The Absolute Power of Christianity!

Originally posted by Legalizer
The constitution of this country states that the government will make no law, and take no action that favor's one faith over another. Therefore having religious display's in court houses, or public property is a violation of the foundation of this nation.

First, action is not limitted by the first amendment.

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.

Given what the constitution says, your conclusion is not logical based on the information you provided. Before you can say that a religious display is disallowed by the first amendment, you must first have a law.

If the law said, "Displays of the 10 commandments on public property are permitted", I agree it's unconstitutional.

If the law in question says, "Displays on public property are permitted. Displays shall be approved by the city council.", what portion of this law is unconstitutional? Does the fact that the city council is an elected body make their approval or disapproval a law?

If the law read "Displays on public property are permitted. Displays shall be approved or disapproved by the voters of the region via general ballot.", is this too unconstitutional because the people could allow a religious display? Is it unconstitutional to allow the people to decide what is or what is not an acceptable display?

I hope you see what I am saying.



[edit on 3-5-2005 by Raphael_UO]

Originally posted by kenshiro2012
Skadi_the_Evil_Elf,
I kind of agree with you but also disagree and here is why.
For the past few decades, another religion has governed our lives. One that denies all other religions, one that denies all of our rights and freedoms. One that condemns anyone that has a belief system that is not thiers.
This religion is fully backed by the US goverment, fully back by the US court system etc.
Do you know what this religion is?..... the religion of Atheism.

I do not want anyone's religion shoved down my throat weather it be Catholism or Hinduism. In the US today, a person that is a practising catholic (or any other religion) is a second class citizen. They are not afford the same rights as an atheist.

Our country was born on the belief of religious freedom. Our laws are biblically based, our monetary system is full of religious references. Even our national anthem and Pledge of Allegiance are religious.

For decades now, the aethiest has had their way in how our country handles religion. So far, there can be any number of various clubs in our schools, but if there is even a hint of catholism, it is banned. Prayers before a game in school is banned, moments of silence is banned in school. and on and on and on.

I could easily post hundreds of ways that aethism has over run our lives and changed how we think / act as a people and as a society. Our moral values have become extinct. Our tolerance of others have become anemic.

One of the most telling blows to how aethiesm has harmed our society, look at the crime statistics nation-wide both before and then after Madalyn Murray O' Hair and Jon Garth Murray won thier court battles back in 1963. You will find that since prayer / moment of silence were banned, the crime rates have taken a much higher rate of increase that is not explained by population growth etc.

The re-introduction of religion of whatever flavour you believe in back into our society I welcome hwoleheartedly and pray that it will continue to grow and hopefully reverse the effect that aethiesm has caused our country.
Aethism is a religion, it is the belief that there is no God (by whatever name). That in of itself is a religion.

The laws of this country are not biblically based. I don't know where that came from. The laws of this country were based upon the first fledging democratic and represenitive Republican ideals of Rome and Greece. If our laws were based on the bible, we would be stoning homosexuals, adulterers, and disobedient children to death. The bible is not based on the equality of humanity either, with women being "unclean" and expected to "submit to their husbands". This is a democracy, with represntation like the Roman republic. When thos country was formed, it was formed during a revival of clasical Greek and Roman thought. These ideals were influencing much of the west at the time and causing changes in the religously dominated governments.

I believe in freedom of religon. I also believe in freedom FROM religon. The tgovornment is a mixed creature. Some are attacking religon. Others are trying to force it down our throats. It depends on who is in power. But athiesm is forced upon people by one faction, and Christianity is being forced by another. For everytime I see Christian rights to practice their religon assaulted, along with their beliefs, I see another person from a different side trying to push Christianity on the people. So its a two way street.

We don't need more religon, thats the last thing we need. We need seperation of church and state. We need the government to stop banning Christmas music or nativity scenes in public. We also must prevent religous zealots in the government from banning any literature that defies or goes against Christian belief.

Banning prayer had nothing to do with crime rising. Crime rose because of the rise in liberal pseudo-scientific psychology which removes all responsibility from a person and allows them to place the blame or guilt anywhere they choose, from parents to teachers, take your pick. Banning prayer from school was an act of protection from religos beliefs not shared by all. After all, why should athiest kids be made to pray? Both their rights not to have to partake in any religous activity has been violated. If some kid wants to pray before school, let them do it before class or on their own time. School is a place of learning, not a place of worship or religous indictrination.

I feel Christians like to complain and play the victim anytime they arent allowed to rub their religon in peoples faces. Our govornment has far from pushed athiesm on people and stifled religous expression. You want to see an example of REAL religous supression? Go to Europe. In France, people aren't even allowed to wear religous symbols or clothing on their own purpose, and over there, they have gone overboard a bit in seperation of church and state. We have gone no where near that level. In this country, you can still wear yarmukles, crosses, headscarves, red dots on the forehead, whatever you like. At the office, one can still display Christmas cards with a religous scene on them, in some countries in Europe, such cards are not allowed in the workplace because they might offend someone.

So, I disagree athiesm is being forced on anyone, or that our govornment tries to spread it. Quite the opposite, we fight court battles so that govornment figures, like in Alabama, cant impose their religous beliefs in a public place of secular business, the courthouse.

We have some areas where some people go overboard and try to ban Christmas songs, pageants, ect, which I am opposed to. If people want to celebrate the religous meaning of Christmas, so be it, provided they do not try and push non believers to treat it the same way. I don't even celebrate Christmas, I celebrate the Winter Solstice, so others observing Christmas is really something I do not care about, so long as they dont try and push their "jesus is the Reason for the Season" crap on me.

And now that we have the religous right in power, we are once again battling the forces of evil that would turn this country into a theocracy, including trying to legislate their morality on people who do not share it. That is something that those of us who have no want or use for Christian values or morals must constantly fight, lest we get pushed aside by the so called moral majority, marginalized, and have our own rights trampled upon.

Originally posted by junglejake

Originally posted by Legalizer
Where was Christianity's absolute power on 9/11?
Where is Christianity's absolute power with any plague or epidemic?
Where is Christianity's absolute power over global warming?

If this empty religion has absolute power why does it not prevent 27,000 homicides and 56,000 suicides every single year?

Why can't it prevent its followers from being complete idiots?

The constitution of this country states that the government will make no law, and take no action that favor's one faith over another. Therefore having religious display's in court houses, or public property is a violation of the foundation of this nation.

If you don't like our Constitution, get the hell out of our country.

Isn't it nice to have the "Love it or leave it" rhetoric thrown right back in your faces?

So then, if our history was impacted by a religion in any way, we have to pretend that didn't happen? The US was founded as a Christian country. The seporation of church and state issue came up when the Baptist church asked Thomas Jefferson to make them the national church. That's where the issue was. The government couldn't take on a national church, and could do nothing to restrict people's practice of faith. There's nothing in there about denial of history. There's nothing in there that states nothing of religious bearing is permitted in a publicly owned arena.

As for it being unable to prevent its followers from being complete idiots, is this because they believe something you believe to be false? The whole power aspect was not related to 9-11 or any other event. The power aspect is that if I, apparently, share my faith with anyone, I'm forcing them to believe as I do. No other belief in the US, from political to scientific has that kind of power, so much so that laws have to be created to prevent people from forcing their beliefs on others.

Rock, rock on!

On this, my friend, I would have to disagree. Yourself pointed out about the Baptist church.

Our forefathers were Christian. However, they were not so far removed from their earlier relatives that escaped England and wherever for the state forcing their religion upon them. They did not want this to happen in their new country.

Christian forefathers, yea. Stuffing of said, nay.

Your post about the Romans and Greeks is correct. It does not however take it far enough. You stopped short..I am sure for the purposes of the standard issue public education "Mantra".

"The laws of this country are not biblically based. I don't know where that came from. The laws of this country were based upon the first fledging democratic and represenitive Republican ideals of Rome and Greece. "

I disagree with your entire above quote...Elf.

The laws of this country are entirely biblically based...and thier is ample basis to state so.
While it is true what you claim about the Romans and Greeks...it is also true that the Founders here were also well versed in the historys of these nations..meaning their shortcomings. The founders knew what it meant to be the "Divine Emperor" and did not agree with this system. They also knew the limitations of a "democracy".
These men furthermore knew that when a leader achieves absolute God like power and authority over a nation..there is no historical limit to how far the leader or his priesthood would go to fleece the nation.
This system of "Divine Emperors" or more aptly "Divine right of Kings" as it was later to be called meant that the authority of the king was vested in the fact that his crown has Gods divine blessing through the priesthood and Church. To raise ones hand against the king was to raise ones hand against God. Revolution was not possible under this system as long as the people believed this was the status quo. This was the status quo of the situation in Europe and England up until the 1600s.
This basic system of power went all the way back to the Egyptians in Divine Right Power or absolute power.

When the English King James the First ...caused to be comissioned a King James Bible...for the first time the English people began to realize that their King was in Heaven...not on the throne of England..and he put his pants on one leg at a time. The King of England was a administrator of just English laws. Not Divine Right.
Along comes Charles the First...who wanted to return the power to the throne which was weakened by a Queen who was basically a party girl in the use of her power, Elizabeth the First. Charles the First wants to pass new taxes to pay for a war on the continent but is limited by the Magna Carta which says that only the Parliment can pass a tax. Charlie raises his own taxes after dismissing Parlament several times. The stage is set for civil war.
By the time two Civil wars are over..the king is tried and his head cut off on the chopping block. This represents the first time in the western world that a common people had ever executed thier king. Kings had been killed by other royalty but never the common people.
This revolution steming from a civil war..had a religious denotation...a religious justification...
The founders knew this history and the examples of abuses even going back to ancient Rome , Greece, and even Egypt. They were not ignorant.
So when King George wanted to raise taxes on the colonies to do the same thing ...fight a war on the continent...there was a precident established by the English Civil War. These people had authority and history to turn on thier king. The founders knew that this authority was religious in origin.
It is very obvious when you know of the history of Divine Right Kings and then knowing this you read the Constitution of the United States...that they did not believe the King of England was Divine Right.
No revolutions of t his type were possible in Catholic countrys until after the English Civil war and the American Revolution. The first one noticable is the French revolution. Then later in the 1850s you see Francisco Garibaldi carrying out revolution in the Roman Catholic areas. He did not believe in the infallability of Rome or its appointed kings. The parade of all the continental lodges through Rome in the 1870s is very telling to those who know this history.
This history just like the history of the English Civil War is a very covered up affair not known much by most peoples next to the importance of it to us today.
Understanding the doctrine of "Divine Right of Kings " and how it worked is very important. The Founders were very well aware of this history and why it necessiated the writing of a document as we have today.
The isolation of the Kings from Divine Right power and authority is today what we know as "seperation of church and state".
So that you are misled in your education ...the reference to the doctrine of Divine right kings is omitted from most history books. Only a keen mind or one tutored by people who know will clue the student in to the history that our founders well knew.

Seperation of church and state was a limit on the Government ...and historical governmental abuses..when merged with the power of the church. It was never intended to be a limit on the public to freely express thier religious beliefs as practiced today. All limits were to be on the government just as is the case of the first ten amendments...all of them stating ..."Government shall not ...the government shall not or have no power to....
Today because of Intellectuals in government ...and modern thinking the power in this arena has been defaulted to the Government and away from the people. Furthermore this is reinforced in public schools by the same politicians practicing this perversion of Seperation of Church and state by such con jobs as the "exclusionary clause" to further seperate it from the intentions of the Founders..and hope no one knows the history anymore.
Understanding the history of Divine right Kings is key to understanding the reason for seperation of church and state. It is also the key to understanding the perversion of this doctrine by the state to where you have the situation you have today.


Thanks,
Orangetom

Political power in the hands of religion has ALWAYS led to tyranny. Political power in the hands of religion will always lead to tyranny.

Look no further then the middle east of present day. Where religion weilds power the populace suffers under strict and unfair rules made up by those who believe they get their authority straight from god.

It is this exact same tyranny that the christians hope to impose upon America. Religious rule over the people so they can force their sick beliefs on ALL people and destroy those that refuse to obey.

What the christians are grabbing for has not one thing to do with god, it's about power. In the name of their god they reach for the power of Baal, not to make the world a better place, but to rule over the people as they believe the people should be ruled over.

The last time christians were in charge was known as the dark ages. It was called that for a reason. If the christians get their way the dark ages will return and the freedom so many have fought and died for will be gone.

It's sad really.

Love and light,

Wupy (spiritual anarchist)

Originally posted by mrwupy
Political power in the hands of religion has ALWAYS led to tyranny. Political power in the hands of religion will always lead to tyranny.

I will completly agree with you on this...

Look no further then the middle east of present day. Where religion weilds power the populace suffers under strict and unfair rules made up by those who believe they get their authority straight from god.

It is this exact same tyranny that the christians hope to impose upon America. Religious rule over the people so they can force their sick beliefs on ALL people and destroy those that refuse to obey.

What the christians are grabbing for has not one thing to do with god, it's about power. In the name of their god they reach for the power of Baal, not to make the world a better place, but to rule over the people as they believe the people should be ruled over.

The last time christians were in charge was known as the dark ages. It was called that for a reason. If the christians get their way the dark ages will return and the freedom so many have fought and died for will be gone.

this i completly disagree with you on, while some churches do become way to involved with politics, in no way is christianity trying to obtain power or rule over america. Sick views? what is sick about christianity?
that we dont approve of homosexuals? this is true we dont because it is written in the bible that it is an utter abomination unto the Lord. While it is 'politically correct' to accept homosexuals I find this sickening. While i would not persecute anyone for being gay, i completly disagree with it. One thing that annoys me is that in america if you were a muslim you are generally accepted even though they preach hatred of anyone non-muslim.
If your a christian you are hated. Why? I dont know why, in the bible it tells us that near the end times christians will be hated of all nations. We christians just better stick together.

mrwupy

Originally posted by XphilesPhan
this i completly disagree with you on, while some churches do become way to involved with politics, in no way is christianity trying to obtain power or rule over america.

I think the intention isn't necessarily there, but the results are obvious. Whether or not they try to, they have accomplished this to a certain degree.

Sick views? what is sick about christianity?
that we dont approve of homosexuals? this is true we dont because it is written in the bible that it is an utter abomination unto the Lord. While it is 'politically correct' to accept homosexuals I find this sickening. While i would not persecute anyone for being gay, i completly disagree with it.

The Bible, A book written by humans that believed God spoke directly to them. And one of the most genocidal books on earth.

One thing that annoys me is that in america if you were a muslim you are generally accepted even though they preach hatred of anyone non-muslim.
If your a christian you are hated. Why? I dont know why, in the bible it tells us that near the end times christians will be hated of all nations. We christians just better stick together.

One thing I noticed growing up Catholic, was that 60-70 percent of the theory that we were taught, was accompanied by an emphasis on spreading the religion.

Would you be suspicious of a social/secular club whose top priority was to merely gain more members?

Jesus took people out of the churches, he walked with people in the hills, chilled with the animals etc. And what do we do? We build big effin buildings and slap a huge statue of him in the middle and we proclaim that this was what he wants. That is almost as absurd as the concept that god actually has a will.

if god had emotion like us, one of the most disappointing things, for him, that humans did, would be the fact that we created religion.

For one...I don't understand why you have the "power" caped in the title for seconds....no one has any right to tell anyone else how to live their lives...which a lot of christians have a hard time. Many christian think that because they believe every word of the bible, it makes it absolute truth and it doesn't.....many christians want to use the bible to hate homosexuals, or anyone they feel are sinning...yet these same people sin themselves….they pick out which parts of the bible to follow and then if it's one that pertains to something they do...they skip it. Lavidicus also tell you to to put to death children that curse there parents...anyone that touches a woman or a bed a woman who is having their monthly cycle....

about hypocrisy before LadyV ( as if Christians are the only people guilty of it ), and so did Jesus. So I guess you and he are right in that there are many who claim to do God's will, yet not all do. Still, you tell me of your family, but not an entire church body, as one should know well before passing such judgement. Is it your intention to point out hypocrisy whenever there is a thread on Christianity? You present no questions about Leviticus, only statements based on the laws on the tribes of Israel. Stuff happens after Leviticus. Perhaps reading the progression before and afterwards will help give a broader perspective as to what's really going on. Beyond reading, there's understanding, which is also a big help.



[edit on 23-5-2005 by saint4God]

Originally posted by junglejake

We've all heard it on here and in our day to day lives. Christianity, by being in the public square, is forcing its views on people. I find the use of the word "force" very interesting.

Why? It doesn't take anything more than a dictionary to see why the word force shouldn't be "interesting" in the least.

Main Entry: [2]force
Function: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): forced; forc·ing
Date: 14th century
1 : to do violence to;
2 : to compel by physical, moral, or intellectual means
3 : to make or cause especially through natural or logical necessity
4 a : to press, drive, attain to, or effect against resistance or inertia b : to impose or thrust urgently, importunately, or inexorably
5 : to achieve or win by strength in struggle or violence: as a : to win one's way into b : to break open or through
6 a : to raise or accelerate to the utmost b : to produce only with unnatural or unwilling effort c : to wrench, strain, or use (language) with marked unnaturalness and lack of ease
7 a : to hasten the rate of progress or growth of b : to bring (as plants) to maturity out of the normal season
8 : to induce (as a particular bid or play by another player) in a card game by some conventional act, play, bid, or response
9 a : to cause (a runner in baseball) to be put out on a force-out b : to cause (a run) to be scored in baseball by giving a base on balls when the bases are full

When people are saying that Christians having the Ten Commandments in the public square or sharing their faith is forcing their beliefs upon them, they're pretty much admitting Christianity is the Truth. If being exposed to it forces you to become a Christian, it must be the most powerful message ever to have been created (in my opinion, it is).

First of all, why would Christians feel the need to use the Ten Commandments? The "New Covenant" only brought forward 9 of the Ten Commandments set forth in Exodus. So "Christians" hanging them around is IMO asinine as they do not follow them. The Tanakh has nothing to do with Christianity outside of it being bound in a nonsensical manner with the NT, so if anything, people would be exposed to Judaism. Are you rushing out and slapping on a kippot while waiting to convert? I'm secure in my relationship with G-d and other people should be too. They shouldn't feel the need to hang something as if a banner for what they don't practice. And if you have the Ten Commandments, why not also display parts of the Quran, Vedas, Bhagavad Gita, Book of Mormon, New Testament, etc? We are a country that "supports" the freedom of religion so why not show the diversity? Is it a case of showing the opposite of what is practiced? Could be.

So I guess I agree, by Christians sharing the Gospel, they are, in fact, forcing their beliefs and G-d's will on you.

Correction. Christians sharing the Gospel, they are forcing their beliefs and what they believe is G-d's will upon people.

Now for the conspiracy aspect. If this Truth is so convincing to so many people, why is there such a concerted effort to silence it?

What is being silenced? The removal of the Ten Commandments? So what? So being a Christian, when is the last time you kept the Sabbath?

We defend people like Robert Byrd and David Duke, who spouted hate in the KKK for so many years, yet we freak out if someone spouts love in the public arena. It seems really hypocritical if we don't factor in the fact that Christianity forces you to believe there is a right and wrong, and many people like to do wrong and feel justified doing so.

So other religions don't teach a right and wrong? Let's take Judaism for example here. If there was no right or wrong, would there be any mitzvot? Those clearly tell what is right and what is wrong. G-d also gave instructions on what to do if you do something wrong. The only thing that fundie Christianity forces one to believe is that there is a hell and heaven. That's the choice. Christianity is the only religion that comes to my mind that does not enforce personal responsibility. The only thing that person is responsible for is being saved. Then they can sit back and ride the coattails of Jesus doing whatever along the way. What sense does that make? The fundie G-d seems to want people who can't think outside of the box that G-d has been placed in.

So if a few people, such as THE scholars, can get together and create "a new fiction", as one of these enlightened and fair scholars said. An uncle of mine said he couldn't imagine the whole Seminar was working towards a goal of removing Christianity, but the more I look into it, the more it seems to be a large conspiracy to cover up the true message of Christianity.

What exactly is the true message of Christianity?

As of now, the "true" Jesus is remarkably like a college professor. You know, like most of THE scholars are (they call themselves THE scholars because they're the only ones who are wise enough to tell us Christianity is bunk).

Even though I am not a Christian, I was raised as one. I was also raised as a fundamentalist Christian...and probably one of the worst kind! I will say that I do not believe Christianity as "bunk" but I do believe the fundamentalist aspect is and for many reasons. I believe that 'true' Christianity is one of the many paths leading to G-d.

So cover up the truth, but to what end? This question I leave to y'all, because I'm not sure. Why start a concerted effort to remove a message of peace and love from society through law and propoganda?

Fundies do not promote peace and love. You better look up those definitions because damning people to hell and cramming beliefs down people's throats is doing nothing more than showing the lack of disrespect that they have toward others and their own beliefs. My family plus inlaws and friends are ALL fundies and it has honestly taken them a long time to be ok with the fact that I am not. My best friend went to her pastor and told him about me and he told her that she needed to realize that G-d doesn't need her running around trying to defend him...that he's a big G-d that can take care of himself. Her attitude amazingly enough changed toward me and thank G-d for that. She had to realize that she had placed G-d in a bound book with gold trim and her name in gold letters on the front and placed that book in a box where G-d was nothing more than a midget. She like many others failed for a long time to realize that she was part of suppressing the "truth" because there are many.

[edit on 5/24/2005 by Shonet1430]

Mrwupy posts this statement,

"Political power in the hands of religion has ALWAYS led to tyranny. Political power in the hands of religion will always lead to tyranny. "

Wow!!!! Not up much on history today???

There is one nation recorded clearly in history where religion has both made a difference and not been able to lead to tyrany. Historians know this but seldome speak of it for what it is.
This Nation is the United States. This knowlege of Seperation of Church and State has made a significant difference here though there are those who would like to revert back to the system of Feudalism in the middle ages or at least prior to 1649.

The Founders knew well this history and link between the Feudal Kings or Emperors and the priesthood. They wrote many documents against this system for good reason. This is why they were particularly cautious about Roman Catholicism because of the long historical link between Rome and the Kings of Europe in maintaining power and control/politics. However ..there are other groups who from the early colonial days of the United States ..attempted to make a state run church to be officially sanctioned in the "colonies". The Founders had enough sense to reject this operating system.

I do not agree with the system in operation in the United States concerning the way many Churchs are run. I do not believe that taking ones tithes off on ones taxes is a legitimate seperation of church and state. I believe this is a tax support for churchs. 501c status for churchs means the churchs are a state corporation...and therefore regulated by the state. This is tax exemption ....which can be revoked by the state. This is not tax immunity...a huge difference. Churchs should be tax immune..not tax supported/exempt. A huge difference. No Church in America should be filed as a state corporation. The churchs are at fault for being seduced into this whoredom. This is not seperation. Most churchs will not discuss this with their members. For good reason ..they are phoneys in this keeping their members ignorant.

As to religion and power/tyranny..I will remind the readers that it is politicians who pander to one group after another looking for votes. At election time they are often found in Churchs looking for constituents.
Religion is the ultimate political power..always has been and always will be.
They must appear nominally to be Christian..at election time...not necessarily after or between elections. And yes as state corporations the Churchs are not innocent in this too. They too will pander to politicians to play the game...watch this one carefully.

What religion does properly used ..it put limits on politicians..moral limits. This is obvious when public dander is up over some issue or another ..the first thing politicians worry about is votes....loss or gain of votes.
This begs the question about politics...and its very nature. What is the moral nature ..the religion at work in politics. What limits will politics put upon itself in its workings. Not the face it shows to the public but what it will really do ..behind closed doors. What religion is this and how far will politics go to achieve a goal??? This is obviously a lifestyle to many as politics obvoiously has devout adherants and believers. The main problem is with politics the code of conduct is "undefined" in public.
Most people dont ever think of politics as a religious belief system..but it in fact is..definitely. Dont worry ..those guys "looking out for you " "Fair and balanced" wont make this connection for you . No way. Neither will the others.
How about Education since it is primarily funded by politics? This is clear. If it is true that the real nature of politics is undefined to the public....what about the true nature of Education ...since it too is a hotly debated topic in politics. You see how easy it is to go to the next step.?
So what religion are they teaching in Education.???
Dont worry ..the average Christian cannot make this leap...beyond the Word..they like to quote. And this is good for Humanists. It gives them a free pass.
There is a abomnable ignornance in my brother and sister Christians on this line of thought .. much of it cultivated by their pastors.

I do not agree with religion being in the hands of Government. Nor do I believe in Churchs attempting to move into Government for influence to the degree as happened in Feudal Europe and other continents. This always leads to tyranny of one type or another.
Obviously I dont believe in 501c tax numbers for Churchs. This is not seperation of church and state.
Governments moving into the buisness of controlling and regulating the expression of the pubic in their faith and religious beliefs will eventually mean the substitution of public beliefs in Faith with the Government sanctioned belief/faith system...and we are back to feudalism.
Religion/Faith should be for the help and education of the public such that they are not ignorant of many things ..both on a physical level as well as a spiritual level. In this many "Churchs" have failed as well as has the government.

Sorry about the long windedness of this post..
Thanks,
Orangetom

This is a very interesting thread with much thought and insight from all involved.

However, the purpose of the seperation of church and state in the Constitution is there for obvious reasons which one listed above.

The posting of "The Ten Commandments" in courthouses. Well, if someone wants this done fine. Just have a he$$uva big wall. I, and many others, would also like to put up the Commandments we live by. It opens up the possibilities of thousands of religions, sects, groups, etc. wanting the same done. It is the old saying, "What is good for the goose is good for the gander."

I, being Christian, want my Commandments posted in the proper place which is not within a gov't building of the UNITED States of America. I was really interested the other day when I entered a church called "Christ Community Church" and guess what? Not ONE single cross was found by myself within the grounds or the large Church. I found this interesting. Perhaps this church has decided that there was more to Christ than the almost finale. Perhaps they teach his love.

Interesting stat. As income goes up the percentage of such given to charitable things goes down. In other words, the lower classes give a greater portion of their income to charity, etc than the upper classes. That correlates with the "me" syndrome prevalent in the upper classes of this country.

Namaste' and God Bless

Originally posted by madmanacrosswater
However, the purpose of the seperation of church and state in the Constitution is there for obvious reasons which one listed above.

Where in the Constitution is "the separation of church and state"?

[edit on 24-5-2005 by saint4God]

Thank you, Orangeton for that thoughtful post - I like your writing style and agree with most of what you said.

With that baseline established, I'd like to ask you to re-think a little of what you've said or, at least, consider my views on a couple of points - and I ask this in all sincerity without the slightest malice or sarcasm.

You started off with "Political power in the hands of religion has ALWAYS led to tyranny. Political power in the hands of religion will always lead to tyranny. "

Wow!!!! Not up much on history today???

There is one nation recorded clearly in history where religion has both made a difference and not been able to lead to tyrany. Historians know this but seldome speak of it for what it is. "

...to which you objected making very good points but, in the USA we have not seen real political power in the hands of religion, yet. Strong influences, yes! But not actual power - the power to directly legislate, police, punish, tax, etc.
Many will allege that we're seeing that already in an indirect fashion but, even so, that is quite a bit different that what we've seen historically (the most familiar examples coming out of Rome about 1200 to 1,000 years ago, but in recent times, Afghanistan with it's Taliban rule). Ok, we all know about these.

So, I'm just saying that your arguments/positions were reasonable and thouhgtful but didn't refute the statement that seemed to inspire them. See where I'm coming from?

The other point that caught my eye is one in which we may have to agree to disagree - the idea that morals necessarily flow from religion. I'm not going to go into all that hyprocsy stuff that is so popular in many arguments on this board - that's a non-starter. I just feel that morality has been around for a lot longer than organized religion. Humans recognized a very long time ago that hurting another human was wrong. Did God give us this feeling? Some would argue "yes" and others would argue "no". I only argue that it happened so long ago that different people in different places all around the world recognized it and perhaps (not definitely but, perhaps) that was one of the starting points of worship - the other being the question of "who made all this and how did we get here?". Why do we feel bad or know it's bad to hurt someone else? I don't know but, we do and we have for possibly forever. Now, morality is one of those things that cannot be legislated or controlled by any outside force known to man. All attempts have met with resistance and failure.

In politics, of which I have a great deal of practical experience, it is true that candidates go to churches. It is often an insincere gesture intended to send the most basic of all signals: "you can trust me". It is often completely sincere since many politicians are genuinely religious and pious but they visit other churches as recognition of other groups of like-minded individuals and to gain recognition for themselves among these groups. It is only the very smallest of communities that there are enough votes in a single congregation to help them win so, politicians (sincere or not) have to visit a lot of churches. I have written dozens of "church visit schedules" for candidates and this began well before the rise of the "religious right". If for nothing else, a canditate in your church is signalling "I recognize your values and respect you for it." - even if they don't actually share exactly the same values and beliefs. Elected officials (good ones, anyway) know that they have the responsibility to serve even those with whom they may disagree on certain points. My wife, for example, is Jewish and is our Mayor. She attended many Christian churches and enjoyed their worship of God in the form and manner of their choosing - she sincerely respected their worship and she wanted to send a clear signal that she recognized and respected the importance and value of the Christian community even though she never once pretended to believe in the divinity of Jesus. She was warmly and sincerely welcomed.

OK, this is long enough. Again, let me say that I do believe that you have the right of it and I enjoyed your post.
(BTW - I am not a Christian but I do believe in God.)

[edit on 24-5-2005 by Al Davison]

Al,
Thanks for a great post.

I must disagree somewhat ...we have seen real political power in the hands of religion.
There was a time across this nation where most people had a basic belief. Standardized ..from the Christian religion ..nation wide..and comon to where even criminals and politicians knew there was a limit to with what they could get away. If you did not stay within certain limits you were marked and people had little or nothing to do with you. This is a Christian perspective. To "Seperate" from. This is the word "Sectarian". What the difference today is ..is that the "Non Sectarian' position is being pushed on a unawares public who by and large do not know the difference in the two positions and why.
If you have a Hebrew historical background you understand this far better than the average American raised up on tv/peer group education. The Hebrews were taught not to do the things the nations surrounding them did. The Abominations. Everything about the way they lived...from dress to dining to gleaning thier fields indicated they were different. They were sectarian.
In America..this was real political power stemming from thier basic religious belief system. Not in the hands of politicians or political educators...but in the hands of the public. This very fact of history ..is what so many "Non Sectarians " are complaining about today. They do not want this system reseructed after spending so many years chiseling it down piece by piece.
When you have a generation of older criminals in prisons who are very afraid of the new generation coming in ..you know something very notable is afoot. You can even extend this to politicians..not a quantum leap.
Remember something about politics...it is talmudic...in nature..Occult.
Especially the higher up the politicial ladder one travels...hidden.concealed..esoteric. This not known by the bulk of people subject to it. It is the buisness not only of selling ones own soul for politicial power but the selling of other peoples souls for the same. This is clear in the Bible..both olde and new testament. And as stated ..politics finances public education. Take it from there..it is not a quantum leap.

As to morals necessarily flowing from religion..or not flowing from religion. I must disagree with you ..you are correct in this position..my disagreement.
Morals to me ...always flow from religion..
My definition of religion is that which guides one..not just in good times but also in bad times..difficulty..how far one will go .Morals stem from this religious belief. Now..I will qualify that further....not the religion one always claims on the surface..to the public..but what one will actually do ...even in secret. This is the essence of ones religion..they are not always the same as ones pubic face. If you are in fact in politics ..this is self explanitory.
The matter at issue with me ..is always the source of ones belief system and practice..not necessarily what one claims on the surface.

The classic example of this coming to mind..is the Supreme or Appelate Court nominees. This farce is obviously a power struggle between political partys not for the benifit of the pubic. The public be damned. It makes a joke out of the will of the people. By this method ..to me it smacks of the very feudalism of which I spoke earlier..soverign turf wars..between feudal Lords and the hell with the will of the public. But remember at election time ..quote the will of the people/public. There is a objective to this madness going on in the Senate but its goals are not obvious to many. Esoteric.
My point is that what one actually does ...is ones religion .. and is telling ..no matter what name one puts on it. Its very pattern of operation.What is its essence..by its very nature.??
I agree with you in that morality cannot be regulated or controlled..not by men..this has been the struggle since the begining. Light must be cast upon it. The correct Light must be cast upon it..This is the one thing religion fears...always. This too is historically demonstratable. Both from the Olde and New testaments and mans secular history.

I once again apologize for this long post. You have some very intrestng and well thought out positions yourself Al Davidson.
Thanks for your post
Orangetom

I'd like to add a few ponts...

Originally posted by orangetom1999
There was a time across this nation where most people had a basic belief. Standardized ..from the Christian religion ..nation wide..and comon to where even criminals and politicians knew there was a limit to with what they could get away.

Not really.

For most of this nation's history, MOST people on the North American continent practiced a variety of non-Christian religions. When the states collected into a nation, the religions were hardly standardized, and much of what they practiced would be shocking today.

People were beaten and fined for working on Sundays in some areas. In some areas, people were put in stocks (so that others could throw dung and vegetables on them) for swearing. Some areas allowed polygamy. Some areas allowed slavery and taught it as a Biblical right. In some areas it was physically dangerous to be a Catholic. In some areas it was physically dangerous to be a Mormon. Jews and other non-Christians were minimalized and marginalized and often killed -- but this was a point of contention because some Christian sects thought this was okay and others (Quakers, notably) held it as abhorrent.

There was a legal unity, yes. But there was hardly a religous unity. You can google for quotes by Mark Twain on religion to see just how badly (and nastily) divided the sects were.

As to morals necessarily flowing from religion..or not flowing from religion. I must disagree with you ..you are correct in this position..my disagreement.
Morals to me ...always flow from religion..
My definition of religion is that which guides one..not just in good times but also in bad times..difficulty..how far one will go .

Morals are an agreed-upon set of social rules, and they are changeable. Even Christian ones.

It's considered immoral for a man to have a mistress -- and yet in Biblical times Biblical patriarchs had concubines as well as wives and they were considered to be moral. We consider anyone who has sexual relations with a person under the age of 17 to be a pedophile and immoral but there is no age limit in the Bible and rabbinical law and other documents report Hebrew men of that time taking girls as young as 3 to be their wives and concubines. In a few instances, by Yahweh's command, the men kill all the females who "have known man" (anyone over the age of common marriage, which would be girls aged 12 and up) and takes the rest (girls under the age of 12) as concubines.

I don't think you would find THAT morality practiced by the Hebrews (and to them it was moral and was Yahweh's commandment) to be one that is promoted or accepted today.

Morality springs from the rules of people trying to live together. We find (anthropologically speaking) morals in all people who live in groups -- rules that tell you how you treat other people in your group and outside your group. And there are some very basic ones (not killing members of your own group, rules about who you can marry) that exist in every single culture, regardless if there's a religion or a recognition of a Great Spirit or whether there isn't.

Originally posted by saint4God

Where in the Constitution is "the separation of church and state"?

The establishment clause for the first amendment as interpreted by the US Supreme Court in 1947????

Originally posted by saint4God
about hypocrisy before LadyV ( as if Christians are the only people guilty of it

), and so did Jesus.

Yes we have...and I have stand by what I always say! I can't tolerate people that preach don't sin while sinning...I have real hard issues with it. If you sin yourself, then keep your mouth shut and mind your own business about what other people are doing. My biggest issue, is that some Christians "pick and choose" who they will bitch about....they won't complain about men going to strip clubs, or looking at porn, or someone getting drunk and cheating on a spouse on Saturday night, but they will preach up a storm about homosexuality.......it honestly disgusts me! You can not pick and choose what you will and will not follow from a religion! I have absolutely no respect for anyone like that…none

Originally posted by LadyV
If you sin yourself, then keep your mouth shut and mind your own business about what other people are doing.

Hmm...let's see if you follow this principle too....

Originally posted by LadyV
My biggest issue, is that some Christians "pick and choose" who they will bitch about....they won't complain about men going to strip clubs, or looking at porn, or someone getting drunk and cheating on a spouse on Saturday night, but they will preach up a storm about homosexuality.......

Nope, I guess not. Apparently some non-Christians "pick and choose" who they will "bitch" about too. Especially about men, I like the way you threw that in there too because we all know women are without sin. Nice little jab. Way to stereotype!

Originally posted by LadyV
it honestly disgusts me! You can not pick and choose what you will and will not follow from a religion! I have absolutely no respect for anyone like that…none

Me either.


[edit on 25-5-2005 by saint4God]