tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post1899369047420136753..comments2023-03-27T03:42:08.190-07:00Comments on Zuck's H Zone: Separation of Church and StateMr. Zucker (aka JZ famous rapping teacher star)http://www.blogger.com/profile/01872712554246879191noreply@blogger.comBlogger50125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-2795570218893829882007-11-15T21:29:00.000-08:002007-11-15T21:29:00.000-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.leaningtower55https://www.blogger.com/profile/13895431628961608580noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-54088390216821209832007-10-20T08:43:00.000-07:002007-10-20T08:43:00.000-07:00Yes it is true that we do not have a complete sepa...Yes it is true that we do not have a complete separation of church and state but our system does provide us with a unique way of government. Without religion in our government, a moral system of ethics would be lost to the sinful nature of mankind. However, a full involvement of Church in the government because minority religions would be ignored and the governemnt could fall into a crusader type war. So in esscence, the christian church most definitely has an influence on our government but cannot go any further than simply providing some sort of ideal system of social interactions. It becomes like a toothless tiger, meaning that it can be extremely powerful in it own right but doesn't have the literal power to do much at all. This is how OUR society needs to be run, and a change in this would result in changes that could cause widespread havoc. <BR/>Alex Kutsukos<BR/>Period 4Sukoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18258305378243497171noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-39854056098055170852007-10-19T23:52:00.000-07:002007-10-19T23:52:00.000-07:00I don't know why all you guys are letting JZ brain...I don't know why all you guys are letting JZ brainwash you. Our country has a separation of church and state. Yes that is right I just said that. To explain let me remind you that in Europe around the time period we just studied, there wasn't a separation between the two institutions. The church was trying to gain political powers and control of land and the government was electing church officials to gain religious power. The idea of this separation was developed so the instituions wouldn't control the other as they did back then. Sure one might be able to influence the other but they aren't control what the other is doing directly. The government says not to house illegal immigrants but the church still does it. The church condenms abortion but it isn't against the law. The church and government have the power to control themselves because of this seperation.<BR/> I agree with Alex when he says the government and laws must be based on human values rather than religious ones. The hard part about this and why it doesn't happen in today's world is because no one can draw the line since everyone is biased in some way shape or form. Stuff like communism and that free iphone for clicking here sound good, but don't do as well in reality.<BR/><BR/>Kevin F. Hernandez<BR/>Period 4KFHhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11077633696888446596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-87219993387829966792007-10-19T23:47:00.000-07:002007-10-19T23:47:00.000-07:00I will agree with you so far as to say that COMPLE...I will agree with you so far as to say that COMPLETE seperation of Church and State is extremely difficult if not impossible, but should we really throw it out the window just because its an ideal thats difficult to obtain? I find that the seperation of church and state though unattainable in principal is an important ideal to maintain. This ideal prevents any religion from OPENLY involving itself in our government and controlling important issues. Sure we say "In God we Trust" and we swear new representatives in on the bible, but these are symbolic gestures only. They certainly do not control policy-making in our country. Just because we say "God Bless America" doesnt mean we as a country subscribe to the doctrine of the Christian Church. <BR/><BR/>After reading what i just wrote one might ask themselves "Doesn't the American Government generally adhere to christian values?" and the answer is YES. HOWEVER, (and this is a big however) that is due to the nature of America as a DEMOCRACY not due to the blurred line between church and state. As Jeremy stated "The church and state are one in our country. Because [the government] will always revolve around the will of the masses." He is partially correct but thats the nature of a government run by the people. Any democracy will have its law making influenced by the religious values of the voters, but this does not mean that the America is a Christian state, simply that America's PEOPLE are prodominantly Christian at this time. The purpose of seperation of church and state is to clarify that the government is affected by the religion of the people, not that the religion of the masses is determined by the government. This is why it's so important to maintain<BR/><BR/>Ike Silver<BR/>Period 4The Mozenatorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17665436710931154292noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-53164216835442177142007-10-19T23:26:00.000-07:002007-10-19T23:26:00.000-07:00I agree with Logan when he says, “that no matter h...I agree with Logan when he says, “that no matter how hard America tries to rid government of the influence of religion, we still will never have a complete separation of church and state.” America will always be influenced by church in Government because religion is the basis of moral and ethical decisions. One example is murder; the bible says it is wrong thus we say in our society that it is wrong. Most laws that we have to abide by are derived from the bible. So unless we want complete anarchy in America we kind of need laws and moral values because without religious influence America would be just like Hollywood. And I know that it works out well for Hollywood… NOT (Borat reference). We have enough trouble dealing with celebrities acting immoral and breaking laws as it is. And if all of a sudden the Government of America began to go down that path there is a high chance people will rebel and anarchy will rise and we would be screwed big time.<BR/><BR/>*^*Cameron Lancey<BR/>*^*Period 5Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15564381351704953012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-65248901502120745272007-10-19T23:23:00.000-07:002007-10-19T23:23:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15564381351704953012noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-12819942249048270392007-10-19T22:19:00.000-07:002007-10-19T22:19:00.000-07:00Let's start with a nice look at History itself to ...Let's start with a nice look at History itself to get things going...<BR/><BR/>History exists because we choose to look back on the past. I doubt it would be history if we were to look at the future. But, if we had all known how things would eventually turn out, history would be changed. If we had known in the beginning that religion would one day cause so much strife, we wouldn't have ever begun to practice it. I doubt that, if even Jesus knew that thousands of lives would be taken in His name and by those fighting His name, He would have lived a life worthy of a religion. No one plans for things to get so complicated.<BR/><BR/>But, stuff happens. Pride interferes. Wars are fought with religion as a scapegoat(ie crusades). The fact of the matter is that people would be willing to die for their religion. That's why we can't blend church and state. To effectively blend church and state, one would need one religion and one government. People wouldn't all drop their faith and convert to whatever the government tells them. They also wouldn't drop their faith altogether. If they had never developed religious views in the first place, this issue would be a hell of a lot simpler. Yet, there is religion and it will always be there to make things complicated. <BR/><BR/>As for trying to have one religion that is superior to others (like Islam for the Ottoman Empire) but still allowing others to coexist, this will not work for one main reason. The other religions will revolt. Mr. Alex Flynn says it well when he mentions interaction between faiths: "there will always be a power strugle to come out on top." Each religion will think it is the best and rebel. That plan won't work too well either.<BR/><BR/>And if all religions are equal in the eyes of the government, that's not really a mix of Church and State. It's kind of what we have in the US now. And the laws say that they're separate. And they are.<BR/><BR/>The end.<BR/>Jonathan Daroca<BR/>Period 4Jonathan Darocahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07048155515641242113noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-79051377018865760242007-10-19T21:47:00.000-07:002007-10-19T21:47:00.000-07:00I think that to say that government and religion a...I think that to say that government and religion and separate in the form of government we have today is totally wrong. This is impossible to do because people base morals on their faith. These morals affect the way people in government make their decisions because religion gives them a set of right and wrong. People may say that there is not one common religion in a country such as America, but most religions share the same background on the treatment of people. For lawmakers, it is important for them to look at these principles because the laws will affect the people of all religions. To make religion not apart of government at all, law makers and people in power, will have no greater law to fallow when making laws. This is a big disadvantage because then society as a hole will be corrupted and return back to the ideology of the Middles Ages, that people are on the brink of damnation. Ask Jack said laws are created for the people by the people. This means that people who write the laws for the people must base them off their personal religious beliefs and the basis of the what most people think is right.<BR/>I agree with Jack because as he says, “It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a "government" that is not connected to some form of religious belief.” This is true because all religions have the same base which all people should be treated fairly and have a just society to live in. As law makers who represent people of many different faith backgrounds, should use the commonalities of all these to make society a better place. I agree with Jack and all other people that said it is 100% impossible to keep religion and state separated.MC HAIThttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11495709743014017147noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-89017840582330769972007-10-19T21:41:00.000-07:002007-10-19T21:41:00.000-07:00Mr. Zucker,I definitely agree with you on this one...Mr. Zucker,<BR/><BR/>I definitely agree with you on this one. Church and state can never be completely separated because religion is what we base our decisions and really our whole life on. The Catholic Church believes that abortion is wrong and it is the killing of life, but others argue that this is not life until a certain stage in the process. My point is that if you are Catholic you would probably have the same views as the Church, for the most part, and this would effect how you acted and what decisions you made. Every choice we make is influenced by what we believe in and this belief comes from the religion that we have faith in. So I agree with Kearney when he says that all political leaders have biased decisions. Religion is a major part in everyone’s life, if not the center of it and therefore, the world would not know right from wrong or what they believed in if there was no religion. The separation of Church and State is absolutely inseparable. <BR/><BR/>Kevin Swick<BR/>Period 4Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-26643013037046003032007-10-19T21:34:00.000-07:002007-10-19T21:34:00.000-07:00I disagree with the comments made by Dylan. In mod...I disagree with the comments made by Dylan. In modern day society, their is a separation of church and state and people have yet to become robots in the government. Despite the separation political figures will retain their moral compass and will act accordingly. However, the main thing to recognize is that the church and state are separate and all parties are happy so changing that balance could hurt society.<BR/><BR/>Tim Perille<BR/>P.4Leviathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17140400608980664658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-71352992838885834352007-10-19T21:29:00.000-07:002007-10-19T21:29:00.000-07:00Mr. zI disagree, the blending of church and state ...Mr. z<BR/><BR/>I disagree, the blending of church and state would doom society. America Prides itself on religious tolerance. Of one religion was chosen to govern, the people would be rebellious. Those who are not Christian would see this move by the government as dishonoring their culture. You used the Muslims as an example, yes they allowed people to choose their own religion, but they also forced them to pay a tax. Why would people who dont follow the Christian faith agree to pay additional taxes when in the current system they dont have to.<BR/><BR/>Lets move on to the government. The government would suffer from the blending of church and state. First, as the church and state blended, the leader would have to be educated and be able to lead a faith and a country. Next, the morale principals of Christianity would limit the countries utilitarian potential. By this I mean, if the circumstance arises that in order to save five people we have to kill two civilian innocent of all crimes, the catholic church would disagree. Second, in the current system, like you said, the church and state are already partly blended. Lobbyist from the religions have some substantial weight in the government. Their voice is already heard and they are content, why would they agree to fully blend church and state. Lastly, and the most infamous example of blending church and state, the crusades. The church entered the political world to trigger the crusades which they labeled as a holy war. In the end the crusades were a failure resulting in tons of bloodshed.<BR/><BR/>Because of all of these reasons, blending church and state would doom humanity.<BR/><BR/>Tim Perille<BR/>p. 4Leviathanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17140400608980664658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-9762160731496687772007-10-19T21:15:00.000-07:002007-10-19T21:15:00.000-07:00the previous comment was by Michael Wisniewski Per...the previous comment was by Michael Wisniewski Period 5wiznewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12598853323634708570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-67288394751110043772007-10-19T21:05:00.000-07:002007-10-19T21:05:00.000-07:00I agree that Church and State cannot be separated....I agree that Church and State cannot be separated. Almost all politicians are affiliated with some sort of religion and their decisions reflect their religious convictions such as issues concerning topics like the death penalty, gay marriage and abortion. The Church whether it be Christian, Muslim, Hindu, etc. will always have influence in democratic societies such as the United States since the people will vote for leaders who share their faith and have similar beliefs. This is true because like you said Democrats are now trying to appeal to the more voters who were more religious and traditionally voted Republican. Also in most political polls, Atheists do not fare well with voters because voters want people with similar religions, and they probably do not feel that they can be trusted to have good morals and values. <BR/><BR/>However, I disagree that political decisions need to be made with a religious background. Faith cannot be used to solely justify decisions such as wars because faith is based on someone's own interpretation of their beliefs, but it can be used in combination with logical thought. Though our country was founded on religious freedom, we see today that many of the policies today are based on religious convictions such as issues like abortion and the death penalty. This can be good or bad depending on what religion you are. Luckily, the U.S. has not had major issues with religion because it is just a basis for decision, and not imposed upon people.<BR/><BR/>I agree with John that the Christian Church is losing its "power" in areas such as abortion<BR/>and the death penalty. No longer are people looking primarily at whether or not the issue is right or wrong based on faith, but what is best for the person(s) involved.wiznewskihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12598853323634708570noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-50306498806983329582007-10-19T21:00:00.000-07:002007-10-19T21:00:00.000-07:00Mr. Zucker, I agree with you on this topic nearly ...Mr. Zucker,<BR/> I agree with you on this topic nearly 100%. It is IMPOSSIBLE to have a "government" that is not connected to some form of religious belief. Here in America and in most other countries around the world, many of our basic laws are based off of teachings from faith. For example, most countries have laws against murder. This is a primary teaching of most religions. Religions that have their roots in the Torah (Old Testament) are, no doubt, familiar with the quotes, "Thou shall not kill" (Exodus 20:13) and "Thou shall not steal" (Exodus 20:15). The primary laws are simply an elaboration of the laws of predominant religions. Many people will argue that our laws are based on "human nature". People are not born knowing right from wrong. After all, what is "right" and "wrong"? Religion is the only factor that tells people right from wrong. Most Catholics believe that murder is "wrong" under most conditions. I can guarantee you that the terrorists that flew planes into the twin towers believed with all their heart that what they were doing was "right". Where do people get their beliefs of "right" and "wrong"? RELIGION is the answer. America bases its laws on what the majority of the people think is "right". In America and most other countries, there is clearly a connection between church and state, although we often pride ourselves on the separation of the two. The fact is that laws are created by people. People who write laws have their own religious beliefs. Whether purposefully or not, our laws are based off of their beliefs. I believe that the only possible way for the church and state to be totally separated is to have no laws at all. The definition of government is, "direction; control; management; rule." A government with no laws, is not a government at all. <BR/> Chris Tan argued that the Church and State should not be separated. His reasoning was, “If we separate religion and politics, then what would happen to those in poverty? Without religion, politics would just ignore these people. Religion is the reason why we help homeless people.” Clearly, without religion at all, we would not help these people. But the fact is, we do have religion. I think Chris meant to say that without religion (intertwined with politics), politics would just ignore these people. Is it a problem that politics ignores these people? I believe that government does not have a direct obligation to the poor. I agree with Chris when he says that "Religion is the reason why we help homeless people." With the amount of money religious establishments receive throughout the world, they do significantly help the poor. Once again, the only reason government does contribute to the poor, is because all government has its roots in, and has an evident relationship with religion.<BR/><BR/>-John Hawley, Period 5Jack Hawleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00694726893969949042noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-79498635701325858292007-10-19T20:15:00.000-07:002007-10-19T20:15:00.000-07:00I, along with many others, definrtly agree that th...I, along with many others, definrtly agree that there is no real separation of church and state in this country; HOWEVER, a theocracy or a melding of church and state will not work in this day and age. Yeah, it might have worked for the ottoman empire, but know there is so much hatred between religion that no matter who is ruling there will still be a division in status between religions. I agree with Ben Coupe that it does not matter what religion is but in power or how mucdh toleranceis given, there will always be a power strugle to come out on top. The United States has started the process that will eventually lead to a working society with complete seperation of church and state. The only system around now that has complete seperation of church and state is communism, which workss well as an ideal but almost impossible to put into practice. Mabye if we had good rulers who actually cared about the people it would work but never mind that. <BR/><BR/>What we need is a system that bases its laws on morality and human values, not religous values, human values. We need to make laws that fit with the human nature and not try to supress it. Half the stuff that happens in the United States happen because we are told not to do it. It's like a toddler who is told not to take a cookie. What's the first thing the todller wants to do? Take a cookie! Like how America has like a three times higher OD rate than the Netherlands and its legal to do drugs in the Netherlands!!! Thats because it is not illegal and a part of everyday life so they do not abuse it. That is human nature, and mixed with a few moral standards that a common to almost all religoins we have ourselves an actual seperation of church and state. <BR/><BR/>Alex Flynn<BR/>Period 5Rabbihttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03707426555766293605noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-34781630864276466102007-10-19T20:09:00.000-07:002007-10-19T20:09:00.000-07:00Another Friday night with the power of an argument...Another Friday night with the power of an argument at my fingertips...ah...power is sweet.<BR/><BR/>Alright - topic today is "Seperation of Church and state is not only impossible, but 'undesirable.'" <BR/><BR/>To this I disagree, especially to your argument concerning the Ottoman Empire. <BR/>Each eco-socio-politico-religico(?)situation of each indivindual peoples at each different periods of time are, (guess what?), each different. The Ottoman Empire streched its boundries across a sub-continent, and thus included possibibly the most diverse population ever in history. Therefore, a Sultan (leader of the Ottoman Empire) would be a fool to force its massive empire into a single religion. Also, diversity is the key force that drives countries with new ideas from different perspectives. Now it seems as if I am agreeing at this point, but I assure I am not. I am stating people CAN have their own religion - it pacifies people and is one less thing to worry about as an leader - but that government decisions are just that: governmental. If the Sultan of the Ottoman Emperor declared a tax, everyone obeyed. If the Sultan, however, passed a law for all peoples to fast during Ramadan, the other religions would protest. This could possibly lead to a rebellion. Therefore, government laws and decisions can ONLY be made with a neutral, non-theocratic perspective. Religion is a personal affair, involving only its followers. Because even if you do force someone to a religion by the sword, wouldn't they readily use it against you to do the same?<BR/><BR/>So anywho...just reading through a couple of the comments...hm...alright. A couple good points around these boards nowadays, eh? Ok, tost makes a driving point that very important parts of shaping a country (and therefore its beleifs) is religion. Without steady values "injected" into the political system by religious influences, we would have a moral-less, greedy society, which focuses on economic gain over human right intrests. This is currently what China is on the march to accomplishing. And all I leave all of you with is: At what point does a government draw the line between assigning what human rights are based on religious/value beliefs and purely economic motives?<BR/><BR/>And...with that I'm out.<BR/>Tyler Davenport<BR/>Period 4tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12551118752776701983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-63120186689509102102007-10-19T19:48:00.000-07:002007-10-19T19:48:00.000-07:00JZ,I agree with you because I don't think Church a...JZ,<BR/>I agree with you because I don't think Church and state will ever be completely separated. However, I don't think religion has as much influence over our government as we may think. First, I tried to think of any things Catholicism has influenced in the government, since this has the largest population of any other religion in the US(23%). I found that many of the things Catholics stand against haven't been changed by the government. Pope John Paul II talked with Bush to try to get him to not go into war. Bush is a different type of Christianity, but this shows how the Pope has a lot less political power than he use to. Also, the Catholic Church takes a stand against abortion and the death penalty, but this things are still allowed. If you look at our class, you may find many Catholics that are Republican and Democrat. Many of the Republicans might say that they are Catholic but they support the death penalty. Many of the Democrats might say they are Catholic but they are pro-choice. I think this shows how religion has become a weaker influence, because previously people would believe whatever the pope would say. Since religion is a weaker influence, politicians will be less influenced by the Church, however, the Church influence kicked in when I began to think about gay marriage and evolution. Gay marriage was outlawed, and this is obviously a decision that will ultimately be influenced by religion. Also, evolution has been removed from many school curriculums, including public schools, and this is religion influencing state(when it comes to the public schools).<BR/><BR/>I disagree with Jedi when he says that it is impossible for multiple religious values to affect government choices. Even though there is an obvious majority of Christians in the United States, other religions must also be heard. Islam is one of the fastest growing religions in the US, and it would be important to consider their religious values, because when our government decides things, the idea should be to consider everyone's point of view, and every religion's point of view should be recognized when a decision is made. I don't think criticisms will always be the response to a decision, because who knows, religions may share more things in common than we think. <BR/><BR/>John Sapunor<BR/>Period 5John Sapunorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15490121443345494926noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-69647648690597046262007-10-19T19:39:00.000-07:002007-10-19T19:39:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.tylerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12551118752776701983noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-6843256781367773882007-10-19T19:05:00.000-07:002007-10-19T19:05:00.000-07:00I agree with JZ for the most part and I definitely...I agree with JZ for the most part and I definitely agree with how the Ottoman Empire was run. I believe there should be some religious beliefs in any government, so that to some extent moral decisions, not straying too far into the abnormal, can be made. Now, Jan said we don't need religion but a "simple, utilitarian perspective." Well, I had to first look up what utilitarianism (noun form of utilitarian) means and I found it meant, "The ethical theory that all action should be directed toward achieving the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people." This sounds great and sure seems like it would be beneficial to all, but is it? To be honest, I have a better word for a government like this: machine. Maybe I have seen movies like Terminator, where machines rule the world, too many times, but this type of government seems like it would more likey restrict freedoms and hurt humanity rather than help us. Sure alcohol is bad for people, let's get rid of that; and why let people listen to rap, it influences people to commit violence and do drugs. These are bad influences, but my philosophical view is that it is against us as humans to not discover for ourselves through our own experiences what is good and what is bad. Most religions set the basic standards of what not to do (don't go out and kill someone) and also what to do (help the poor.) <BR/><BR/>Andrew Aaronian<BR/>Period 4AAAhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16538957587442789858noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-20603401247039091652007-10-19T18:58:00.000-07:002007-10-19T18:58:00.000-07:00-blog=responseI would have to agree greatly with l...-blog=response<BR/><BR/>I would have to agree greatly with leaningtower22. He brings up an excellent point on religion and its affect on the government. I agree that the morality in a religion plays a key role within government. THe seperation of church and state needs to exist; the government needs to have a religous background. This background This background becomes so important because it can restrict government from doing immoral things because the religous population/majority will always provide a check on governmental affairs(i.e. gay marraige, abortion, euthanasia to name a few). So religous values and morals play an essential component to governmental policies. And for this reason I agree with leaningtower22.<BR/><BR/>-Jeremy Molayem, period 4al CaPWNAGEhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09768573790131194450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-50301502744251923012007-10-19T18:51:00.000-07:002007-10-19T18:51:00.000-07:00I agree that there is not really a complete separa...I agree that there is not really a complete separation between Church and State in our country. For one, our state was formed by a huge religious battle in Europe between the Puritans and everyone else. The Puritans (who were Protestant) settled here, and ever since, our society has been based on their beliefs. I do not think that it is a coincidence that all but one of our presidents have been Protestant. Our government is based on Protestant and other Christian beliefs. Our country does have some influence from a number of different religions, but this is only due to the freedom of religion we often take for granted. Since our government was based on Protestant beliefs, requests and ideas from other religiouns are often denounced or overlooked. As Mr. Portman tells all of us in Social Justice class, if religion and politics were not combined in any way, many important parts of our history would never have happened. For example, Martin Luther King Jr. was a minister in a Christian Church. He used his beliefs to help forward the Civil Rights movement. I agree with al capwn (a.k.a. Jeremy Molayem) when he states that the government has the obligation to obey the people, a people who are almost all religious. He is also right in saying that it usually depends on the majority. If the majority of people were one religion, the members of the government would reflect that majority. It is virtually impossible to separate what you believe religiously from what you think laws should be. Even if you attempted to discard them in your political affairs, they would still be in the back of your head, thus continuing to make an impact on your descisions.<BR/><BR/>Philip Tostado<BR/>Period 4Tostitoshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02774620470737929190noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-59437284132419104192007-10-19T18:50:00.000-07:002007-10-19T18:50:00.000-07:00I do agree with JZ that the ideal of complete sepa...I do agree with JZ that the ideal of complete separation of state is in and of itself a complete hoax. However, I do not believe this is self-evident purely in the making of moral and just decisions. Just because someone is atheist, does not mean that they are evil of want to hurt people or make mean decisions. There are may atheists who probably make more just, moral, and “religious” decisions than actual Christians or followers of any faith for that matter. <BR/><BR/>Religion does influence the government, and that is a fact. The important thing is that we are slowly moving away from this influence. Separation of Church and State is not a reality, but we have made great strides to achieving it. This relates very well to what Benjamin Franklin said about perfection in “The Autobiography.” Franklin told about his strives for perfection and how he gave himself goals to improve in every aspect of his life. He attempted to be perfect in all ways. He later realized that this dream was impossible, but he was not angry for trying. He realized that the effort had made him a better man and had vastly improved his life.<BR/><BR/>The example of the Ottoman empire is an excellent apotheosis of making a power work efficiently with various religious groups present, but this system seems very likely to fall apart in our society. People in our society do not live in separate cities with people of purely their belief system (leave out the Quakers). We are all jumbled together into a large clump. People would not sit back and allow for the government to force them to move to a new home just to live with fellow (insert religious denomination here). <BR/><BR/>I agree with the statement made by Jeremy. The most abundant religion will always have the most influence and control. However, I do not believe that the religion itself holds much power. Even if politicians attempt to appeal to Christians, many Christians disagree with each other and have different religious believe as well with in the broad religion of Christianity. <BR/><BR/>Clint Rosser<BR/>Period 5Clint Rosserhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08044648211861232841noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-18480858391312019562007-10-19T18:47:00.000-07:002007-10-19T18:47:00.000-07:00I would have to agree with you in the fact that ch...I would have to agree with you in the fact that church and state are not separated. If it were separated we would be even more corrupt. Other than a belief, religion is a good way to keep a check on people. <BR/><BR/>The government is not allowed to support any one religion because first of all it goes against their amendments and second it could cause major conflicts between different religious groups. Favoritism is not the best way to run a country.<BR/><BR/>Second of all you state that the Ottoman Empire was able to survive with many different religions within its boundaries. One thing that we have to keep in mind is the fact that that happened a long time ago and we now live in the 21st century. Next of all, we are all connected through the media and sooner or later one religion would become more prominent than others, thus leading to problems and even civil wars. <BR/><BR/>I would have to agree with Bronson, since he states a very important fact. He believes that the US is doing a good job maintaining religious tolerance because if it wasn’t for that we might be at war right now. We have people that come from many different places of the world and that follow different religions so religious tolerance is the way to go.<BR/><BR/>Salvador Valle, Period 5trojans07https://www.blogger.com/profile/01848524684331623095noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-65979613457717440202007-10-19T18:30:00.000-07:002007-10-19T18:30:00.000-07:00Mr. zucker,I agree that the separation between Chu...Mr. zucker,<BR/><BR/>I agree that the separation between Church and state is "fictional." Like Bronson Green said, Our culture is heavily influenced by the Christian religion. Also, the Republican party gets many votes because of its Christian morals and those people who value those highly. I also agree when you say that such a separation between Church and State would be undesirable because many civilizations in the history of the world, such as the Islamic empire and the many European emires. Once again, I agree with you on the point that our culture is predominantly influenced by the Christian religion, and not multiple religions as some would believe. The Christian religion that dominates our culture because of our Puritan influences of the first settlers of our country. The Puritans affected many aspects of our lives today, such as our voting system and many other things. So, overall I agree with many of the arguments you posted this week. Go Mr. Zucker!<BR/><BR/>Kevin M. hernandez Period 4Kevin M. Hernandez Period 4https://www.blogger.com/profile/04932119167724726670noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7226261424957237168.post-59641450802365738352007-10-19T18:26:00.000-07:002007-10-19T18:26:00.000-07:00First of, I will explain why I think a separation ...First of, I will explain why I think a separation between Church and State is desirable. In religion one is subordinate to God the higher being and absolute ruler. If our government became a theocracy the members of the government would argue that they are leading in the name of God. Having this as the goal of the government would mean that the people would become subordinate to the government whose rule would become absolute. The fusion of Church and state makes the line between God and the government hazy because the government would assume the powers of God by stating that they are simply carrying out his will. This is similar to when the Popes of the past used the belief that they are the closest to God to get involved with any matter they wish because God reigns supreme over everything and they are earthly representatives of God.<BR/>In the United States there is a Christian influence, but this influence doesn’t stretch far beyond getting candidates elected. Obviously candidates from the Republican and Democrat parties would want to appeal to as many people as possible to get elected. Seeing that the majority of Americans are Christian it is logical that they would want to appear to lead a healthy Christian life. In this way religion influences the government; the majority of people want to have a Christian in control of their country. If the majority of people want a candidate who is an avid golfer, you can bet that you would be watching Mrs. Clinton discussing an exit strategy while enjoying 18 holes with Bill on TV. <BR/>Chris Tan you argued that Church and State should not be separated. One of your reasons was that, “If we separate religion and politics, then what would happen to those in poverty? Without religion, politics would just ignore these people. Religion is the reason why we help homeless people.” Now, my problem with this statement is that you are basically implying that atheists don’t care about the poor. It’s true that religions have stated that you must help the poor, but why did these beliefs come to place? I’ll tell you why; it’s because humans in the course of history have deemed it correct to help those in need. Atheists are not apathetic by nature because they don’t believe in religion. Religion does teach people to be moral but these morals have appeared from correcting mistakes made in the past and the evolution of the ideas of mankind. Believing that atheists aren’t willing to perform good deeds because they do not have the motivation of getting into heaven implies that Catholics only do good deeds so that they can get into heaven (I can’t really catch the Lutherans out on this though). <BR/><BR/>Marcus Högsta<BR/>Period 5mchogstahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03977494784318718156noreply@blogger.com