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

a reply to: neo96

well stated.

a reply to: neo96

I finally get to agree with about 90% of one of your posts, Neo!

I'm excited.

One quibble though: which "side" of politics is good and which is bad again?

a reply to: Gryphon66

As per the topic.

Those that think religion is a dirty word.

The first amendment was created so that NO single religion would dominate.

It doesn't mean 'freedom' from religion.

It means people could be religious if they want to.

They didn't have to be if they wanted to.

And no one has the 'right' to go around telling how to be 'better' insert religion here.

originally posted by: neo96
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.

They do say politics is the art of the possible, when the choice is limited, so is the possible.

a reply to: neo96

Ah well, it was fun while it lasted.

So, to be clear the Bad Side of Politics is anyone who thinks that religion is a dirty word? People don't have the right to think and believe as they wish? They must agree (at least, to be on the Good Side) that religion is great?

That seems untenable at best.

Your interpretation of the First Amendment is understandable, but case law in the US clearly shows that you're in error.

In fact, Americans are guaranteed freedom of (their own) and from (other people's) religion.

It means the same thing. It can't mean anything else and have practical application.

I also disagree with your last statement; people have the right to say anything they wish as long as it isn't defamatory or inciting to violence ... that First Amendment thing again.

a reply to: smurfy

They do say politics is the art of the possible, when the choice is limited, so is the possible.

And I say politics is the most dangerous, and destructive thing man has ever created.

And since it's inception has ever been used wisely or sparingly.

a reply to: Gryphon66

Your interpretation of the First Amendment is understandable, but case law in the US clearly shows that you're in error.

Nope.

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Try again there eh.

a reply to: Gryphon66

it breaks down like this:

The Establishment Clause prevents the formation of a state religion, or the support of a religion by the state

The Free Exercise Clause allows the populace the freedom to express their religion without the undue burden of another party (be it government or anyone else).

The SCOTUS has recognized limitations to the notion, but the concept of "wall of separation" was more an opinion mentioned by Jefferson, and referenced in a couple of SCOTUS rulings. The Constitution is actually would support someone being guided by faith while executing the duties of office, per the Free Exercise Clause, so long as they did not violate the Establishment Clause.

The idiotic, childish, outdated and frankly insane notion that we have to follow any religion is a huge problem for the rest of us.

We should not be subject to your stupidity in the governance of our lives. plain and simple. NONE of your religions belong anywhere near our establishment. Any views you have associated with aforementioned religions should be put aside for the voting process.

If you cannot put your childish superstitions on hold for one little minute you should not be ALLOWED A VOTE.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: Gryphon66

Your interpretation of the First Amendment is understandable, but case law in the US clearly shows that you're in error.

Nope.

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.

www.law.cornell.edu...

Try again there eh.

What, you quote the First and say I'm wrong? LOL

I quoted the Amendment too.

Got anything else?

originally posted by: bigfatfurrytexan
a reply to: Gryphon66

it breaks down like this:

The Establishment Clause prevents the formation of a state religion, or the support of a religion by the state

The Free Exercise Clause allows the populace the freedom to express their religion without the undue burden of another party (be it government or anyone else).

The SCOTUS has recognized limitations to the notion, but the concept of "wall of separation" was more an opinion mentioned by Jefferson, and referenced in a couple of SCOTUS rulings. The Constitution is actually would support someone being guided by faith while executing the duties of office, per the Free Exercise Clause, so long as they did not violate the Establishment Clause.

You sound as if you're trying to tell me something I don't know. I don't disagree with anything you're saying though.

However, it was pointedly NOT just Jefferson that stated the "separation of church and state" was the essence of what the religious freedom clause of the First enshrines.

James Madison (aka the "Father of the Constitution") stated the same thing numerous times.

I stated very clearly earlier that of course, one's beliefs and understandings inform their decisions as public servants ... but I will reiterate, when acting in the role of a representative of government (or in any way with the authority of their office), they are constrained by the First from any action (or proclamation, enactment, codicil, what have you) that would serve to ESTABLISH a religious practice or belief as law or policy.

a reply to: Gryphon66

What, you quote the First and say I'm wrong? LOL

Yep cause the 9th and 14th say the damn same thing.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

There is NO way around that as of 'from'.

The correct word is OF.

One more time for the reading impaired.

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.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
www.law.cornell.edu...

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

www.law.cornell.edu...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the state wherein they reside. No state shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

www.law.cornell.edu...

They ALL mean the same thing.

People have the choice. That choice can NOT be taken away.

As the word FREEDOM is defined.

As the word LIBERTY is defined.

originally posted by: neo96
a reply to: smurfy

They do say politics is the art of the possible, when the choice is limited, so is the possible.

And I say politics is the most dangerous, and destructive thing man has ever created.

And since it's inception has ever been used wisely or sparingly.

Who's arguing?

a reply to: onequestion

2 things.

1. Have you heard of the word "secular"?

2. Believe it or not, but most "religious" people don't follow all of their preferred religion's teachings. Plus there are numerous differing interpretations for each religion's teachings, which makes things even trickier. As in, even non-religious laws can be religiously acceptable depending on what scriptures or interpretations are used to justify them.

originally posted by: NthOther
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.

Why assume Muslims that like a strong central government "elevate it to god-like status"? That's a ridiculous assumption.

edit to add: For the record, I prefer a strong central government and effective central planning in many instances. But there's no way I'd elevate a bunch of politicians and bureaucrats to a divine level. In fact, I believe in safeguards, checks, and balances specifically to keep the central government from becoming too powerful.

a reply to: onequestion

It is often that masses of people and the intellectuals alike shift their herd beliefs to politics and party, not unlike the religious do with scripture and congregation. A theory of governance becomes a religion when they instil a morality or teleological principle into it, an attempt to shift the world to some model of it. They always seem to end up in censorship of the worst form, burning books or executing dissidents to achieve their goals. Sounds familiar to me. Religion and politics can at times be indistinguishable.

a reply to: bigfatfurrytexan

Considering that for any person of religious conviction your value system that guides your decision making process and your morality which also shapes your decisions is going to be formed in no small part by that faith ... it would be pretty impossible to entirely divorce your religious convictions.

Since part of the foundational principles of my morality are based in the 10 Commandments what would I do to try to separate them from my decision making process as an elected official? Decide that I would prove it by endorsing murder and theft?

it's easy - you compartmentalize, like Joe Biden!

originally posted by: visitedbythem
Mr Obama is a christian too. he said so a reply to: olaru12

Do you believe him?

Or is he the Antichrist like some here on ATS think?

www.abovetopsecret.com...