Separation of Church and State...too much, too little, or just right? (2 Viewers)

[HumanDichotomy]

Ok, well, I've been thinking about this lately. Despite the fact that we're supposedly a secular nation, the Church still has quite a bit of sway when it comes to legislation, if not directly, indirectly, through the religious beliefs of the politicians who make them. So, in your opinion, is there enough separation of Church and State? Do we need more? Or do think it's too little? Or just right? Does it even really matter? And if it does, how do we change things? Do you think it's ever possible to get a complete separation? How?

Edit: And this question from Graney - Do you agree/disagree that the state should be able to spend taxpayers money on funding religious interests?

 

[Anonymous-]

Fuck Tony Abbott.

 

[BlackDragon]

People can be religous endlessly as long as they don't expect all people to abide by their rules. I think a complete separation is desirable. Complete separation in the sense that all ideas have equal standing in the law making process, if some ideas are religious and are agreed to by everyone then that is fine. People can be completely religious in a completely secular society, because secular just means that no one set of ideas is inherently held higher than others.

 

[Phoenix Fury]

I think if we want to progress, we will need more separation from their conservative and quite frankly backwards ideals. I'd say pretty unlikely to get full separation.

Also as Anon said, fuck Tony Abbott.

 

[Name_Taken]

Christians are disproportionally represented in Parliment, though TBH as they are all elected I don't see a problem with that, they are the votors choice.

And at OP's question, personally I think its more or less right, tho definately not perfect. I'd like to see a peaceful balance between society opposing things which threaten to harm the community at large (though not just from a religious standpoint), but allowing individuals the freedom to do largely what they want, even if it is condemned by various religious authorities, provided OFC they're only choosing to hurt/inconvenience themsevles by w/e it is they are doing.

Government will never make everyone happy, but a compromise doesn't have to be a loss to either side.

 

[Bereie]

Islamic-
BBC NEWS | Africa | Stoning victim 'begged for mercy'
http://www.smh.com.au/world/uk-woman-reports-rape-in-dubai-and-is-arrested-20100109-lzvw.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/8032780.stm

Apostasy:
Iran - illegal (death penalty)
Saudi Arabia - illegal (death penalty)
Nigeria - illegal in twelve states (death penalty)
Qatar - illegal (death penalty)
Sudan - illegal (death penalty)
Mauritania - illegal (death penalty)
Afghanistan - illegal (death penalty)
Somalia - illegal (death penalty)
Yemen - illegal (death penalty)
Malaysia - illegal in five states (fine, imprisonment, and flogging)

Homosexuality:
Somalia - Illegal (Penalty: Death)
Iran - Illegal (Penalty: Death)
Pakistan - Illegal (Penalty: 2 years to life sentence)
Kuwait - Illegal (Penalty: fines, men under 21 face prison sentences up to 10 years, men over 21 face prison sentences up to 7 years)
Lebanon - Illegal (Penalty: fines, up to 1 year in prison).
Oman - Illegal (Penalty: fines, prison sentence up to 3 years)
Gaza - Illegal - (Penalty: up to 10 year prison sentence)
Qatar - Illegal (Penalty: fines, prison sentence up to 5 years)
Saudi Arabia - Illegal (Penalty: death or prison/fines/whipping)
Syria - Illegal (Penalty: prison sentence up to 3 years; law de facto suspended)
United Arab Emirates - Illegal (Penalty: deportation, fines, prison time or death sentence)
Yemen - Illegal (Penalty: flogging or death)

The middle east sux right? Oh wait:
Israel - Legal


Just the Islamic countries then.

 

[Graney]

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.

 

[SeCKSiiMiNh]

Well... as long as the church's influence on the state does not lead to a minority being oppressed or discriminated against or having their liberty infringed upon then I'm all for it.

But off course, we all know that's not the case. Amiright boys and girls?

 

[postnatal]

rbh no these two will never separate even with non religious politicians. it works in the same way of why non religious middle class parents send their kids to denominational private schools. generally people think religious discipline is quite beneficial on the basis of morals and ethical behaviour.

 

[Graney]

As I understand it the 'separation of church and state', as it is practiced in the USA, is mostly about financial matters. The state can't legally finance religion.

This is what the thread should about.

Do you agree/disagree that the state should be able to spend taxpayers money on funding religious interests?

 

[Name_Taken]

Well... as long as the church's influence on the state does not lead to a minority being oppressed or discriminated against or having their liberty infringed upon then I'm all for it.

But off course, we all know that's not the case. Amiright boys and girls?

OFC it isn't

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.

Lol, WYD was hardly a bad "investment".

WYD coverage worth $1b: Iemma - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

You may think the festival is a load of crap, but it brought money into the country, put Sydney into the international spotlight and at the very least, made Australia look better on the international stage.

Anyway the government spends money on worse things that WYD (regardless of how much you oppose religion), internet filtering for one.

 

[HumanDichotomy]

As I understand it the 'separation of church and state', as it is practiced in the USA, is mostly about financial matters. The state can't legally finance religion.

This is what the thread should about.

Do you agree/disagree that the state should be able to spend taxpayers money on funding religious interests?

Yeah, well it's about all separation of Church and State. But...hmm, that's an interesting point. I think they should if the people vote for it. But not without consent from the populous.

 

[Name_Taken]

Do you agree/disagree that the state should be able to spend taxpayers money on funding religious interests?

Get over the stigma that the Church is simply a backward institution that just wants to control every aspect of your life rofls.

Churches and other religious groups are all important parts of the community and as such merit government funding, along the same lines of sports clubs and various community organisations.

They don't deserve preferential treatment, but they don't deserve to be totally ignored. Churches do a lot of beneficial community work, not related directly to the various religions they represent. Charity drives, assisting those in need, especially the homeless and orphaned children etc.

If communities need help in building a Church (or Mosque etc) I think they should get it (though obviously on a case-by-case basis etc). I could see why you'd object if the money was just going to St Mary's Cathedral to buy some extra bling for the clergy, but in reality Churchs spent a lot of their time and resources into giving back to the community (certinly more than other organisations which presently recieve funding or subsidies from the government ATM).

 

[BlackDragon]

They don't deserve preferential treatment, .

They don't deserve tax exemption. And we shouldn't be funding any religious organisation anyway.

 

[Name_Taken]

They don't deserve tax exemption. And we shouldn't be funding any religious organisation anyway.

They are not-for-profit community based organisations that spend a disproportionate time assiting those in need and helping the community.

Whether you agree or not with religion is up to you, but you can't deny the positive contribution they make to society.

They deserve to be free of taxation and they deserve your tax dollars.

 

[Absolutezero]

People can be religous endlessly as long as they don't expect all people to abide by their rules. I think a complete separation is desirable. Complete separation in the sense that all ideas have equal standing in the law making process, if some ideas are religious and are agreed to by everyone then that is fine. People can be completely religious in a completely secular society, because secular just means that no one set of ideas is inherently held higher than others.

This

 

[BlackDragon]

They are not-for-profit community based organisations that spend a disproportionate time assiting those in need and helping the community.

Whether you agree or not with religion is up to you, but you can't deny the positive contribution they make to society.

They deserve to be free of taxation and they deserve your tax dollars.

If we give preferential treatment to any religious organisation with followers then we must give it to all religious organisation with followers. In so far as we shouldn't be funding and or exempting scientology we shouldn't be doing it to any religous organisation.

 

[Graney]

Lol, WYD was hardly a bad "investment".

WYD coverage worth $1b: Iemma - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Well if that paragon of truth and honesty Morris Iemma said the event he spent hundreds of millions of public money on is worth a billion dollars, it must be true.

 

[Name_Taken]

If we give preferential treatment to any religious organisation with followers then we must give it to all religious organisation with followers. In so far as we shouldn't be funding and or exempting scientology we shouldn't be doing it to any religous organisation.

Well, I wasn't trying to suggest that like it was only the Catholic Church or w/e who should get funding, obviously it should be handed out to all, but proportionatly.

TBH I don't really agree with The Church of Scientology but this is a free country and people can do what they want, just as I can be Christian someone else can be athiest and another a Scientologist I guess.

IDK if the Church of Scientology does much community work (IDK much about it TBH), but if they do, in a similar manner that many Christian groups support nursing homes, shelters for the homeless and the youth and orphanages and run various charity drives then I don't see why not really.

Government is meant to support people and their communities, religious institutions play a very large role in various communities and in many peoples lives, and being not-for-profit community organisations, I really don't see what the problem is TBH.

 

[BlackDragon]

TBH I don't really agree with The Church of Scientology but this is a free country and people can do what they want

Yes people can do what they want but they shouldn't be able to do what they want in a government funded way, which is what tax exemption is. If they could then anyone with any set of beliefs and followers should be able to get government funding. If you argue against one religion in this instance then you are arguing against them all, unless you want to be hypocritical.