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.

 

Georgia Republican: State-sponsored religion will end big-government tyranny

page: 1
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:31 AM
link   
www.rawstory.com...




Georgia Republican Congressional hopeful Jody Hice said on his radio show on Thursday that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia was correct in remarks he made recently regarding faith in U.S. society.

In a speech at Colorado Christian University, Scalia said that not only is government endorsement of religion constitutional, but that it is in the country’s best interests to adhere to Biblical law.

“I think the main fight is to dissuade Americans from what the secularists are trying to persuade them to be true: that the separation of church and state means that the government cannot favor religion over non-religion,” Scalia said to the heavily Christian audience.


Wow a state sponsored religion, just like in the Muslim countries. No thanks!!!




“Government has a responsibility to encourage religious belief,” he concluded, “because that is is the foundation, as I said earlier, of how limited government can exist.”



What? Slippery slope here!!!

Will the state sponsored religion be Christian or will others be accepted or just tolerated as long as you stay in the government guidelines.

I hope this is just pandering to the Christian right wing; but deep down, I don't think so....
edit on 18-10-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



+1 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:35 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

This is what happens when the Supreme Court is infiltrated by Jesuit minded Catholics who think that the ends justify the means. In my opinion, several of Supreme Curt Judges, including Scalia, should be tried and convicted for treason.
edit on 18-10-2014 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:36 AM
link   
I do not believe that a government should mandate any religion, or establish a national religion.

But religious endorsement is well within the realm of government power, and is not unconstitutional.

There is a very big difference between an endorsement, and a mandate.

You have no choice with a mandate, but you do with an endorsement.

For example, if our government endorsed Christianity - then they would be giving favor to that religion as opposed to islam or any other religious ideal.

Endorsement is something that was established long ago, and only until modern times has it dwindled. This dwindling is because people forget history, twist it to match their own distorted view of history, or simply ignore what they don't like.

Countries are like fast food chains. If you don't like the value meal at one store, go to a different one.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:37 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Hmmmmm:



Plus Newsroom called them the American Taliban:




posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 09:39 AM
link   
Here what happens when we have any sponsored religion, than any fruitcake religion maybe allowed to be incorporated, I don't doubt that a little bit more belief might help some people but for many it can be very destructive as well....government cannot take the place of religion....but it in truth wants that role, it has always been what the "enlightenment" has been about, but no government worker would ever imply that what they do maybe the same as a religion, one has to ask the most obvious question, separation of church and state means also that no state should be able or capable of being followed as a religion, as it would also violate church and state separation. So gov in the end has to go away just as religion has over the years, but the fact that both are still firmly around means humans are not ready for that yet. Government has become the new religion for many and so it should be separated from the process of law.


+2 more 
posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:01 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

I say the following as a devoted, although misunderstood believer in Jesus Christ...

The idea of a nation run on the basis of the corrupt, broken hierarchical structure of either the Roman Catholic Church, or any other Christian organisation, is as anathemic to the message of Christ, as any word spoken by atheists and Satanists on the subject of Christ.

Christianity is worship, not governance, and the two do not belong anywhere near one another. There is no surer way to turn people from the light of Christs love, than to associate it with the dispassionate and cold methodology of government by the few, over the many.

Jody Hice, and Antonin Scalia's opinions on this matter, mark them out as having either entirely misunderstood Jesus, democracy, or more likely both.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:31 AM
link   
The framers of the constitution understood the dangers of organized religion full well. Thats why they added that separation of state and church.

Americans from Europe remembered the last time the King and Pope were in Cahoots…



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:36 AM
link   
I'm a big supporter of Christianity in general.

This view, however, goes too far, IMO.

It typifies the fears I have of the 'pendulum' swinging too the other way in the upcoming mid-terms.

I will cede that individual states have the latitude to be more or less 'religious' as they choose. Obviously, this rhetoric wouldn't fly in Mass. or Ca..

Living a religious life is far different than 'ruling' others based on that religion.

Religion is at it's finest when one lives by those tenets and leads by example. It is at it's worse when enforced on others-via laws, etc.- and is used as the justification, is some convoluted fashion, to act against the high standards that very religion sets.

The atheist also falls into that same category as any other 'religion' , LOL.

Lead by example rather than enforcement...



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:43 AM
link   
What part of "shall make no law respecting" do these people not understand? Religion is a 100% no go zone for government. Even the existing state of things is unconstitutional, in that some religions are recognized and others are not, creating differing rights for people of different faiths under otherwise identical circumstances.

Furthermore, Christianity is also not exactly the patriotic faith these people would like to believe it is. "Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and render unto God what is God's" is about as close to even tolerating government that Jesus ever got before the Roman empire threw out books that Jesus routinely quoted, canonized two books that don't even contain the word God, and turned the cross into a sword as a sign under which to conquer. I prefer the revolutionary Jesus who said sell your cloak and buy a sword.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:49 AM
link   
Gotta love these Dominionists.


Religion, Hice said, is “an entrenched part of who we are” as Americans “and a necessary part of who we are.” God-fearing governments, he said, produce “a moral people who are self-governing of their own lives and thus don’t need the big arm of intrusive government all over us. Because we are self-governing people.”


Like the Taliban?



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 10:58 AM
link   
a reply to: TrueBrit

Bravo for your attitude as a Christian. I've always wondered why Christians insist on the idea of their religion being associated with their government. You would think they would want to distance their gods from that.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:06 AM
link   
a reply to: Cuervo
I'd rebut that in all likelihood, there'd be less call for Christianity in Gov't if the Constitution had been followed in the first place and the Christians had been left alone.

Now it's more of a reflex response as obviously the politicians haven't protected their rights so 'we'll have to do it ourselves'.....



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:08 AM
link   

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
But religious endorsement is well within the realm of government power, and is not unconstitutional.

There is a very big difference between an endorsement, and a mandate.


Is there a difference between "endorsement of a religion" and "respecting an establishment of religion"? Have you read the first amendment?



For example, if our government endorsed Christianity - then they would be giving favor to that religion as opposed to ... any other religious ideal.


Yes, exactly. The government giving favor to Christianity over Judaism, for example. That's OK with you? Doesn't violate the first amendment? Think it would be OK with the ~6 million Jewish citizens of our country?

Scalia, is that you?

This is where the religious right is pushing this country. Into a Christian theocracy. They want POWER. They are GREEDY. They are AFRAID. And they are working for "GOD"... They are every bit as dangerous as the Taliban or even the Islamic State to our freedom. And this Supreme Court only encourages them with judgments like Hobby Lobby.

Fortunately, a LOT of Americans don't want a theocracy. But I'd guess that about 33% would GLADLY welcome a Christian Nation.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:11 AM
link   

originally posted by: Cuervo
a reply to: TrueBrit

Bravo for your attitude as a Christian. I've always wondered why Christians insist on the idea of their religion being associated with their government. You would think they would want to distance their gods from that.


Religions and Governments by their very nature are control mechanisms.

In America religion and government are closer than you might think....heavely influenced by CPAC and other right wing conservative groups on the sidelines essentially lobbying entities.

www.pewforum.org...


edit on 18-10-2014 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:15 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic
Fortunately, a LOT of Americans don't want a theocracy. But I'd guess that about 33% would GLADLY welcome a Christian Nation.

And if they got their "Christian Nation" then what?

Maybe we could give those 33% a chunk of land next to Israel? Sorry, but I've had it with this nonsense. No one freaking persecutes them.

Just because their indoctrination doesn't allow them to separate the secular from the religious doesn't mean they have the right to force their religion on the secular, particularly not on the government, which represents us all.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:22 AM
link   
a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Everyone wants power. Including you to dictate your views as you are doing in your fear-mongering post.

Your post has more frenzied rhetoric than any I've seem from Christians.

I'm not a Christian. But, I'd rather have them run the show than you any day of the week...



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:23 AM
link   
a reply to: olaru12

Olaru12,

The message of Christ was hijacked back in the days of the Roman expansion, and the converted Emperor, and turned into a control system. But Christ himself was against the use of religion as a control mechanism, as a tool to lever fortune and favour for the elite from the people whose devotion was most firmly secured.

This is why I cannot accept the organised version of Christianity, and worship in my own way, in my own time. It is an imperfect compromise, but a necessary one, in order to follow Christ in honesty.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:25 AM
link   

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Cuervo
I'd rebut that in all likelihood, there'd be less call for Christianity in Gov't if the Constitution had been followed in the first place and the Christians had been left alone.

Now it's more of a reflex response as obviously the politicians haven't protected their rights so 'we'll have to do it ourselves'.....



totally false and utterly wrong.... they WERE left alone in the 1600's in America, way before the constitution was written....and they condemned, imprisoned, beat, tortured, and even killed early Americans who DID NOT believe as they did....and I'm not talking just about witch burning. I'm talking throughout the colonies, these religious right-wing nuts took it to a whole new level, as far as cruelty, and barbarism....there are many historical writings on this, of course you have to do the research.......here's an article on it:
www.smithsonianmag.com...
edit on 18-10-2014 by jimmyx because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 11:52 AM
link   

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: MentorsRiddle
But religious endorsement is well within the realm of government power, and is not unconstitutional.

There is a very big difference between an endorsement, and a mandate.


Is there a difference between "endorsement of a religion" and "respecting an establishment of religion"? Have you read the first amendment?



For example, if our government endorsed Christianity - then they would be giving favor to that religion as opposed to ... any other religious ideal.


Yes, exactly. The government giving favor to Christianity over Judaism, for example. That's OK with you? Doesn't violate the first amendment? Think it would be OK with the ~6 million Jewish citizens of our country?

Scalia, is that you?

This is where the religious right is pushing this country. Into a Christian theocracy. They want POWER. They are GREEDY. They are AFRAID. And they are working for "GOD"... They are every bit as dangerous as the Taliban or even the Islamic State to our freedom. And this Supreme Court only encourages them with judgments like Hobby Lobby.

Fortunately, a LOT of Americans don't want a theocracy. But I'd guess that about 33% would GLADLY welcome a Christian Nation.


Absolutely there is a difference between endorsing a religion and an establishment of religion.

An establishment is an official, or mandated, thing. A endorsement is an un official, non-mandated, thing.



posted on Oct, 18 2014 @ 12:09 PM
link   
Has this man not read the Constitution he swore to uphold? The first amendment clearly says that government shall not make laws in favor of any religion, Christian or not.

Or is he just too blinded by his own faith to see the obvious? Maybe it's both, but most definitely the latter.

I'm ashamed that this man represents my state and country. Not only is what he's saying against the constitution but it is also dangerous. Sharia Law comes to mind here. Government makes laws to govern, if it begins to favor a certain religion over others, what does he think will end up happening?

Put two and two together.
edit on 10/18/2014 by 3NL1GHT3N3D1 because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
16
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join