The State and the Church? (1 Viewer)

[George W. Bush]

Originally posted by CM_Tutor
GWB - Separation of Church and State does not mean churches can't lobby government, just like any other interest group. Maybe you should check up on what it does mean.

The case in point, as I am led to believe, is to do with Tony Abbot imposing his Christian values on the issue of abortion. I'm taking that to be the antithesis of seperation of church and state, which isn't very accurate, I'll grant.

 

[stamos]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Many philosophers would disagree (that there is an inate human morality)

I disagree. It is a natural human impulse to try and avoid pain.

Morality gives rise to a social system that allows people to live a much more comfortable existance. We know that morality largely protects us from suffering, and therefore we are following our natural instincts in adhering to a moral code.

Where was god in that explaination? Nowhere. Morality is a natural human impulse extrinsic to religion. Whether a god is responsible for creating that impulse is another matter altogether.

 

[George W. Bush]

Your basis of morality is flawed. You claim the basis of morality is to minimise all the suffering in the world. Using this basis, it would be wrong for me to, say, give blood to save a life, just because I find needles discomforting.

Anyway, I agree that morality is independant of God, but I'm just pointing out that many would disagree, and what I think isn't always right, of course.

 

[Comrade nathan]

There are many organisations and philosophies that set out morales adn dont need the help of "god"

But if god was true it would give a good point for morales and for there reason

 

[santaslayer]

There are three characteristics in the western legal tradition that distinguish it from the place of law in other cultures, that is, the autonomy, centrality and moral authority that it possess.

The nature of law in a democratic, western society is that it is autonomous, distinct from custom, morality, religion or politics. (one may argue about this but this is the theory-ie. we do not live in a perfect society). Moral norms may coincide but are not SYNONYMOUS with one another.
Law, thus, is not only autonomous, it tends to be disembodided in people's conciousness from the law makers, and derives authority and respect from a deep sense within community that the law ought to be obeyed, not merley for fear of sanction, but from a feeling of positive obligation.

This is possibly the only sensible and meaningful post i will ever make. Thank you for reading my essay- length response.......LoLz

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Maybe that the church suggests a certain moral code that at least a majority of Australians support?

Maybe that the church, as a group, represents far more Australians than other groups that attempt to influence government policy?

Maybe that religion influences legislation at the current time, and things seem to be going along just fine?

Maybe that it's inevitable that religion will have an effect on policy, as many in the government are religious, so we should ensure that the religious influence is an accepted one?

There is some for you to get started with. BTW, can you provide some reasons why it should not?

Please take time to read my essay-long response
(as above)

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by AsyLum
writing this bloody essay on it atm actually hehe

hmmm..... i guess ur pretty lucky to have the likes of asqy, CM_Tutor and Mr George Bush to help you out then!.....LoLz

 

[Nick]

how can you let christianity effect the State when not all citizens are Christian. its not very democratic

thats like saying that laws only apply to people with blond hair, and if u dont have blond hair you have to dye it, or die out.

 

[santaslayer]

That is why a Christian view is accepted but not supposed to be authoratative.

 

[Alexander]

It doesnt go deep at all....it just ties in nicely with democracy, like we dont go cutting off hands as punishment, the aim is to be humanitarian

 

[George W. Bush]

Bleh, I actually agree with you all, I'm just arguing for argument's sake.

 

[santaslayer]

:rofl:
Fuckin turd

 

[Comrade nathan]

Originally posted by santaslayer
There are three characteristics in the western legal tradition that distinguish it from the place of law in other cultures, that is, the autonomy, centrality and moral authority that it possess.

The nature of law in a democratic, western society is that it is autonomous, distinct from custom, morality, religion or politics. (one may argue about this but this is the theory-ie. we do not live in a perfect society). Moral norms may coincide but are not SYNONYMOUS with one another.
Law, thus, is not only autonomous, it tends to be disembodided in people's conciousness from the law makers, and derives authority and respect from a deep sense within community that the law ought to be obeyed, not merley for fear of sanction, but from a feeling of positive obligation.

This is possibly the only sensible and meaningful post i will ever make. Thank you for reading my essay- length response.......LoLz

So that is your idea of a essay lenght question. Do you suck at school?

 

[neo o]

Originally posted by Comrade nathan
So that is your idea of a essay lenght question. Do you suck at school?

www.dictionary.com. Do you suck at school?

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by Comrade nathan
So that is your idea of a essay lenght question. Do you suck at school?

Yes and No.

Yes I did suck at school.
But no, I don't suck anymore now because i don't really attend school nowadays. I think they call it university. An institution you may never come across. Thank you for your insightful input. I may need to PM you in future so that you may be able to help me construct a consice, coherent and logically sustained essay. Thank you for your time. Goodbye for now.

 

[santaslayer]

Originally posted by neo_o
www.dictionary.com. Do you suck at school?

:uhhuh: :rofl: :uhhuh:

 

[ramonesexcbeast]

Originally posted by stamos
I disagree. It is a natural human impulse to try and avoid pain.

Morality gives rise to a social system that allows people to live a much more comfortable existance. We know that morality largely protects us from suffering, and therefore we are following our natural instincts in adhering to a moral code.

Where was god in that explaination? Nowhere. Morality is a natural human impulse extrinsic to religion. Whether a god is responsible for creating that impulse is another matter altogether.

I tend to disagree to your suggestion that natural human impulse is to avoid pain. you cannot claim that and then claim that morality which we use to gain this avoidance. intrinsically morality within this secularised humanist world would depend upon a number of factors one which would be humanity itself. if this humanity is lacking in its approach and ability to create such a morality then the avoidance of pain, or infliction of it upon others to result upon your own comfort would decry your arguments wrong.

morality is ultimately contextual and as such referring to it as an intrinsic being of humanity would be wrong, rather it is the by product.

 

[stamos]

Originally posted by ramonesexcbeast
I tend to disagree to your suggestion that natural human impulse is to avoid pain. you cannot claim that and then claim that morality which we use to gain this avoidance. intrinsically morality within this secularised humanist world would depend upon a number of factors one which would be humanity itself. if this humanity is lacking in its approach and ability to create such a morality then the avoidance of pain, or infliction of it upon others to result upon your own comfort would decry your arguments wrong.

morality is ultimately contextual and as such referring to it as an intrinsic being of humanity would be wrong, rather it is the by product.

fair enough argument

nice to see you looking up my old posts.