Yes, absolutely. They should be separated because everything the State touches it becomes toxic and corrupt. Scientists and scientific researchers need to work completely separate from political interests.

How can this be achieved? — Prishon

I guess with the rule of law. It could be a good mechanism to avoid the presence of the State. Also, developing a market where it is so profitable to be a scientist in companies or businesses without depending on the government's approval.

I tend to agree. But do you think the obligatory learning of the sciences shouldnt be banned too?

But do you think the obligatory learning of the sciences shouldnt be banned too? — Prishon

What do you mean as "obligatory"? You are referring to school teachings or something related

What do you mean as "obligatory"? You are referring to school teachings or something related — javi2541997

Indeed. On high schools and below. Universities are free choice.

I think not because schools are the temple of wisdom and development. The problem is not schools or universities at all but how the state manipulates those institutions. A real free and open minded school would lead us in a better society. Probably we could even improve in terms of science and justice.
You are so lucky of living in a country which separated the religion from the education in the perfect time. I do not live in a country like that and you feel how underdeveloped we are in terms of science and social issues.

I think not because schools are the temple of wisdom — javi2541997

That's the question. Although I have to admit that the stuff I learned was interesting. But the very fact it was made obligatory didnt make me feel free at all.

True, you are right that we are forced to go to school but probably this is due the objective of avoiding the lack of assistance by the youngest students.

How can this be achieved? Am I even right that the couple is still happy? Is there a couple at all? — Prishon

To the extent that it exists, the source of the separation of church and state in the US is from the First Amendment to the Constitution, in particular "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Added to that are the interpretations and decisions the courts have made since the Constitution was approved.

How would that work with science? Answer - it wouldn't. "Science" is much harder to define than "religion." Does that mean that no agency with specific scientific goals would be allowed? No CDC. No NASA. No FDA. No NOA, NSCS, NGS, NSF....

Once upon a time Religion and State marrily hopped along together. — Prishon

This is the type of question that separates the wheat from the chaff. Hats off to you!

It appears that what we have here is a rather interesting but very dangerous love/eternal/romance triangle with science and religion vying for the state's attention.

What you've done is expose the fact that science and religion aren't on an equal footing.

The state's facebook page reads, under relationship status: married.

Married to whom? Science.

In geometric terms, the eternal triangle can be represented as comprising three points – a jealous mate (A = science) in a relationship with an unfaithful partner (B = the state) who has a lover (C = religion)...A feels abandoned, B is between two mates, and C is a catalyst for crisis in the union A-B. — Wikipedia

What could go wrong?

P.S. I wish we knew the gender of the 3 involved. It would be a big help in resolving the problem, right?

In geometric terms, the eternal triangle can be represented as comprising three points – a jealous mate (A = science) in a relationship with an unfaithful partner (B = the state) who has a lover (C = religion)...A feels abandoned, B is between two mates, and C is a catalyst for crisis in the union A-B. — Wikipedia

This is the kind of answer I like! Tickles the imagination and offers a nice and comprehensible way to analyse a problem or question in a non-too-abstract way. Let me contemplate and further the love triangle. :up: :smile:

P.S. I wish we knew the gender of the 3 involved. It would be a big help in resolving the problem, right? — TheMadFool

Interesting addendum! I'll think again. I like this! :smile:

Yes, absolutely. They should be separated because everything the State touches it becomes toxic and corrupt. Scientists and scientific researchers need to work completely separate from political interests. — javi2541997

An interesting paradox herein. The US is a country where claiming to be an atheist is a career-ending move for a politician but once elected what do politicians do? Spend billions of tax-payer dollars in science research.

So, to be elected, one needs to pander to religious groups but once elected, the shoe is on other foot and one needs to woo the scientific community. A love triangle that has me stoked.

It's like a man (the state) courting one woman (religion) but spending money on the other woman (science). :chin:

Running with the hares and hunting with the hounds. Playing both sides! Bad dog! Bad, bad dog!

I understand your point but trust me you have a real developed educational system. Very good universities as Yale, Harvard, Stanford,etc... And literally all of the science inventions come from the US or Germany/Nordic countries which surprise! They are all separate religion from schools.
It is true that ambitious politicians need the religious lobbies but just for some votes. Nothing special neither dangerous. Imagine a conflict in the US that Biden should resolve and then he asks the Pope Francis what is going on... That would be a big disappointment right?
Well I tell you this because in Hispanic countries religious lobbies are strong as hell. The conflict between Bolivia and Chile was "carried" by the catholic church :vomit: and the conflict we have in Spain about Catalonia independence where the Spanish Episcopalian organization took part too :vomit: :down: