It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Separation of Church and State has gone too far

page: 4
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: iosolomon When are they going to come up with separation of government and my money. Id vote for that in a heartbeat. Id be like.... thank the lord, I get to eat.




posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: solomons path


Simple. I don't want the government telling me I have to adhere to the tenets of a particular religion, but at the same time, I don't want them restricting my free exercise of my chosen religion.


And this statement gets to the heart of the duplicitous nature of Christians in America. On one hand, the espouse religious freedom and don't believe the government should be in the business of religion. Ignoring the fact that the mere mention of (any) god is a violation of that statement, as there are many religions that support no god (Buddhism, Taoism, some Agnostic, etc), many that support multiple gods, and some that have no belief in the divine spirit whatsoever (Atheism).


Soooo, are you implying that the mere mention of any god is against the exclusion clause AND the freedom of expression clause? In the statement from my post that you quoted above, WHERE did I say God was okay to plaster on buildings and money? For what you know, I could be practicing one of the religions that do not have a belief in God or any other deity. If you quote me, give credit, and actually read what you are quoting.


Thought the "quote" button in the formatting window still gave a link to the original post, I guess not. And, I wasn't replying to you as much as using the quote to expand the debate, thus why I didn't just hit the "reply" or "quote" option from your post. I apologize that it upset you.

As far as the assertion made of my response, no, mentioning god doesn't violate. In fact, a more proper word choice would have been "inclusion". However, I was speaking about the government and any other public institutions, not individuals deciding to pray or talk about god. Anything sponsored by the state that makes reference to god . . . congressional notes, public schools, the others mentioned above . . . during or in promotion of state activities is a violation of the concept of separation.

If politicians want to attend a prayer meeting before session or a youth group wants to meet after school for bible study . . . they still can. What they can't do is expect the government to open all session with a prayer to a certain god or expect the school to allow them to hold classroom prayer.

The problem is that Christians in this country don't see the difference and see any removal of their superstition from public, not private, life as an infringement on their "religious freedoms". Sorry, but that is delusional.
edit on 5/23/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 06:53 PM
link   

originally posted by: solomons path
None of those "encroach" on your "religious freedom", unless you think everyone in this country should hold your personal religious beliefs and the government should take "special exception" to the beliefs of Christians.



As I said previously, no group is better at playing the victim to get their way than Christians in America.


I am talking specifically about laws such as the ACA which attempt to require these religious institutions PROVIDE either the service or the payment for the service which is in opposition to their religion. I don't give a rat's ass what opinion anyone else in this country holds, agreeing or disagreeing with my beliefs, their souls and salvation are their own and no concern of mine... what I am very much opposed to is any law that tries to force me to do something which violates my own personal belief structure. Looking at national precedents, we've never done this in the past. There have always been religious exemptions for military service, healthcare, food, etc. Now, suddenly, we're seeing an attempt by the current administration to force the religious into compliance with decidedly irreligious laws. THAT is, at its core, a violation of the First Amendment.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;


You pass laws forcing people who believe abortion is a sin into mandates that state they must provide abortions on demand or fund abortions Congress has just violated the First Amendment by inputting themselves into the free exercise of not participating in a specific sin.

Turning the tables here, and incorporating your unoriginal barb against Christians, let's say these laws were in regards to other religious issues. Let's say Congress passed a law stating ALL restaurants must serve pork products on demand. How far do you think that law would make it? The intelligent thinking man would say "That's asinine and downright dumb! If the patron wants pork, they're free to find a restaurant that serves pork. Leave the non-pork serving restaurants alone." Sad that I'm not seeing many intelligent thinking men surrounding the same arguments over forcing religious organizations to provide or fund abortions.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: retiredTxn

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: iosolomon

Wondered how long this thread would take to pop up.
On my phone or I would link the many quotes from founding fathers that were all for the separation of church and state....


Quotes don't matter much to those that read about our history. It's what the Founding Father's DID/DID NOT put into the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, and the Bill of Right's that does matter. Nowhere in these document's is the phrase "separation of church and state".

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." and Article VI specifies that "no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States."

Simple. I don't want the government telling me I have to adhere to the tenets of a particular religion, but at the same time, I don't want them restricting my free exercise of my chosen religion.


And as long as that choice remains personal, I, as an atheist have no problem with that. When religion, ANY religion, starts making it's way into government, I have a problem with that. If you believe something is a sin, fine, that's your belief, but until it deprives someone of their rights, it your belief and I'll respect that you have that belief. I'll even support your right to believe whatever you want. As long as it doesn't stomp on anyone else's rights. The best part is I don't even have to agree with it to respect your right to believe what you want. Because it doesn't affect me or my rights.

If anyone's religious tenets get quoted in their race to enact laws or restrict freedoms, then I get involved. Until then, live and let live.

If you think something is wrong, but it doesn't affect you personally, then don't do it.
If you think your religious rights are being infringed upon because someone is doing something you don't like, step back and ask if you would want other people to do the same thing to you. If the answer is no, then you are wrong and need to stop.

Separation of church and state can never go too far. The two are not meant to interact. Religion is a PERSONAL belief. The second you promote one God over another, you're automatically dividing the people. This is not what a civilized society should do. It need to be inclusive and not exclusive.
edit on 23-5-2014 by grahag because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 07:35 PM
link   
a reply to: burdman30ott6



I am talking specifically about laws such as the ACA which attempt to require these religious institutions PROVIDE either the service or the payment for the service which is in opposition to their religion.

First, I don't agree with or like the ACA (or anything else this admin has brought forth), but that is a bit of an overreach. According to the ACA, all compliant health plans must include women's preventative health care. Under this provision there are drugs covered that induce abortion. However, Christians are in no different position than anyone else in this country. Elderly have to cover pregnancy and child dental. Young people have to pay for things they don't need. Everyone has to have a compliant plan or they get fined. The companies are not paying directly to support or finance abortions. They are simply buying a policy that covers those that may wish to take advantage of those services. The problem is the legislation. It's just bad. However, it is in no way indicative of an infringement on religious freedom. You are simply seeing what you choose to support your personally biased worldview. And if you want to put it in ecclesiastic terms . . . Leprosy and promiscuity were once "sins" to be shunned or punished, yet Jesus didn't seem to mind?




There have always been religious exemptions for military service, healthcare, food, etc. Now, suddenly, we're seeing an attempt by the current administration to force the religious into compliance with decidedly irreligious laws.

And there is a "religious exemption" for the ACA, only it applies to certain religious institutions. But, again, this is just a terrible law that screws everyone in some form or fashion. There is nothing in the ACA that prohibits the free exercise of religion. If Christians don't want to purchase plans that cover reproductive rights . . . don't purchase and get fined like every other American who chooses not to purchase, for a multitude of reasons. If Christians don't believe in abortion . . . don't get one.



You pass laws forcing people who believe abortion is a sin into mandates that state they must provide abortions on demand or fund abortions Congress has just violated the First Amendment by inputting themselves into the free exercise of not participating in a specific sin.

You must hate your life, huh? Everybody forcing you and yours to do stuff against your will? However, you are not forced to do anything. Don't participate. Sure, you'll get the "tax" bill . . . but, so will every other American that doesn't purchase or can't afford to. Christians aren't an exception . . . And, turning the ACA into a First Amendment issue is merely hyperbole. Nobody wants to participate in this disaster; however, there is no "force" people are choosing to buy a plan, so they don't have to pay higher taxes.




Turning the tables here, and incorporating your unoriginal barb against Christians, let's say these laws were in regards to other religious issues. Let's say Congress passed a law stating ALL restaurants must serve pork products on demand. How far do you think that law would make it? The intelligent thinking man would say "That's asinine and downright dumb! If the patron wants pork, they're free to find a restaurant that serves pork. Leave the non-pork serving restaurants alone." Sad that I'm not seeing many intelligent thinking men surrounding the same arguments over forcing religious organizations to provide or fund abortions.


First off this is a false analogy . . . logical fallacy. Nobody is making Christian businesses "give abortions", not even out right pay or promote them, which would be equivalent to "must serve pork" at a Halal or Kosher restaurant. And, it makes less sense when you realize that current Halal and Kosher restaurants serve pork products, despite the devout still not eating such a tasty meat.

I say open a new business or serve pork . . . Would that be an asinine law? Yes. Is the ACA? Yes. Does the ACA or that asinine example have anything to do with your ability to practice or claim your religion . . . No. There is no "right" to own a particular kind of business or have a business cater to your religious needs. You are free to practice in the way you see fit and make your own choices on how to live or where to do your business.

edit on 5/23/14 by solomons path because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:09 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

sad to see how little you all understand how the world works and who is running it.

the vatican (divining snake) has very powerful pagan/satanic elements that desire total control…

they are NOT living by Christ's teachings and banned the Bible from 500AD to 1500AD… that's what the Reformation was all about: false doctrines of the vatican that you can kill or pay money for sins… and NO direct relationship with God and Jesus Christ…

Eric Phelps on the Jesuits - Vatican Assassins ( part 2 )
youtu.be...
PROOF! LUCIFER WORSHIPED IN VATICAN 2013
youtu.be...
Lucifer literally in the Vatican!!! VATICAN UNDERGROUND!!
youtu.be...
Mae Brussell - Opus Dei, Knights Of Malta, Vatican Death Squads.
youtu.be...



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:11 PM
link   
Walter Veith - (16) The Islamic Connection
www.youtube.com...
Rome created Islam - prove from Quran & Bukhari
youtu.be...



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:16 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername




Religion has no business in government, nor should government have any business in religion.


I agree but I don't see why religions are allowed to become big business tax free.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:22 PM
link   
a reply to: ausername

Yeah and all those religions you just named don't even come close to numbers of innocent people murdered. Christians and Catholics basically the same damn thing are notorious killers.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 08:26 PM
link   
I think I saw the same commercial. The guy says that he is not afraid to burn in hell.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: iosolomon

Christianity is all about greed. I don't know where you've been, but the Catholic church was the richest entity in the world for the longest time. Not to mention it most certainly benefits the rich. Heck the bible teaches you to respect your place and respect authority. And yes our founding fathers were probably secular. Just because god is mentioned doesn't mean they believed in it. Why else would Thomas Jefferson write about separation of church and state?


Christianity is ALL about greed.. sure, nothing more. Go right ahead and see the negatives - It's all you want to see.

And i'm disgusted with greed of religion too though, including Christianity. Yes, other religions exist people. All I ever hear on this forum recently is how bad CHRISTIANITY is when it comes to greed and wealth. Like it's the only religion to be hypocrites.

A little bored of all the negatives people see and not all the great things Christians have done over the years... - Deny ignorance? Sure it's corrupt but find me something that isn't. Everything is poisoned by money.


Yeppers all of the great things, witch burnings, the crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition, yep Christians have done great things. Do I have to mention the Mayans, the Incas, child sexual abuse, Canada's First Nations, smallpox, etc, etc.

ETA Forgot to mention slavery and aparthied.
edit on 5/23/2014 by BubbaJoe because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: burdman30ott6
You pass laws forcing people who believe abortion is a sin into mandates that state they must provide abortions on demand or fund abortions Congress has just violated the First Amendment by inputting themselves into the free exercise of not participating in a specific sin.


You pass laws that stop people walking around nude even though that is a sin to them....
You pass laws that prohibit people marrying more than 1 man/woman, even though some people believe that is a sin,
you passed laws prohibiting homosexual marriage, even though that is a sin according to them,
You passed laws stopping the lynching of blacks, even though that is a a god given right according to some people...


You are just pushing your version of morality onto other people.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 09:39 PM
link   
Let start taxing the sh$t out of these stupid CHURCHES! GOD CAN,'T ESCAPE THE VAMPIRE SQUIDS AT THE FED!!!
edit on 23-5-2014 by HUMBLEONE because: "UNST"-,Jose Glunt, famous Absurdist



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 10:09 PM
link   
Having read the ops posting and the postings after that, the following can be stated:

The op has stated that the Separation of Church and State has gone too far. Before I go into that, many people have brought up the founding fathers. But many forgot some of the reasons why the founding fathers wanted to have separation, and why they wanted the freedom of religion to be.

The founding fathers were very religious. They came from the different colonies. And all were of different faiths and beliefs. But the other part of that happens to be that when it came to their religious beliefs they did not like other churches, they even despised them. That means a person who was Lutheran, was despised by say a Protestant, who could not stand an Anglican, who did not like Methodist, and none of them trusted any Catholic, nor liked those who were Jewish, and so forth.

The other aspect that tends to be forgotten in the discussion of religion and the founding fathers, was what all was going on in Europe at the time frame. Most of the major European countries, all had churches that were heavily involved in the laws and taxation of the population at the time. That means if you lived in a country that was predominately Catholic, a person would pay one tax to the crown, and another to the church. And sometimes those officials were corrupt. The people were often abused to the point of where revolt and the peasantry were at odds or terrified of even speaking out.

Now many would advocate to having religion more involved in the body politics, yet fail to realize that is a bad idea. We often bulk at the very notion of living under Sharia, but once one opens that door, where religion is brought into the body politics, that is where the country and its laws would head towards, we would be taking a step back. And while it may not be Sharia, well not in most parts of the country, there would be a Christian version of such. Ask yourself this, would you or could you live in a country like say Uganda? Would you be content if the person who you elected was having say the Pope whispering into that persons ear, and having them set policy based on what the Holy Sea dictates?

It would lead to discrimination on a mass scale. And this country has had its fair share of where the use of religion as an excuse to do things legally, including discriminate against one group or another, and the justification would be that it is in one holy text or another. And in some large cities, it would cause a problem and a division of some cities, where the population is of one religion and the other is of an opposing religion. Or it could result where a government starts to favor one religion over all others.
It is a bad idea, and we should not tear down that wall. But, there has to be reason, and in that there should be some things that should not be touched. Too often people these days take offense where something has existed for so long, and that too is wrong.



posted on May, 23 2014 @ 11:04 PM
link   
a reply to: MystikMushroom


Yet we are too scared to elect a president that is atheist. They have to be affiliated with a religion.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 07:39 AM
link   
I think there needs to be way more effort put into keeping church and state separate.

Anyone can practice any religion they please and it's nobody's business but their own.

Politicians should be forbidden to openly express their religious beliefs anywhere but in their place of worship or to peers in private who practice the same religion or whatever.

I so tire of some of the ignorance I witness on the street and the horse# religious shows on the TV...I don't care what some poser who is only in it for the money thinks is going to happen to my supposed "mortal soul", or that if I send this asshole money I will be forgiven or what the hell ever.

Just go away already!!!.

Religion is just another wedge that is used to keep people separated and at odds with one another, which in turn makes it easier for posers in politics and economics to pull shenanigans in the name of GAWD.....



a reply to: iosolomon



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 07:59 AM
link   

originally posted by: BubbaJoe

originally posted by: MrConspiracy

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
a reply to: iosolomon

Christianity is all about greed. I don't know where you've been, but the Catholic church was the richest entity in the world for the longest time. Not to mention it most certainly benefits the rich. Heck the bible teaches you to respect your place and respect authority. And yes our founding fathers were probably secular. Just because god is mentioned doesn't mean they believed in it. Why else would Thomas Jefferson write about separation of church and state?


Christianity is ALL about greed.. sure, nothing more. Go right ahead and see the negatives - It's all you want to see.

And i'm disgusted with greed of religion too though, including Christianity. Yes, other religions exist people. All I ever hear on this forum recently is how bad CHRISTIANITY is when it comes to greed and wealth. Like it's the only religion to be hypocrites.

A little bored of all the negatives people see and not all the great things Christians have done over the years... - Deny ignorance? Sure it's corrupt but find me something that isn't. Everything is poisoned by money.


Yeppers all of the great things, witch burnings, the crusades, and the Spanish Inquisition, yep Christians have done great things. Do I have to mention the Mayans, the Incas, child sexual abuse, Canada's First Nations, smallpox, etc, etc.

ETA Forgot to mention slavery and aparthied.


Refer to my previous comment. You've done the same.

Forget about the good and focus on the bad. Sure those who run the religion have done some DISGUSTING things over the years. But if all you choose to see is the bad, then go right ahead. I'm sorry that it bugs me that people can't see the good Religion has done for people over the years instead of spouting out every single negative thing said religion has done in it's 2000+ years.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:06 AM
link   
While I'll take democracy over theocracy any day, in my mind church and state are two different variations of the same type of memeplex, one of control.

In society.

Church - Act with this certain code of morals/ethics, respect "gods" authority as absolute, tithe money, and accept our word lest you burn in an eternal pit of damnation.

Government - Act with this certain code of ethics/laws, respect the judicial systems authority as absolute, pay taxes, and accept our word lest you forfeit those rights and rot in prison.

Whether or not religion is explicitly separate loses meaning when you realize the formula is implicitly indistinguishable.

edit on 24-5-2014 by Degradation33 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 08:23 AM
link   

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Let start taxing the sh$t out of these stupid CHURCHES! GOD CAN,'T ESCAPE THE VAMPIRE SQUIDS AT THE FED!!!


Ever heard of taxation without representation? If we tax 'em, then our government will have to represent them. I don't want that. Let's keep religion out of our laws.



posted on May, 24 2014 @ 09:19 AM
link   

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: HUMBLEONE
Let start taxing the sh$t out of these stupid CHURCHES! GOD CAN,'T ESCAPE THE VAMPIRE SQUIDS AT THE FED!!!


Ever heard of taxation without representation? If we tax 'em, then our government will have to represent them. I don't want that. Let's keep religion out of our laws.


It's already prevalent in our laws and government. I see no reason they should not be taxed unless they show that the majority of the money taken in goes back out to help the community that needs it.




top topics



 
17
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join