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.

 

A History of Separation of Church and State

page: 3
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 10:36 PM
link   
I just wanted clarification of the time frame in which you are speaking.

I agree....except that I dont think you are taking it far enough.

THere is and is in existance a dogma...not taught and not known by most peoples. To those it is generaly taught it is done so in a manner in which only certain peoples are made aware that it even exists. To know of this you have to be even aware of certain historys. TO most of us history tends to be a rather poorly taught subject. This poor teaching I dont believe is a accident ....I believe it is deliberate.

This dogma to those who even know of it is called "The Priest Kings Religion."

The basic fingerprint of this dogma/religion works like this.

IN ancient times most kings/emperors or leaders..had a religion over thier nations complete with Priesthoods to help them maintain power. The kings/emperors/leaders were in thier nations regarded as god men. This is historically sometimes refered to a the "god we can see." THe Chinese Emperors were a example of this as were the Pharoahs. What you see often under this system..of Priest Kings is that a few people had a little...the Priests and the Kings and other royaltys and the rest had almost nothing. The rest lived mostly at a substance levels or lower. This system has remained in place in variations into the 20th century ...with the same fingerprint....a variation of the Priest/Kings religion..always bearing the same fruit.
As Royalty or kings would conquer another nation they would overtake or replace the religion with their gods or priesthoods...but always it was the same fingerprint...the god men we could see. Just a new administration calling the same olde plays. Often replacing the Priesthoods with their own varietys. They sometimes allowed the same gods or the same worship just that their new priesthoods/homies were in the home office.
THe thing for you to know is that even in this system from ancient times it was often very bloody buisness. Notice that of these times very little is spoken about concerining these religions...you are not to know of this relationship...between the priesthoods and the kings for what it is. Bloody. THe conquerings of these kings and their takeovers is not recorded much from their religious standpoint.
Sennacherib and his conquerings is a example known as his Hexapala column of his conquerings and battles survives to this day.
Also when the battles are over and the conditions stabilize....it is buisness as usual and the merchant classes go back to work under new management....stabilized by the new regime and religion. Trade continues under the new religion under the new Priesthood/Kings system. The profits just often get redirected to the new regime and lineup. Not alot different from a bunch of Mafia Dons setting up shop. We would just today call this history ....with legal governments in place.

This system has its origins going back to ancient history ..in the nations surrounding the Ancient Nation called Israel. The Ancient Israelis were to have a different history ..but what is actually recorded is that the Israelis actually by and by got caught up in this very ancient system ...and took on these gods and priesthoods secretly and privily...and even attempted to overlay it into their system of the Law..or sometimes called the Law of Moses. We have the record of this Tresspass ...through out the Olde Testament and continuing into the New Testament. The disobedience of the Hebrews...and the Hebrew Nation called Israel.
In otherwords they appeared to be under the Law of Moses...but secretly behind the scenes they were practicing something else.

I put this in this context to lay the stage for the next overlaying of religion in history.

THe Roman Empire ...has alot of surviving records..even more than the Greeks. They were for thier times prolific record keepers. This is also one of the fingerprints of many of the Pagan nations. They kept prolific records of their dealings...daily..buisness and in some even their religions. However ..what was going on in many of these nations regarding their religions will not be made public ... Rome is about the only one you hear alot about..because it cannot be that easily hidden. It can however be altered or avoided in places to not make the connection with other ancient systems.

What Rome noted with the advance of Christianity...combined with the problems associated with the Hebrew peoples in Ancient Palestine.....was that this new Religion was going to be a problem. The practice of the Ancient Romans was if they could not outright and directly conquer a nation..openly...they would infiltrate it and absorb it into their system. What Constantine did..was to note that Christianity was going to be a problem for the Empire...so they decided to take the Religion and make a State out of it. Rome took on the appearence of Christianity ..but behind the scenes it was politics/economics as usual. The same olde system of the "Priest Kings". It was just to look nominally ..like Christiainty.

I say this because of the track record so well known and quoted by many on these boards who are so obviously anti Christian.

Yet when you look at it ...closely..it is anything but Christian. THe Bloodyness..the schemes, the Plots , the machinations. All typically a fingerprint of the ancient priest/kings religions and political economic systems of ancient times.

What finally clued me into this about Rome was when reading a book about the early Roman Church ...there in about 600 or 800 AD the church had a house of prostitution specifically tasked to service the Priests. No where in any New Testament teachings do you find a instruction for this type of behavior....nor for the plots, schemes, and machinations so well recorded in history.

Mind you now..this fingerprint is not exclusive to Rome. Rome just happens to be the most noted because of its success in history and the records which survive. Once again...Pagans are fastidious record keepers. This is a clear fingerprint...discernable through out history. Particulary in secular record keeping.

What Rome was to successfully accomplish was to bring so many nations under their umbrella and had through their priesthoods... just as in ancient times... a way to keep the olde system going while fleecing the populace of thier production. The priest/king system was now through Rome ..not locally per se. It was to nominally appear to be Christian while in actuallity it was a continuation of the olde priesthood/kings system. The fingerprint wherever you looked was that a few lived well off the labor of others while the rest had almost nothing. It was intert economically except for a few persons or Royal class and the priesthoods. Where ever this system reared its head ...you saw this inertness...economically. This is true today also.

NOw ..under this system ...this Priest/Kings system was to take on a new name.
No longer the Priest/Kings system...but now in history books it is called "Divine Right of Kings."

Under "Divine Right of Kings" the power of the kings was maintained by the priesthood and Rome. Since the crowns of most kings was put on their heads by Rome..this meant that to go against the King was to go against God. The mandate of the King was from God himself....blue bloods...Royalty....backed by Rome.
This is not taught to most westerners but it was in fact the system and line up of those times.

What Henry the VIIIth of England was to do..and is not recorded thusly in history books was to make himself a English Pope..not the first protestant king. Henry just substituted the English system of Divine right of Kings for the Roman system. He found out that being the head of his own Church was a much more advantageous/powerful position than kissing the backside of Rome for scraps off the table. This is not what is recorded in most history books but is in fact what happened.
You can say alot of things about olde Henry ..but he understood power and the nature of power...when Henry spoke...things happened.
His daughter Elizabeth was to go on trying to maintain this power..of her Father from repeated attempts by Rome and European politicians to bring England back into the Roman Priesthood/Kings system rather than their independent Priesthood/kings system.
Elizabeth was basically a party girl..and liked her horses and lovers...and didnt really do much ruling in the manner of her father. As a result the English people actually had a modicum of liberty and prosperity. When she died...she was verily missed because of the liberty and prosperity brought about by a lazy monarch. In somewhat a similarity to what the founding fathers here envisioned in Liberty..all beacause of a lazy Monarch who mostly left the peoples buisness to themselves. Ironic isnt it.. ...the fingerprint of what was to take form here...in the United States..because of a lazy monarch. There is more to it of course but I merely make a paralllel here.

I will continue on my next post.

Orangetom




posted on Jun, 19 2006 @ 11:24 PM
link   
What I am telling you here seraphim serpente...is that this Priesthood/kings..Divine right of Kings religion survives today. It just takes different forms so as not to be visable to the ordinary peon.

What we are discussing here is power and the acquisition of power..the welding of power.

What is known in certain circles but not taught to most today in public schools..and for good reason...is that "religion" is the ultimate political power....always has been and always will be.

What is not taught about power today is that politics is a religion ...a religion of power...always has been and always will be. How to sell the lives and even the souls of a people to keep and maintain power...while not letting them know that this is what is happening to them. Lots of scientific methods have been devised to hide and manage this system..but it is in fact a continuation of the olde systems.
We know this because of the millions and millions who have died to promote and progress this system of competings powers and ideologys in "Intellectual/Enlightened." times.

Intellectuality and Enlightment is the new religion to replace the olde system but it is nonetheless a religion and millions and millions have died to preserve this new system...which is a continuation ..albet more effecient in its slaughterings than the olde systems. WE have just used more effecient machines ..scientifically designed to preserve the olde priest/kings..divine right of kings...enlightment systems.

Take stock of the death tolls of wars and conflicts between nations...in the last 150 to 175 years since the 1820s to 1840s up to now......this time of "Enlightment".

The irony of this is that Intellectuals often try to get people stuck in a time warp...to make it appear that this is similar to ancient times..and that Christianity is the cause. Remember ..these are times of "Enlightment" and how many have died in this "modern time frame" to support this new "Enlightment."
This is enlightment...we no longer need god to guide us..men are now the masters of thier fate..men control thier destinys ..by intellect.
How many have died in modern times??? Think this through carefully about the "Enlightenment of men."

I say that this is a continuation ...albet by more advanced science ..of the olde systems of ancient times. These systems are merely Chameleon like in their ability to adapt and attach themselves to a existing system in order to steer and eventually control this host. And yes ..they are a parasite.
This system of religion goes way back to ancient times and continues unto today.

At the bottom of your posts Seraphim Serpente you give a quote from Morals and Dogma. If you know what you are reading .....this book is textbook of the existance of this system...from ancient times. This book is about nothing but religion and intellect...reason and logic....Gnosticism..from ancient times to the present. This is the ancient dogma in one of its variations. I have read others of the same fingerprint.
This system continues even in the times of "Enlightment". Science and Intellect has not changed this system. It just appears on the surface to be something different than what it actually is.
Morals and Dogma is about Royalty..the very degrees in the inner first pages are all royal titles...this is feudalism..under the guise of Gnosticism.
Intellect ..misused is Feudalism..no matter how benevolent it presents itself.

Todays politics is still a religions...obviously by the devoutness and fervour of its participants and adherents. It just happens to be like in ancient times ...a system of different faces..chameleon like...a face for the public and a face for the insiders...adepts....no different than ancient times.
And just like ancient times..it is a whore and will sell the bodys and souls of its subjects for more power.

Those churchs you are so concerned about ...kow - kowing to the body politic for what they think is power...will get burned big time ..eventually. For the whore of politics will serve no master but its gods...for continued power. These churchs are dumber than dirt...to play this game with the whore of politics...they will be absorbed and overtaken by this system just as was done by Rome and the church it founded. It is just a matter of time.

Your belief in the seperation of church and state is the American expression of the "Divine right of kings" historical experience...and which is the extension of the "Priest Kings Religion". This is a valid debate point..of yours except that you do not take it far enough.

THe founders were well aware of this history of the ancient times and divine right of kings and the nature of power and its abuses..or mischief as they were wont to explain it. The relationship of the church and state historically to fleece the public was well known to them.

They were not against the ability of the public to freely express their religion in thier daily lives...but obviously concerned with the ability of the kings or politicians to use religion for thier advantage...this is what they wanted to break up...not the ability of the pubic to express thier Faith..daily...or even the abscence of Faith.
If you read the texts on Amendment I...it is a limit on Government....as are the first X Amendments....all limits on Government.
These Amendments have been constantly interpreted in todays times of "enlightment" as limits on the public...for the purposes of extensions of Government powers.
Read them again if you have time...

Government shall not...the government shall not...No government shall..the people shall not be infringed...etc etc..all limits on government..not the public.

Very Very tellling here.

This is becasuse these founders knew this history of the natural tendency of men or Governmenst of men..to mischief...especially when they combine religion and the state into a fleecing apparatus. History is replete with this tendency. You can say alot of things about the founders...just like HenryVIII.....but dumb they were not. There was alot of difference of opinion among them..often very very heated and passionate...the Federalist Papers clearly indicate thusly. But Dumb..they were not.

This is how I know that left to run its natural course ..that politics is in fact a religion and one which will attempt to seduce all the others because often it will hide and conceal its real intents...from the pubic it claims to serve. After all..who pays for public education....politics. They are not going to teach us anything they do not want us to know. Why would they attempt to give us enough "Light " to shine it on themselves...to see their nakedness???

To me Seraphim Serpente ...you have the right pattern/fingerprint..you just have not taken it far enough in thinking.

Hope this helps.
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 20 2006 @ 04:09 PM
link   


What Rome noted with the advance of Christianity...combined with the problems associated with the Hebrew peoples in Ancient Palestine.....was that this new Religion was going to be a problem. The practice of the Ancient Romans was if they could not outright and directly conquer a nation..openly...they would infiltrate it and absorb it into their system. What Constantine did..was to note that Christianity was going to be a problem for the Empire...so they decided to take the Religion and make a State out of it. Rome took on the appearance of Christianity ..but behind the scenes it was politics/economics as usual. The same olde system of the "Priest Kings". It was just to look nominally ..like Christianity.


I agree.



This is (the) Enlightenment = we no longer need God to guide us..men are now the masters of their fate..men control their destiny ..by intellect.


Not Necessarily by Intellect alone. I believe that God did in fact give Humanity the Gift of Free Will. Just because we have this free will does not necessarily mean that we will use it for Nefarious or Selfish reasons. Free Will does NOT mean that there will be no Repercussions for our actions. A person can choose to use their Free Will to show Compassion, grant Mercy & give Charitably!
You CAN be both *MORAL & PIOUS* & still utilize free will!

Also - how do we Define "GOD" (quite Impossible by words alone - no)? Especially if we are to have Freedom of Religion with adherents of many different Religions (all with their own
Unique Perception of God) all living in the same Country?

[edit on 20-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 20-6-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Jun, 27 2006 @ 01:00 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Employees in government service are also the public.


No. They are not. In their official capacity, they are the government, bound by the "no law respecting an establishment of religion" clause. Only when they are off duty, on their own time, in their roles as private citizens, do they become "the public" as you put it, protected by the "no law restricting the free exercise thereof" clause.



It either applies to everyone ..or no one


Well, let me put it this way. If we do not recognize the distinction between the citizenry and the government -- and by "the government" I mean the people who make up the government, in their official capacities -- then the First Amendment contradicts itself.

Aren't Senators and Representatives also citizens themselves? And if we don't recognize that, when they are acting as legislators rather than private individuals, they are the government (or a branch of the government anyway), and that the rules change accordingly, then we run into a problem. Because on the one hand, the Constitution says they can't be restricted in the free exercise of religion. But on the other hand, the Constitution also says they can't make a law respecting an establishment of religion.

So the Constitution is itself restricting their "free exercise" of religion -- should they wish to legislate an established church -- when it says they can't do that.

The only way around this is to recognize the distinction between public service and private behavior. In their capacity as private citizens, Senators and Representatives are protected by the "free exercise" clause, and can practice whatever religion they choose in whatever way they choose. But in their capacity as lawmakers, Senators and Representatives are no longer protected by the "free exercise" clause -- instead, since they are the government, they are bound by the "establishment" clause, and cannot express their religion by passing a law establishing it as the national church.

(Even assuming they could agree on one.)

The same applies to government officials, including public school teachers, outside of Congress. When they are off-duty, they are private citizens, protected by the free exercise clause. But when they are on duty, they are the government, restrained by the establishment clause. Just as is the case with Congress.



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 12:42 AM
link   
Ok...so.......how about when a politician speaks before a church before election time. Are they violating which of these clauses??? I am speaking of Presidential candidates, Senatorial candidates and candidates for the House, and State Governors et al.


Exclusionary rule..??

Free exercise clause??

Establishment clause.???

Are they mixing politics and religion..and are they back on the road of Divine right of kings or ...no seperation of church and state??

I am often insulted when I see politicians using this method to gain votes. I am also insulted at the churchs too who participate in this joke.

I also see no reason for Churchs to gain tax exempt status through Government tax numbers. Churchs should be tax immune..not tax exempt. It is not seperation for a Church to have a tax number and give out chits to its memeber showing how much they gave in tithes or other offerings and take this off on their taxes. This phoney baloney is a tax support ...a subsidy by taxes..it is not tithing. It is a government price support. This is not seperation of church and state...both on the government side and the Churchs ...they are both guilty in this farce. THe Government has no buisness here and the Church has no buisness sleeping with the government in this manner. This is mixing politics and religion...no seperation here.
The remarkable thing to me is that so many are not even aware of this angle....churchs and government sleeping together like this. They are both phoneys here.

All these rules and exclusions you quote are a farce too..in light of the above...they are rules to get around the rules. How do I know this ???
Because the government is trying to push a religion ...the religion is government.
To do this you must constantly have rules to get around the rules...a government talmudic system of rules...many often contradictory in thier meaning or practice.
The fingerprint is rules to get around the rules...always. Before you know it you are full circle away from the intent and very few even notice it.
But rest assured ..it will look good on paper. Legal ..not lawful..a huge difference.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jun, 29 2006 @ 03:22 PM
link   
Orangetom1999 - would you care to reply/respond to my last post?



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 07:04 AM
link   
Do you mean as to your definition of God.??

Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 02:05 PM
link   
Orangetom1999 - Ok this is the first question: How do we define God in a Pluralistic Society?

Then there is also the question of Free Will. Do you believe that the Lord gifted Humanity with Free Will?



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 02:40 PM
link   
Thanks for clarifying the question/questions.

God is whoever or whatever one turns to when they are in big trouble.

As to free will. No I dont believe in free will in the manner of which most people believe in it.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 1 2006 @ 06:07 PM
link   
No, the question was how do we define God in a Pluralistic Society (i.e. America). Keep in mind the title of the thread. If we are to have Freedom of Religion then there will be & is a multiplicity of Religions/Religious Belief all in the same land. Is it right that the Government/State would favor one over the others? Hence we NEED Separation of Church & State. That is not to say that Politicians can't be Religious - quite the opposite = "Congress shall pass 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 to peaceably assemble…" (First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution). What the Government can't do is to Promote/Endorse a particular Religion or Religious Belief. So in that case they can not do something like - for example - Pass a Law saying that Thanksgiving day will now be called "Thank Jesus" day.



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 03:12 PM
link   
I am not sure you understand the nature of the question you are asking of me.


"We" dont define God in a pluralistic society. THe individual defines God.

Once you get a "expert" in on this ...as is usually done ..you are into a lack of Seperation of Church and state. In other words ..you move in to Hegel..."The State is God."

I first ran across this concept when reading the "Dune Chronicles" years ago. The series of "Dune" books. I am not particularly into Si Fi but this series I found intresting. Frank Herlbert used the term the Orange Catholic Bible in his long narrative. Over and over in his series of books this term came up. You never saw this in the movies made on this topic. The movies avoided this in favor of PC.
For those who know the history of this world..Orange refers to the Protestant faiths and the Catholic refers to Rome both of whom in history were in opposition to each other ..religiously as well as politically.
What Frank Herlbert proposes is a melding of the two into the new religion...The Orange Catholic religion with its Orange Catholic Bible.
What is this guys name..thesis, anti thesis, Synthesis. Ahhh...Hegel again!!! Yes this is Frank Herlberts adaption of Hegel.

When "We" define God for the purposes of standardization..we are well on the road to " The State is God" or thesis , anthesis, synthesis.
This is ultimately a return to the olde feudal systems ...of Divine right of Kings which is lack of Seperation of Church and State. More accurately this is the re emergence of Demi Gods ..here on this earth..a god man we can see. This too is historically demonstratable.

YOu see..Seraphim Serpente..I know this because I also know that religion is the ultimate political power..always has been and always will be. This is historically demonstratable.
The trick in modern times is to not make it seem so...by logic and reason of men.
Nothing modern really going on here...just a different variation of the slight of hand which has always gone on. People have always tended by human logic and reason to want a god that they can see.

All the state has ever been able to do is water this system down to where it favors the state..never the people. This too is historically demonstratable.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 2 2006 @ 05:31 PM
link   


The Individual Defines God


Ah you see this is just what I am getting at - if every Individual has their own Idea or Definition of God (and methods of Worship) & if SOCIETY is made up of MANY INDIVIDUALS - then you will have all sorts of Perceptions/Ideas/Definitions of what God is inside the Society.

Therefore if we are to have Freedom of Religion then we NEED Separation of Church & State - the only alternative is as you said to: "Define God for the purposes of Standardization. This is ultimately a return to the olde feudal systems ...of Divine right of Kings which is lack of Seperation of Church and State". This will have the side affect of Imposing Religion on those who might not even be interested in its Practice or Belief. I think that we Agree here.




I also know that religion is the ultimate political power..always has been and always will be. This is historically demonstrable.


Here I definitely Agree with you!!! Yes, it has been Historically Demonstrated (Europe is a prime example)! It was demonstrated as recently as November 2004 here in this Country & has been demonstrated for over the last 50 years in the Middle East!

[edit on 2-7-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]

[edit on 2-7-2006 by Seraphim_Serpente]



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 08:21 AM
link   
Historically I have a natural distrust of government in the religion arena.

The tendency of government is to hijack everything they can to maintain power. Often this is done in democracys without the subject even being aware of this trend happening. This hijacking is done often by another technique called seduction. This is alot of what public education is for..to seduce the public into the necessary programs to maintain a pliable, flexable,predictable, controlable voting base. This seduction soon becomes the standard default setting to allow government to play through by talmudic rule changing.

This means that government will allow a "appearence " of seperation of church and state ..like Ancient Rome but actually be promoting the religion of government or in many cases belevolent government which is "looking out for us." I dont believe they are doing any such thing. THey are promoting the religion of government.
This type of political whoredom..becomes nakedly clear in the case of the illegal alien situation out on the borders. Both partys are maneuvering for new voters to maintain power and control. Neither dominant party is thinking or considering the will or desires of the American public. THey are merely paying lip service to the public.

It is the American public that Government does not trust. This has become clear to me..over the years.

Seperation of Church and state is a limit on Government not on the public as it is practiced today.This situation will only accelerate until the religion of government takes its place ala....the Orange Catholic example previously posted. This represents a 180 degree turn about from the intent of the framers. This is not an accident.

Politics or Government will be the new religion. The synthesis born from the thesis and antithesis. And it... just like most of the rest in history will be inert..dead...lifeless. Serving its real master.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 3 2006 @ 12:26 PM
link   


It is the American Public that Government does not trust.


That is OK - the American Public has not really trusted the Government for the last 40 years & with just cause. I don't believe that they really have our best interest at heart either (more like THEIR best interest)! The American people are not as Stupid as the Government & the Corporations would believe - most of us just play Dumb - it is how we pass "under the Radar"!



posted on Jul, 4 2006 @ 12:22 AM
link   
Its not really funny but when I first read your statement it did tickled my funny bone.

It really is a serious situation.

You posted:

"The American people are not as Stupid as the Government & the Corporations would believe - most of us just play Dumb - it is how we pass "under the Radar"! "

I would be very hard pressed to debate the opposite position of what you have aptly stated here.

Thanks,
Orangetom



posted on Jul, 9 2006 @ 01:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by orangetom1999
Ok...so.......how about when a politician speaks before a church before election time. Are they violating which of these clauses???


No. A church is not forbidden territory for political candidates, unless the church itself wants to make that rule. What the politician is saying, by speaking before a church audience, is not "the government sanctions this church," but rather "this church sanctions my candidacy." Which may or may not be true, but that's another question. A lot of times politicians will campaign at churches where they aren't even believers. Remember when President Bush visited the mosque after 9/11? Think he's a Muslim?

So I don't think this amounts to an establishment of religion. If the government were to require churches to host political events, that would IMO be a violation of the "free exercise" clause, but if the church volunteers to do that, the state's in no position to say boo.



I am often insulted when I see politicians using this method to gain votes. I am also insulted at the churchs too who participate in this joke.


Well, me, too. All I'm saying is that I don't see it as a violation of the Constitution. Whether it's something that ought to happen is a different question.



I also see no reason for Churchs to gain tax exempt status through Government tax numbers.


I'm of two minds here. The government gives tax exempt status to all sorts of nonprofits, not just religious ones. In some cases, a church shouldn't be considered a "nonprofit," though. Some churches are highly profitable enterprises. I wouldn't mind seeing actual profits of churches taxed. On the other hand, to have a small, devout, struggling church, whose only purpose really is to meet the spiritual needs of its members, taxed out of existence, seems wrong to me.



Churchs should be tax immune..not tax exempt. It is not seperation for a Church to have a tax number and give out chits to its memeber showing how much they gave in tithes or other offerings and take this off on their taxes. This phoney baloney is a tax support ...a subsidy by taxes..it is not tithing.


Arguably, yes. But in terms of law, I don't agree. Given that people can get a tax deduction for charitable contributions, are we to make an exception when the organization taking the contribution is religious? You can say that people who do this while taking a tax deduction aren't doing it for pure motives, but isn't the same thing true when they give money to the Red Cross or a food bank?



Because the government is trying to push a religion ...the religion is government.


I have a real problem with trying to set law based on metaphorical rhetoric. Government may have a few things in common with religion (both are public, collective enterprises, both exercise a certain authority), but it is not a religion. To call it one may be a good way of making a point, but it is a terrible way of making law.







 
0
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join