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.

 

Your Opinion: Separation of Church and State

page: 3
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:08 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp I didn't realize churches needed a replacement philosophy. I'd just put in a 7-eleven.




posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:23 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

No, jizya is a head or poll tax levied on non-Muslims for tribute or as exemption for military service. It can take different forms, but the base is the same -- it's for not being Muslim and for no other reason.

en.wikiquote.org...


If they refuse to accept Islam, demand from them the Jizya. If they agree to pay, accept it from them and hold off your hands. If they refuse to pay the tax, seek Allah's help and fight them. When you lay siege to a fort and the besieged appeal to you for protection in the name of Allah and His Prophet, do not accord to them the guarantee of Allah and His Prophet, but accord to them your own guarantee and the guarantee of your companions for it is a lesser sin that the security given by you or your companions be disregarded than that the security granted in the name of Allah and His Prophet be violated When you besiege a fort and the besieged want you to let them out in accordance with Allah's Command, do not let them come out in accordance with His Command, but do so at your (own) command, for you do not know whether or not you will be able to carry out Allah's behest with regard to them.


Sahih Muslim, Book 019, Number 4294
edit on 17-8-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:40 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

Just like Christian or Jewish denominations they all have different rules.

Iran for example has lots of Christians, they just need to pay a base tax.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:43 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

Well, I suppose that makes it OK then. Imagine having to pay a tax for being black; you know to remind you that you aren't Asian or something which is what the jizya is -- a tax paid to remind the infidels they aren't Muslim.

The jizya is a prime example of why there is now official state religion the Federal government backs. It would then be prime to start charging you for not being whatever that religion is ... maybe Mormon or Lutheran or these days, it wants to tax you for being Christian. Isn't that the aim of taxing churches?
edit on 17-8-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:45 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

This is a fundamentally American value that I think about and appreciate every day. It is MUCH better to have a policy based on logic and reason and facts rather than prophecy and story-telling. With religion, a government can pretty much justify doing anything it wants to do by cherry-picking scripture or even receiving new "prophecies." Definitely not something that promotes a healthy society.

How could an opponent with reasonable criticism of the policies even engage in constructive arguments with a government ruling based on religion? They wouldn't respond to reason. Look at the countries that are run by Muslims.
edit on 17pmSat, 17 Aug 2019 19:47:37 -0500kbpmkAmerica/Chicago by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:46 PM
link   
a reply to: darkbake

I agree. The Green New Deal is a very flawed policy proposal.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: rickymouse
We have freedom of religion here in America, leave it at that. That is good. Those who do not want some irate religions taking over are protected, the cops cannot arrest them for not going to church.

I do not believe we need to change our pledge of allegiance or start removing religious style statues and writings from our government building or remove in god we trust from the money, but I like having the freedom not to have our government forcing one religion on the people like in the Muslim countries.


Even though both the items you cite (Pledge and In God...) were new additions to American life (anti-communist)?

What ?
New additions ?
What do you consider new ?



June 14,1954 for the addition of “one ntion under god” to the Pledge and July 30 1956 is when “in god we trust” was added to US currency. So only 60 years. Not that long and not part of the original version of either document.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 07:53 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not defending it. I'm simply bringing forth the facts that Muslim nations dont jail or kill off Christians just because they are Christian.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 08:13 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: FyreByrd

originally posted by: rickymouse
We have freedom of religion here in America, leave it at that. That is good. Those who do not want some irate religions taking over are protected, the cops cannot arrest them for not going to church.

I do not believe we need to change our pledge of allegiance or start removing religious style statues and writings from our government building or remove in god we trust from the money, but I like having the freedom not to have our government forcing one religion on the people like in the Muslim countries.


Even though both the items you cite (Pledge and In God...) were new additions to American life (anti-communist)?

What ?
New additions ?
What do you consider new ?



June 14,1954 for the addition of “one ntion under god” to the Pledge and July 30 1956 is when “in god we trust” was added to US currency. So only 60 years. Not that long and not part of the original version of either document.

And , how old is the US ?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 08:20 PM
link   

originally posted by: Boadicea
a reply to: FyreByrd


I don't quite follow. I agree the State cannot dictate any 'religious standards' but does that not also include that Churches (loosely defined) cannot dictate any standard on the State.



Well, I don't follow either. Religious institutions do not have the power to dictate anything to the State. They cannot implement regulations. They cannot pass laws. They cannot enforce, charge, prosecute or incarcerate anyone for anything -- including government.



And yet religious groups do influence these things and not by individual conscious as expresses by individual voters but by secret and semi secret organizations funded by People with religious agendas.




In practise, the State should not make religious Statements (i.e. 10 commandments in government buildings and offices)...




Why not? What is the objection exactly? Because it promotes one religion over another? Because the 10 Commandments are in violation of our codified law?



Because it implies ( or screams) preference to a specific religious tradition.



...nor should Churches preach (openly or not) political ideologies.



Again, why not? What part of "free exercise thereof" precludes political opinions and participation? Why are religious philosophies or ideologies any different than any other philosophy or ideology that informs our opinions and participation?


And therein lies the question. While I believe it to be prudent that individuals express their religious convictions when the vote, I do not believe it is Just or Fair, for Churches (which are not individual citizens) should push their agenda into governing decisions. These are organizations that are by and for a very small portion of their co-religionists.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 08:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not defending it. I'm simply bringing forth the facts that Muslim nations dont jail or kill off Christians just because they are Christian.


Ummm, I can't believe you just typed that.

Absolutely no one is imprisoned, targeted, put to death or anything for being something other than Muslim. Her case is not the only one. We could talk about the Zoroastrians, but there aren't any left because they've been targeted that effectively. The Yazidis are almost extinct for the same reasons. The Hindus could tell you all about how awesome Muslim rule was.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 08:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lucky109
Churches should be burned. We don't need any more stone age philosophy.


They burned things they didn’t like too in the Stone Age.
Your Modern philosophical thoughts rely on Stone Age philosophical ideas.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 08:58 PM
link   
a reply to: ketsuko

As much of a fiasco that situation was, you cant account for one persons injustice for the whole. We all know what Islamic nations ate like, but at the same time you cant paint the whole picture with one color.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 09:22 PM
link   
a reply to: FyreByrd

I'm not a big fan of Bill Cooper but man he pegged this issue perfectly:



The moment one sect of any type of religion becomes state sponsored the state puts the opposition party in prison. No democracy can function without having a minority opinion. Dictatorships simply do not last very long.


edit on 17-8-2019 by dfnj2015 because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Gothmog


243 years. So adding ‘In god we trust’ et al is a very new thing and was done under McCarthyism to show the world we weren’t communist heathens. The references to the Christian god in the national anthem and on currency is a fairly new phenomena and promotes a specific religious view counter to the first amendment. Is any of what I said false?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 09:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Gothmog


243 years. So adding ‘In god we trust’ et al is a very new thing and was done under McCarthyism to show the world we weren’t communist heathens. The references to the Christian god in the national anthem and on currency is a fairly new phenomena and promotes a specific religious view counter to the first amendment. Is any of what I said false?



Jesus Christ is the key component to Christianity. There is no reference to Jesus in those two examples you gave. There is nothing that distinguishes it as the Christian God. In God we trust is a general more of a Freemasons view of God. The pyramid on the back of the dollar is far from Christian.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 10:22 PM
link   
a reply to: strongfp

British teacher jailed for allowing class to name teddy bear Mohammad.

She let 6-year-old chldren name the bear. It was blasphemy according to the Sudanese, and when she was pardoned, and angry, machete wielding mob formed demanding her death.



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: Observationalist


Today, there are 240 million Christians in America. Or roughly 75% of the population. This percentage was even higher in the 50’s. So with such a disproportionate number of Christians in the US, exactly which god do you think they were trusting in during the McCarthy Commumism Scare era that Eisenhower signed into law? And the pyramid wasn’t in question, it was the addition of these phrases only 60 years ago, phrases that weren’t part of the original documents in question. So if today, 75% of Americans identify as Christian and closer to 85% in the 50’s, what god exactly do you think they’re referring to?




posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 10:37 PM
link   

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Gothmog


243 years. So adding ‘In god we trust’ et al is a very new thing and was done under McCarthyism to show the world we weren’t communist heathens. The references to the Christian god in the national anthem and on currency is a fairly new phenomena and promotes a specific religious view counter to the first amendment. Is any of what I said false?


How do you feel about NASA using mythology gods to name their projects, Hellenic polytheists worshipping their gods or just cleaver names to show the world that we are still heathens.?



posted on Aug, 17 2019 @ 10:43 PM
link   
a reply to: peter vlar

So merely reading a term associated with a deity in some way can now endanger your fragile state of unbelief so much that it may convert you?!

I find the fragility of your lack of faith ... disturbing.

Let us hope you protest over the teaching of mythology in schools.
edit on 17-8-2019 by ketsuko because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
8
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join