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: 2
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:04 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?

Taking abortion as an example, a politician that supports an individuals right to make their own decisions doesn't have to believe that abortion is OK by God. He/she just has to allow citizens to make their own choices.
edit on 19-5-2016 by Syphon because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: olaru12


lol I did said "protect"



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Liquesence

I'd say that's basically it right there. The separation put's Man's Law in charge of the Nation. This allows for God's Law to be in the hands of the Church. So as a free person, if you break God's Law but not mans law you go to church to deal with that. But if you break Mans Law you deal with the Government of Man.

They already knew what happens when you mix the two. Which is that God, or more specifically the Church in charge because according to the Church God's laws are above Mans Laws. So the Church calls the shots. They wanted to avoid that and put Man in charge of himself. But leave the option open for each man to submit himself to the Church if they choose to do so as well. But if that's what he chooses to do then that's on him.



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

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
how can a conservative republican also be christian ?

christ commands his followers to LOVE the poor and serve them

lol
Tiny babies are poor, all they have is the womb who will love them. who will serve them? Who will demand that is ok to rip them out and murder them?



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:06 PM
link   
Religion with governing country is a bit muddy waters. Governing has ALWAYS the view of invidual, a MAN ruled by his/her ethics and moral values.. and these values are always PERSONAL even if they are religious. There has not been succesfull religious leadership which would be equal to all regardless their religious views even opposite ones.

If someone finds one leader/government ruled by religious views succesful with this.. pls share.

Giving an oath in the name of the God is different thing ( if you believe in one ) then it is one´s invidual and personal promise to be truthful in the name of someone/thing you believe in.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: syrinx high priest
how can a conservative republican also be christian ?

christ commands his followers to LOVE the poor and serve them

lol


And the state the OBVIOUS.

Hiding behind government creating totalitarian programs that 'give' a pittance to the so called needy.

Is about as ANTI christ as it gets.

Jesus didn't outsource the 'well being' of his fellow man to the state.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:09 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The separate of church and state boils down to "no religious test for holding a government, elected or not, position".

One's religious beliefs will inform one's political values on an individual basis - the separate of the two 'authorities' guard against insisting on a certain 'creed' in secular matters. It allows for minority opinion and personal integetrity.

In countries that require a certain 'membership' either religious or political, to hold office any dissent is crushed and people are forced to hide their true thoughts and feelings for fear of reprisals.

For a society, and I would argue either spiritual or political, to thrive, dissent is a requirement for growth. Societies that require compliance with a particular dogma ('One true God' or 'Free Market Capitalism') or orthodoxy tend to decay and collapse.

Two examples: China which has survived as a comphrensive society for a couple of millennia is in a near constant state of turmoil and growth. The Jewish religious, within their own religious community, has made a science of conflict and flexibility a hallmark of their very survival. But the state of Israel is an example of a decaying state mired in religious nationalism. I have no doubt the Jewish Religion will survive but not so much the Jewish State.

Two levels of influence - one personal and one corporate (to use the meaning of the word as a body of persons).

And in a secular society the collective or corporate will be composed of individuals with differing personal values which have been informed by their personal experience of religious or spiritual (and I believe them to be different cats) principles.

It's another "The cat is alive and the cat is dead" situation. You cannot conflate the personal realm with the collective realm - they do interpenetrate but are quite separate.

Another example - or question rather:

Is Donald Trump the cause of the current outbreak of fear, anger and thoughtless aggression or is he the group manifestation of a latent tendency in many US citizen's hearts?

I believe the group has manifested it's fear in the Trump just as our national war-mongering isn't caused by polititicans so much as by the same aggressive (and useless) manifestation of fear.

Don't know if I made any sense, haven't written this out much before so it's not terribly coherent; but I hope you can garner the basic intent.

My opinion - we need more people with loving compassion and open and honest hearts and minds in US society - then maybe we can have a 'just' society.

Excellent question.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:10 PM
link   
a reply to: syrinx high priest

For the better part of a decade I lived in Oklahoma... doesn't get much more religious or conservative in the USA.

And I saw time and again, churches being the first on the scene after a natural disaster with food, clothes, medicine, and shelter, never asking for anything there to help those that need it; Long before Fema pulled its head out of their butts... I have seen food banks all up and down the middle of the country there to help the poor feed their families, please don't confuse lip service conservatives with actual conservatives.

Just because I want a smaller govt doesn't mean I am not willing to help my fellow man that is down on their luck.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:13 PM
link   
The difference between liberal and conservative regarding religion.

A conservative believes in teaching a man how to fish so they can feed themelves for the rest of their lives.

A liberal believes in robbing from the so called greedy, and giving to the so called needy by the end of a gun. Once they blow it by creating one government program that serves no one but the politicians that create it. Rinse and repeat.

Demagoguing religion, EVERY other religion save one. Islam cuz they can NOT be 'offended'.

Anyone else ?

Fair game.
edit on 19-5-2016 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:14 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

I also want to add that the idea of separation of church and state is so that we never (hopefully) become a non-secular nation, or a theocracy.

Without the separation of church and state we could very easily become a nation like those Islamic countries who's government and religion are essentially one and he same: religion shapes policy, law, etc and *is* the government.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:18 PM
link   
I would offer that someone in government, at any level of government, shouldn't do what they think is best, but what is best for their nation/State/city.

No position in this country enables any member of any government to be empowered to make or to enforce law ON THEIR OWN WHIMS.

Country Sheriffs probably come closest to that kind of power, and that is only within their jurisdiction.

The President of the United States has some degree of that power (for example, as Commander in Chief) but also has very severe limits on power.

What informs a politician's ability to govern is not only their own personal beliefs, but the beliefs of those they serve. (And that means EVERYONE they serve, not the folks who go to the same church.)

That's why it used to be called "public service."
edit on 19-5-2016 by Gryphon66 because: Noted



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:24 PM
link   
a reply to: NthOther

Frankly,

Christ talks about the separation of church and state when he admonishes his followers to:

"Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's. And they marvelled at him."

in Matthew 22.21 and Mark 12:17

He was speaking specifically about taxes but the principle holds for all secular matters.

If you are part of a community (by choice or birth) the spiritual principle is that you abide by the laws of that community. If you are Religious you abide by the laws of your faith and you abide by the laws of your secular community as well. There is no conflict there - in theory and principle - the only conflicts are man-made.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:25 PM
link   
The 1st amendment doesn't restrict individuals at all. It only restricts government from establishing a state religion or showing preferential treatment to one religion over the other.

The separation of church and state, a concept born out of correspondence and NOT the constitution itself, was created to prevent government from using religion as a weapon as so many nations had before. The Church of England is an excellent example.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: neo96
The difference between liberal and conservative regarding religion.

A conservative believes in teaching a man how to fish so they can feed themelves for the rest of their lives.

A liberal believes in robbing from the so called greedy, and giving to the so called needy by the end of a gun. Once they blow it by creating one government program that serves no one but the politicians that create it. Rinse and repeat.

Demagoguing religion, EVERY other religion save one. Islam cuz they can NOT be 'offended'.

Anyone else ?

Fair game.


You talk about politics as if it were a religion. You have firmly set up a dichotomy of good and evil. Us and them. All nice and neat, and balancing to zero.

But reality isn't zero sum. Reality is tht maybe 15% of the nation is conservative, aother 15% is liberal. The other 70% thinks the 2 extremes are insane, and are ruining our nation.

Seriously. "Conservative this" and "liberal that"......booooorrrrrrriiiiiiinnnnnnng.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:28 PM
link   
a reply to: onequestion

The point is that the government isn't supposed to establish any church, or prohibit one from practicing. That in no way states that those involved in politics cannot, or even should not, allow their beliefs to affect their actions. When we select people for office, such things can and should be considered, but they should not be prohibited. The Constitution was never meant to be against religious beliefs by politicians.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:29 PM
link   
The First Amendment certainly does restrict the actions of individuals who hold offices of government, when they act in that capacity.

Separation of Church and State as codified in the First Amendment was described as such by Thomas Jefferson and James Madison and even John Adams.

It was and is a well-established cornerstone of American government and law as demonstrated in multiple Supreme Court decisions.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:32 PM
link   
For those who apparently haven't read the First Amendment in a while (yes, there is one before the Second) here it is:



Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.


You will note that "church" is not mentioned. Government is prohibited from establishing ANY aspect of ANY religion as law.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:32 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?


Alcoholics Anonymous has a wonderful answer to this question in the Second Tradition:

"For our group purpose there is but one ultimate authority - a loving God as he may express himself in our group conscience."

The group conscience is for all intents and purposes God's Will at this point in time and space.

How else to you determine 'God's Will' and that's assuming that any singular God exists that has a particular will for us as individuals or groups. I'm certainly not going to believe what some person or church or other organization tells me is god's will. But I will trust in the collective conscious to do the right thing overall even, maybe especially, when I don't agree with the groups decision.


edit on 19-5-2016 by FyreByrd because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:35 PM
link   
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan




You talk about politics as if it were a religion.


Cause it is.

Deification of the state.

COMPLETE with legislating MORALITY.

COMPLETE with preachers called politicians trying to proselytize the masses in the everlasting life, and faith of the all powerful, almighty 'benevolent' lord and savior called the STATE.

COMPLETE with the collective plate by FORCE called taxes.

COMPLETE with righteous WARS. Ya know like the war on drugs,the war on the rich, the war on poverty. The war on terror. The war on Wall Street.

Politics is a dichotmy.

One side is 'good' the other is 'bad'.

ISSUES are created to get the masses fight between themselves. That I liken to weapons of mass destruction.

We have identity politics.

Black,white,rich,poor, christian, muslim, and the list goes on.

For a group of people that love to shout 'separation of church' and state.

Americans are the most religious folks around. They just don't see it.



posted on May, 19 2016 @ 05:44 PM
link   

originally posted by: onequestion
a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

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


It means the same thing as the separation of state and religion, they were just as cunning feckers in those days too.

edit on 19-5-2016 by smurfy because: Text.



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1    3  4 >>

log in

join