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.

 

I don't understand how one can seperate their religion from their political ideology

page: 1
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:24 PM
link   
So, in the US we have this idea of separation of church and state.

Library of Congress



“ "I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."[1]


As far as I know this is the origin of the idea of separation of church and state in the US. I could be wrong. But here's my problem.

How can a person possibly separate their actions from that of their religious or philosophical beliefs? Are we not inherently tied to these beliefs in action as well as faith?
edit on 5/19/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
I don't understand how some Muslims can be statists. God's law is supreme--to the will of Allah you must submit, and to none other.

Yet statists elevate the government to god-like status, and demand that we submit to it.

It's almost like a shared supremacy.

Which would be shirk.
edit on 5/19/16 by NthOther because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:34 PM
link   
Depends on the person... one candidate I spoke to was asked about his stance on Abortion. He asked for clarification, his personal opinion or what he would support in office.

They said both, his answer was (paraphrase) Personally he is against Abortion ... if elected the law of the land says it is legal, and nothing in the constitution forbids it so he would continue to support the right because the courts had ruled it was legal.

When asked (because he is religious) How could he reconcile that stance, he replied (again paraphrase) I am seeking public office, not a position in my church. Holding public office means continuing to support the constitution, and obeying the law of the land.

If you elect people with strong character I dont think it is a stretch.. but thats my opinion... that and a couple bucks can get you a cup of coffee.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:36 PM
link   
a reply to: Irishhaf

But doesnt it violate your faith in god to go against his will?

Is that putting the law of man above the law of god?
edit on 5/19/2016 by onequestion because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

Political beliefs and religious theology are like Siamese twins joined at the cranium. It's the way we do it here in America.

www.youtube.com...


I'm totally looking forward to the "Gospel according to Trump"




Isn't everyone???>
edit on 19-5-2016 by olaru12 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:37 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

That isn't what "separation of church and state" means. In fact, the term 'separation of church and state" was coined in the early/mid 20th century, and wasn't really voiced directly in the US constitution.

A person leads based on their worldview. A persons worldview is shaped by their religious beliefs. So you have to expect that decisions will be based on whatever religious beliefs a person has.

That said...there are limits ascribed in the Constitution that help keep religious laws from being codified. The limits don't work perfectly, but seem to have done a decent job of keeping absolute religious tyranny from being enforced, and have done a decent job of giving us the tools to reverse prior tyranny's imposed on us.

But the US Constitution doesn't enumerate what a man, or men, can and cannot do. it enumerates what government can and cannot do. The men who run the government are free to be free, and think free. When, in the exercise of their duties, they cross the religious line imposed against the government, then its addressed against the government.

I don't think the striking down of a law should be seen as a personal attack against the person who penned the law, or carried its banner.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

No, because most people dont take the "words of 'God'" literally.

Despite the delusion that theyre being "religious", they pick and choose which parts they want to follow.

Which IMO is a good thing, a VERY good thing (just be honest about it).

For example, if the Western world decided to adhere to every one of "God's" laws in the Bible, we would all start to look like Moslem countries.

edit on 19-5-2016 by gladtobehere because: wording



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:38 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

In any situation you should try to hear both sides of the story, whether you agree with it or not. The problem with organized religion, no matter which side of the spectrum you are on, is that it seems to want to squelch the opposition in favor of absolutes. But life is more complicated than that.

That doesn't mean you can't align yourself with certain beliefs, religion is a code of conduct that one chooses to follow, but don't let it cloud your judgment.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:39 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Irishhaf

But doesnt it violate your faith in god to go against his will?

Is that putting the law of man above the law of god?


'render unto caesar that which is caesars, and render unto the lord that which is the lords' is mentioned twice in the gospels.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:40 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Ive heard and read that before but have never really fully understood its meaning.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:44 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I cant speak for him..

My opinion is, God doesnt want me out there smiting the heathen and converting people by the sword (well god might, but Jesus doesnt), they want me to try and be as good a person as I can be... but they know we are only human and infinitely fallible.

But I am a bad example... I was baptized a catholic and I am married to a Witch, so I am far from a hard core fundamentalist, which in my opinion are the only ones that feel they need to serve as gods instrument as they carry out his will. (personally I think that is an insanely arrogant position.. just my 2 cents worth)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: Irishhaf

But doesnt it violate your faith in god to go against his will?

Is that putting the law of man above the law of god?


I don't think it does. I am very much against abortion. I feel like it's murder. But it's not my place to make that decision for anyone other than myself. I am not the one who has to make that choice and I don't know the circumstances involved. Plus, I am not the one that must live with the decision the rest of life on Earth. So by using a little common sense, it's entirely possible. (IMHO)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I don't think it's asking people to separate any of their beliefs. It's saying the Law of the Land and the Operations of Government shall be separate from Religion and Church Authority.

Our Government was created by Enlightened Men who first of all understood what that meant and second of all wanted a Government build upon Man's Own Reason not some Invisible God as it's Authority. The Authority of Men over themselves as far as how the Nation is Legally Controlled and Operated. To do that you must separate them because Religions all want their God as the Highest Authority.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

It means, "God put you on this planet with me to get along with men. So while you are here, do your duty to man....but don't forget your duty to God along the way."



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:52 PM
link   
I never saw it personally though.

I saw/see it that no religious institution or a follower can judge me legally on their religious believes and I can only be judged and held accountable on the laws the government has.

You know to "protect" me from any religious fundamentalist that has a position in law or government services.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:55 PM
link   
Mr Obama is a christian too. he said so a reply to: olaru12



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:56 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

While I think the idea of separation of church and state has, in more modern times, come, for many non-religious people, to also also include people making decisions that are rational and according to law as opposed to personal feeling or beliefs (since one is supposed to represent the constituents who voted them in). Religious people in office have pretty much always let their faith guide them throughout our history. Irishhaf was pretty correct in his example, IMO, how to personally keep the two as separate as possible, but it is true that one's personal beliefs shape one's cultural worldview.

However, the initial idea of separation of church and state went back to the separatists who largely came here from England. Since the Church was the Official Church of the state, its decree was what the people has to follow even if they did not agree (essentially, the church and government were one and the same). People wanted the freedom to practice how they wanted without the church punishing or forcing them to practice as the church wished. Hence, the doctrine of keeping the two separate so this would not happen again.

That's a very condensed version, and there is more to it, but that's pretty much it.
edit on 19-5-2016 by Liquesence because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: Irishhaf
Depends on the person... one candidate I spoke to was asked about his stance on Abortion. He asked for clarification, his personal opinion or what he would support in office.

They said both, his answer was (paraphrase) Personally he is against Abortion ... if elected the law of the land says it is legal, and nothing in the constitution forbids it so he would continue to support the right because the courts had ruled it was legal.

When asked (because he is religious) How could he reconcile that stance, he replied (again paraphrase) I am seeking public office, not a position in my church. Holding public office means continuing to support the constitution, and obeying the law of the land.

If you elect people with strong character I dont think it is a stretch.. but thats my opinion... that and a couple bucks can get you a cup of coffee.


It's pretty easy to have an anti abortion stance without bringing up God.

We all come from the same place. The womb.

Every single person is entitled to the protections set forth in the Bill of Rights, and the 14th amendment.

A persons rights ends when anothers begin.

A mother has absolutely NO RIGHT to deny life to their child.

Of course than opinion is in the minority. Where some hide behind womens skirts screaming 'womens' rights to something that has a 50/50 chance of being.

Given the chance.

Given the SAME opportunity everyone else living has had.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 04:58 PM
link   
how can a conservative republican also be christian ?

christ commands his followers to LOVE the poor and serve them

lol



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:00 PM
link   

originally posted by: Dumbass
I never saw it personally though.

I saw/see it that no religious institution or a follower can judge me legally on their religious believes and I can only be judged and held accountable on the laws the government has.

You know to "protect" me from any religious fundamentalist that has a position in law or government services.



You ready for this?





top topics



 
8
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join