Irony alert: Which nation has an official church and which has separation of church and state?

Palin-witch-doctor-we-hate-science-and-education, where you will be required to attend church during all your non-working hours and where spy cams in your home will make sure you never express any thoughts that are forbidden.

and yet on their money is a pic of Charles Darwin.

Better now?

Why wouldn't he be on their bills? It's more about nationalism, not religion.

My human evolution professor used to enjoy the religious irony in that!

religious dogma

Exactly the poster's point.

:eyes:

(Why do some people prefer confrontation over thought?)

NGU.

Just because someone's opinion differs from your own does not mean that opinion was reached without thought.

How much thought is involved there?

NGU.

:shrug:

NGU.

:)

And succinctly made.

at least mainline and Catholic, despite the media's and the right wing's depiction of Christianity. This includes the Episcopal church, which of course is the Church of England in the US:

http://ecusa.anglican.org/19021_58398_ENG_HTM.htm

But it's still quite ironic that the nation that has separation of church and state as official doctrine has "In God We Trust" on its money and the nation with an official church has the single scientist most despised by many Christians on its money.

Another Irony is that most US churches have the US flag up in front of the church. European churches, in countries without the "separation" would never have their flag in such a prominent place in the church.

...at this point in Jesus land.

... but not much.

Many Western Europeans seem to treat their State Religions as historical relics.

So far though, the separationists-over-first-amendmentist such as yourself can't seem think outside your group's box.

You do a great deal of thinking inside of that box though.

And the minimum amount of government intrusion into religion?

I suspect you might be happier in Saudi Arabia..

Who mentioned theocracy? Let me see... Oh, YOU.

Let's see how this plays... I mention a first amendment that allows for a multiplicity of religions, and, ... and you, change the subject to a single-religion theocracy -- and then extrapolate into ranting from your new subject matter.

Nice. :eyes:

Let me guess. Psychological projecting? You put me as happy in a theocracy (BTW, I would not be), when the reality is that you would be happiest in a state run lack of religion and your mouth waters under the idea of finding such a state or making our country into such a thing.

FINAL ASIDE: Let us remember that we are fighting Republicans together, and that this is just a side issue, and although I'll fight you tooth and nail here, I'll be at your side defending you in a different fight. Just so we're clear...

YOU NUT CASE YOU!

I keep trying to tell you, the more you try to separate, the worse things will get.

If I take your statement at face value (should I?) then you believe that the more separated church and state are then the more religion will intrude into public life and the less religious freedom there will be.

I then perform the thought experiment of looking at the reverse side of your statement.

The least separation between church and state is in a theocracy, where church and state are one, your statement leads me to think that you believe the maximum religious freedom will exist in a nation where there is no separation between church and state.

Edited to add: One more point that I think I may have made to you before but I'm not sure so I'll take the chance of repeating myself.. In the USA at least the vast majority of non-theists started out as theists, we who are not religious tend to understand the religious more than the religious understand us because we once were you.

There just aren't that many people in the USA, certainly not in my generation, that were raised without religion.

You reiterated my sentence with YOU TRY TO included, but then disposed of it, lost it, disappeared it, and then went off, once again, on your new subject matter. If you intend to take something at face value, at least look at the face of it!

You see, YOU are TRYING to separate the state from people's beliefs, rather than having the people separate their beliefs from the state. The difference is subtle. The difference is democratic: rule by the people, free people, versus the do-gooders ordering the state to keep people in their place with their beliefs, ordering separation, enforcing separation using government as the enforcer.

When you take a people's freedom away, you will see a backlash. That backlash is in part what you see on our legal tender.

The freedom to impose your religious beliefs on others by force of law?

Didja get it yet? Huh?

Still not get'n it? How about another hint.

It's the freedom that supposedly would build a wall of separation between church and state. (The one that I claim does build that wall of separation.) That is without you having to enforce the result instead.

Good luck.

For all the communication that's happening, your words are English and I know all of them individually but when I look at the totality I get a null set.

I get the impression you're being deliberately abstruse.

I tried. If I could get this concept through using Minoan and or Etruscan, I'd give it a shot.

Perhaps this is not the right way to have this discussion, that is, typing back and forth over long times.

Until such time as this concept stuck within me can reveal itself, stay well.