Seperation of church and state

I started a previous thread about a mulim being president that brought up a few issues that I thought would make an interesting discussion.

In this country we are suppose to have a seperation of church and state but if an elected person is muslim, christian, or an atheist the ideals and morals of that person will directly influence that persons decisions so in essence there can truely be no seperation of church and state. You must also apply this principal to an individuals personal economics. I hate to use this as an example because it has been discussed here so frequently, but if a president has heavy ties to the militarys largest supplier as well as ties to the oil industry doesn't that create a conflict of interest.

A lot of our countries greatest men were ordinary people from all walks of life. Why is it now that you don't have a chance without millions of dollars. I recently read a report on how this coming election could be a billion dollar election.

source

I know this is a republic( I hope you all do as well) But somehow the 99% of the population need to put an end to the 1% that are in control.

I'd say, at the moment it should be a priority to separate state and big business. Only this way can the 99% people be kept reasonably safe from the interests of the powerful 1%.

Edit: Spelling

[edit on 21-1-2007 by Swordbeast]

Some of you people really went to public school and got a huge dose but never got over it. Astonishing the stuff one reads on this topic of Seperation of Church and State.

THe concept of Seperation of Church and State came about because the knowlege of the history of Europe and even the oriental nations...the leaders were either Gods/God Men/ Demi Gods..or their crowns were placed on their heads by the main religious authority.

THis meant that to go against your leaders or God men was to go against God himself. THe base of thier power and authority was therefore absolute. Unquestioned.

This was often a very convenient fleecing arrangement between the Church and State. In Western nations this fleecing arrangement became known as "

"Divine Right of Kings"

Seperation of Church and State was never intended to do what so many intellectuals today claim....to seperate religious morals from public life completely. Only the new religion of intellectualism can stupid and dumb a people down this far that they no longer know this history .

It was to seperate Government from the Church and hence the fleecing arrangement of the public. It was never to prevent individual morals based on Religious teaching. Public Education ....Wow!!!

With much of Public Education ...you wind up with a people who tend twords Amorality..without morals..this becomes obvious in our Court systems as time goes by.

A moral...without morals.


I will give you a prime example of the dumbing down that public education void of religious morals does to a people. Amorality.

Only publically educated intellectuals can come up with a one dollar coin..called a Susan B. Anthony. THe coin is two thirds the size of a fifty cent piece and yet claims on its face to be twice as much..yet both are made of the same junk metal. Only public education can dumb intellectuals to do such a ignorant thing and pass it off to a public they think is even dumber. This is classic Amorality. It doe not make good nonsense.
This is not the only example but it is out there. Fortunately the public never did catch on to this farce...the new dollar coin to come after that one either.

Remember ..the coins and bills say on them In God We Trust!! When , Where, and Why did they switch to the god of Amorality?? Plus why did they never tell us this was going on?? Are they actually intellectuals?? Or something else??

My point in all of this is ... Be careful..very careful what you think is Seperation of Church and state...you are often working on a placebo to keep you off the mark.


Divine right of Kings and hence the Seperation of Church and State in the Western world began to die out with the Beheading of Charles 1st of England in 1649 by the forces of Oliver Cromwell. Since that time no king or queen of England has ever tried to declare themselves divine right.
Without the doctrine of Divine Right of Kings a people could turn on their king and hold them accountable to law. The king could break the law and be accountable.
This was the basis of our American Revolution...could a king who broke the law under the Stamp Act and the Tea Tax be held accountable or was a King above the law?? The precident for this was set a hundred years before with Oliver Cromwell..the King was not Divine Right.

Find this line of thought in most history books today written by intellectuals.
World Class thinkers. You wont find it. It has been eliminated from most history books.

Beware....be very aware of what you think is the purpose of Seperation of Church and State. Many will lie to you about this for a reason. Intellectualism!!


Thanks,
Orangetom

I just want to add that the American public would doubtly believe a muslim as being in the interests of America and not of some Imam somewhere...

As such doubtfully would be elected.

But then the public were afraid of Catholics being loyal only to the Pope but still did elect JFK.

I find my self in difficulty debating against the point you are making here.

Quite true about John F. Kennedy. Many in those days were doubtful of him because he was a Catholic. I do not believe he was as close to the Catholic Church as some would have liked.

Thanks,
Orangetom