seperation of church and state in England is far more pronounced now than it currently seems in America (though this is merely my personal observation from way over the pond here ). I have heard tales of laws being passed because they satisfy the beliefs of a particular faith (laws against contraception in some states, for example) whereas here that sort of thing would never be allowed to happen.

As an aside, I do have my own opinions on the historical imperative of countries formed by revolution...

I agree with you. And in England and other parts of the world the public is knowledgable enough to believe in evolution. The current U.S. administration has funded Abstinence only and faith-based sex ed (meaning NO sex ed) programs and now the incidences of STDs are way up with teen young women here. It is sad and disheartening.

The U.S. is having a major problem with keeping religion out of the political arena. I just hope we can stem the tide. Of course the administration is not well-known for holding ANY of our Bill of Rights as sacred.

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.

[mkemse]

I agree with you. And in England and other parts of the world the public is knowledgable enough to believe in evolution. The current U.S. administration has funded Abstinence only and faith-based sex ed (meaning NO sex ed) programs and now the incidences of STDs are way up with teen young women here. It is sad and disheartening.

The U.S. is having a major problem with keeping religion out of the political arena. I just hope we can stem the tide. Of course the administration is not well-known for holding ANY of our Bill of Rights as sacred.

Thanks for your comments, I appreciate them.

I agree the current Adm. seems to do what ever suits them, wther it is in the interest of our Citizens or not but Nov is coming soon, and hopefull a long needed change after 7 1/2 years