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

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

I can not wait when the prayer time and the sirens will ring for people to stop their business and kneel in their prayer rugs.

Actually about 10 years ago, from nowhere and no reason no even 9/11 yet, I had a dream of walking in everyday streets of the US when a siren sounded and everybody around me stopped in their tracks and bend over to the east, I was like what the hell is going on, yes, it was Alah's time.

No this is no a joke.



America is becoming a joke of a nation where everybody comes to the US to exercises their new found American constitutional freedoms, but everybody wants their version of freedoms to be the one everybody else should follow.

Sadly while most Americans born in the US are starting to see the constitution like "darn piece of toilet paper, isn't our constitutional freedoms what bring the extremist into the US and the homegrown ones to do what obviously the "opportunistic" Ga candidate is trying to push.

The constitution is now good only when is agendas behind it, any other time people should wipe their butts with it, right?.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Well said. Unfortunately, it's been said many times before. It gets no traction, rather, reasons why not.

Now that I think of it, perhaps, collectively, we spend too much time on 'what the founding fathers intended'.

There are too many instances where the current issues weren't foreseen by the founders and that discussion won't offer any/all the fixes that we need...just saying...

a reply to: nwtrucker

When you have the time you may enjoy reading this article,

www.forbes.com...

Occurs is the opinion base on interpretation of somebody that see nothing wrong with religion in government affairs, but to me it would be if it wasn't agendas behind everything in todays everyday living.

I do not support organized religions so my views are different, still the article is well written and actually it does make sense for many.

Obviously he is speaking about state sponsored Christianity, but what denomination of Christianity will be sponsored, as beliefs vary greatly from church to church: And what would "sponsorship" entail? What about the millions of other citizens with different beliefs? It has nothing to do with religion, but everything to do with power and influence. Just what we need, a second layer of (religious) bureaucracy.

a reply to: bubbabuddha

spot on.

a reply to: Syyth007

That is my biggest concern, I mean people have the rights to worship satan or the eastern bunny if they want to, but once a door is open to favoritism within religious denomination, (because in the US people are not happy with worshiping just one God, they need different denominations of church to do so), everybody will want also their own version of worshipping to be pushed by those in political positions of power.

a reply to: Xtrozero

Does anyone really understand what our forefathers were thinking about when they said separation of church and state.

Seems pretty straight forward to me - but then, I'm not a constitutional scholar

I think it's very interesting that we need them, so that we can decipher the intent of the founding fathers same as bible scholars argue about what is it God really meant? :-)

As long as you can question intent - you can work at bending things to your own way of thinking. And so it goes...

I'm not one of those people that thinks the constitution or the founding fathers were in any way magical. That doesn't mean I don't think our beginnings and what they hoped to achieve weren't or aren't amazing. I think our Constitution was designed to give the greatest number of people the ability to think - on their feet - and so come up with laws that work for everybody. Not bad considering that it was a product of those times and that it still works today

Until - we start trying to interpret it

The Constitution isn't difficult to understand once you get past the language. Language, however, is a very interesting thing. It has so much nuance and influence - I'm almost (almost) willing to say that language is magical

The big difference is that this separation is not to keep religion out of the Government but to keep the Government out of religion. Religious representatives can be guided by their faith as they fulfill their rolls they been elected to. What we do not want to see is Government dictating what faith that should be or even dictating that you must have faith in the first place.

See what I mean?

Maybe interpretation just depends on where you're standing at the time

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Whoa that is exactly my point



We humans may be from the same species but hell we are very different and differ in about anything base on opinions and interpretations, no wonder like I say is soo many denominations of church in the nation when they all worship one and the same God.

originally posted by: nwtrucker
a reply to: Spiramirabilis



Nullify/by-pass/ignore/dissolve the federal gov't. let each state based on their collective cultures, do as they desire.

And there's where your common sense and ideology part company.

State governments aren't immune to the same type of corruption and favoritism that the feds embrace?

Why do you think the states would honor the citizens wishes over the fascist corporate oligarchy that exists at the federal level?

btw, I don't trust Christians anymore than politicians....both are agenda driven and neither one have a good record of being truthful.

Seems naive to place the states on an ideological pedestal. Not surprising though with Rush doing most of the conservatives thinking.

a reply to: nwtrucker
I'm not actually arguing with you nwtrucker - I feel your pain. It's hard to look around lately and not feel that things are listing wildly from side to side - no sense of balance or calm...but it helps to keep things in perspective and realize from time to time that we aren't actually living in a graphic novel

I believe that this issue of separation of church and state, at least in the framework of the Constitution, is impossible to sort out to the satisfaction of both sides. (not any different than most of the other issues that gridlock this nation)

Which is why law is, and should always be - a living, breathing work in progress. Things change. As long as things are permitted to change - we're good

When one group of people gets things pretty much locked up their way - we're cooked. Hopefully the good people of this country realize that despite our many differences we still need to work things out with each other, and that we are all Americans - not some more or less than others

So, then, I more or less agree with Charles - we aren't at that place yet. Charles is just a bit less concerned than I am right now because those winds of change are blowing his tune more and more his way :-)

a reply to: marg6043
I also have a few issues with organized religion.

I hold that the good outweighs the bad...usually..LOL

That article pretty much covers my feelings on the matter. Trouble is, there's no way we're going back...

Even more trouble in the future

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis

The big difference is that this separation is not to keep religion out of the Government but to keep the Government out of religion. Religious representatives can be guided by their faith as they fulfill their rolls they been elected to. What we do not want to see is Government dictating what faith that should be or even dictating that you must have faith in the first place.

See what I mean?
Maybe interpretation just depends on where you're standing at the time

It should not make a difference if a Representative of the Government holds up a bible or a book by Kant as their moral guide as they execute their duties, should it?

originally posted by: Spiramirabilis
Which is why law is, and should always be - a living, breathing work in progress. Things change. As long as things are permitted to change - we're good

That is a scary thought... Who makes these changes....

They never take laws off the books, just keep adding them. The Constitution is changeable, but the level that people suggest it is a living breathing document allows for a much easier change process, such as the Supreme Court just making the changes as they see fit.

So lets say that we elect a very religious president, and he overloads the Supreme Court with extreme religious judges for life, and they have the ability to change these living breathing documents at will... Is that what you want?

a reply to: marg6043

We humans may be from the same species but hell we are very different and differ in about anything base on opinions and interpretations, no wonder like I say is soo many denominations of church in the nation when they all worship one and the same God.

It's fascinating how different we are - until we realize how much more fascinating it is that we are more the same than different :-)

Seems to me that fear of other creates others where there really aren't any

a reply to: Xtrozero

It should not make a difference if a Representative of the Government holds up a bible or a book by Kant as their moral guide as they execute their duties, should it?

What's in their hearts and minds is what they bring to the legislative table - it's what you alluded to earlier

The very minute they hold up that book while they perform their duties I begin to suspect that they're not really thinking about what's best for their fellow Americans, but what's best for their fellow Kantians

a reply to: Spiramirabilis

Thank you for your kind words.

I've always admired and respected Charles' views...even though he's young..

All of this is rendered academic with the upcoming mid-terms, assuming they're allowed to occur.

Old Chinese curse..."may you live in interesting times"....

a reply to: olaru12

I don't disagree with your post at all. States suffer from the same 'temptations' as the federal gov't.

Where I part ways with that is the enforcement factor of the federal gov't.

Take Romney and Ma. They wanted a socialized medical system and they have it. It apparently works. Their choice, their call. They do not enforce their choice on other states that don't want it. Also their choice and their call.

One less MASSIVE enforcement mechanism incrementally allows for more choice, more freedoms for each state.

One further point I'd make is with a federal gov't all one has to do is corrupt one entity sufficiently to achieve ones agenda. A whole different ball game having to get 50 to play ball....

Not a panacea...just an improvement. I'd also note that many on the left fear this concept as 'the want freebies crowd' rely on the producing states to cover their vote-buying requirements.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Take Romney and Ma. They wanted a socialized medical system and they have it. It apparently works. Their choice, their call. They do not enforce their choice on other states that don't want it. Also their choice and their call.

I am completely and totally convinced that if Romney had been elected president, we wouldn't have Obamacare, we'd have Romneycare. And, I am completely and totally convinced that this whole Ebola thing is manufactured, by TPTB, to bolster state supported health care.

a reply to: nwtrucker

Money has always been the evil in mas soul, money in politics is big, we already knows how deep corruption runs.

I agree with other posters that said that is not way that religious can get as corrupted as any other private interest in the nation with a financial hold on our politicians.

I had no problem with Christianity, heck I rather embrace Christianity in the nation than radical Islam.

a reply to: windword

On, that I agree, but ebola is not manufacture epidemic, is real at least in African from where it "originated" that's were it got manufactured.

But what we got now in a scare propaganda of incompetent government and agencies to push the next chapter in vaccinations profit.