Separation of Church and State...too much, too little, or just right? (1 Viewer)

[BlackDragon]

Like I said to Graney. Money is also being poured into Universities. Presumable, one can argue that peoples lives are more important then 2-3 years of education.

And can I point out, Australia is not a 3rd world nation? People's basic needs are being met. There is the welfare system, for those unemployed. It is justly judged by professionals and so forth. I am pretty sure, that most impoverished people are not starving to death. There is no starvation crisis.

If there somehow were, the goverment would make sure those people get enough to eat and drink, even if sarcaficing funding for churches.

This is a quite poor arguement. Most death from nutrient deficency are due to the specific goverment organisation not knowing about certain people... and thus unable to help.

Its infact a arguement for our side. These poor people, are able to acquire the VERY BASICS of living. But thats all the welfare system dicatetes. The VERY MINIMUM. What about for recreation? For joy and society? They can only turn to goverment funded programs, like the PCYC, or for arguments case the Church.

You are missing the point. If we want to provide welfare and help for those in need we should do just that, help people. The state should not be on the side of any religion by funding it, faith should be purely a part of the private domain..unless you don't want a secular society, of course. And to argue that education isn't a basic need is crazy. Tertiary education, and higher education generally, provides the basis for pretty much all advances and improvements that happen in modern society; health, education, planning, environmental understanding, architecture. It is one of the few main ingredients in improving one's life.. We don't need to fund belief systems to help people.

 

[Lukybear]

You are missing the point. If we want to provide welfare and help for those in need we should do just that, help people.

Dude that is two argument. Utilising all resources to help the homeless is important. And Australias done that to perfection. They have enough to eat and wont starve or freeze to death on the streets.

The state should not be on the side of any religion by funding it, faith should be purely a part of the private domain..unless you don't want a secular society, of course.

Your second argument of secularism, Australia should be as already been asnwered. The goverment fund all religions, as long as recognised. Thus they are not taking any side of religion.

They dont even fund it under bases that it is a religious institution, but as a community, social interaction site. For recreation purposes.

And to argue that education isn't a basic need is crazy. Tertiary education, and higher education generally, provides the basis for pretty much all advances and improvements that happen in modern society; health, education, planning, environmental understanding, architecture. It is one of the few main ingredients in improving one's life.. We don't need to fund belief systems to help people.

No, I didnt say education isnt a basic need. I just said, lives were of greater value then education. I was pointing to how insane your arguement sounded. "That we should spent all money on the welfare system, to feed imaginary starving people".

 

[Lukybear]

Uni isn't "2-3 years of education", uni is funding for the research that produces... you know, medicine, and technology?

Nawww... uni is for dumb people. I mean just look at the art degrees. Useless...


Your missing the point. And the above was obviously a joke if you missed that as well.

 

[BlackDragon]

Nawww... uni is for dumb people. I mean just look at the art degrees. Useless...


Your missing the point. And the above was obviously a joke if you missed that as well.

If uni is for dumb people then I would hate to think what school and tafe is for. What a ridiculous thing to say..

 

[BlackDragon]

No, I didnt say education isnt a basic need. I just said, lives were of greater value then education. I was pointing to how insane your arguement sounded. "That we should spent all money on the welfare system, to feed imaginary starving people".

All money that used to go to the churches..

And if the government funds certain beliefs (i.e. religious beliefs) then it is not a secular government, it is a pluralist government. If we really wanted to be secular all beliefs should pertain to the private sphere; a secular government should not concern itself with matters of belief. Moreover, we don't need to fund the churches to help people. It is really simple.

 

[itszen]

There's no constitutional protection of the separation of church and state, which is why we see gay shit like the government funding 'world catholic youth day', which would never ever fly in the USA.

You'll be surprised at how the USA is more religious the Australia .Religious organisations over there ,has somewhat an amazing influential powers in politics, ( but in a decreasing rate) and also, Americans go to church every sunday of about 70% of the Christian population do while Australia Christian rate of going church every sunday is below 10%. America's SO religious that the Atheist population there is looked down upon by the American population. Our country quite secular in comparison to other countries but has a long way to go still.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

You'll be surprised at how the USA is more religious the Australia .Religious organisations over there ,has somewhat an amazing influential powers in politics, ( but in a decreasing rate) and also, Americans go to church every sunday of about 70% of the Christian population do while Australia Christian rate of going church every sunday is below 10%. America's SO religious that the Atheist population there is looked down upon by the American population. Our country quite secular in comparison to other countries but has a long way to go still.

Agreed with this. The more I read about the situation in America, the luckier I feel to live here. The religious right has an amazing amount of power over there. That said, I also agree that we could, and should, do better.

Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

 

[Name_Taken]

If uni is for dumb people then I would hate to think what school and tafe is for. What a ridiculous thing to say..

I'm pretty sure he was being deliberately sarcastic.

 

[Name_Taken]

Agreed with this. The more I read about the situation in America, the luckier I feel to live here. The religious right has an amazing amount of power over there. That said, I also agree that we could, and should, do better.

Rise of the Religious Right in the Republican Party

Not everyone in the Republican Party is totally extreme though and some of the Liberals over there are just as bad.

 

[Anonymous-]

fuck this shit m8. freedom is my birth fucking right m8. names taken is a fucking christian zealot who wants to steal our money to fund poor people. fuck that. ill fund poor people without the bureaucracy of the government. m8, iron has too much influence on this forum. hope that irish cunt and all those like him come to their senses and realize that their utopia is shit fail.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

Not everyone in the Republican Party is totally extreme though and some of the Liberals over there are just as bad.

That's true, definitely. But there's still no denying that they do have a large proportion of conservative Christians within the party, which makes it hard to see America as having separation of church and state.

 

[Graney]

That's true, definitely. But there's still no denying that they do have a large proportion of conservative Christians within the party, which makes it hard to see America as having separation of church and state.

What do you think the separation of church and state means?

The government could not rightly make any law mandating the private views of those who hold office. Advocating for moral beliefs founded in a religious background should be entirely tolerable within a democratic system. the issue is where a government may legislate for the establishment of religion.

Our head of state is also the head of the church of england.

 

[proletariat]

Fuck Tony Abbott.

win

 

[HumanDichotomy]

What do you think the separation of church and state means?

I think it has another element to it, rather than just meaning that the govt. shouldn't give the church money. Policies should not be made solely on the basis of an individual's religious objection to something, when it obviously conflicts with popular opinion. For example, 60% of Australians believe that gay marriage should be legalised. However, it has not been, due to Rudd's belief that 'Marriage is between a man and a woman'. And where do you think that belief comes from? It's common knowledge that Rudd is an Anglican, and it's obvious he's letting his religious beliefs rule him with regard to this issue, rather than looking at public opinion, and other aspects, even those related to economics, to decide his stance. I think that people in power should draw on other things (not saying they have to exclude religion completely) when making decisions that will affect an entire nation. For example, I personally believe that war is wrong. However, If were PM, I would have to accept that at times, it may be necessary to go to war, and that not doing so could have devastating effects on the people I lead, and also that if people want to join the army and fight for their country, then my own beliefs shouldn't stop them.

Rise in support for gay marriage

 

[Graney]

I think conscience voting is a double edged sword cf. Fraser's unpopular 1975 Vietnamese refuge intake.

If you're going to prohibit legislation based on a moral system founded in religion from public life, to be fair you must prohibit the use of any secular moral reasoning.

If you can't allow individuals to legislate influenced by a moral judgement, why should they be allowed any more freedom to make decisions on their beliefs and judgements founded on highly contentious economic principles?

Policies should not be made solely on the basis of an individual's religious objection to something, when it obviously conflicts with popular opinion.

Why then should they have the freedom to make policy solely on the basis of an individuals economic reasoning, or a humanitarian position, when it conflicts with popular opinion? Why is contentious religious morality worse than contentious economic policy?

I think the answer you're looking for is direct democracy, something I wouldn't be hostile to.

 

[Slidey]

What do you think the separation of church and state means?

Fuck Tony Abbott.

Also, good news. Check Facebook.

 

[proletariat]

Fuck Tony Abbott.

Also, good news. Check Facebook.

what happened on fb i didnt see anything D:

 

[thongetsu]

fuck tony abbott.

+1

 

[Ferox]

He's a Rhodes Scholar and leader of Australia's longest serving political party.

So, what are you?

Anyway, I think it would be funny if the government stopped funding religious, specifically Catholic, organizations. If you think the state government's going a crummy job now, imaging if there were NO Catholic schools, NO Catholic hospitals, and NO Catholic social services. The state government would be unable to handle the increased demand for public schools, hospitals and social services, and would fall apart in an instant.

 

[Name_Taken]

Actually the Labor Party has been around for longer than the Liberals, but yeah I will agree he has achieved much more in his life and is much more generous to the community that 99% of his critics will ever be.