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.

 

Has separation of Church and State been abandoned?

page: 1
2

log in

join
share:

posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 10:48 PM
link   
Considering the 'rule' we have of Separation of Church and State, why is it that a presidential candidate's religious affiliations are such a major issue when it comes to his/her credibility? The latest statements by Obama's close friend the Rev. Jeremiah Wright have stirred up the bee's nest once again. It seems if the best qualified candidate was a Scientologist or even an atheist, there is no way they would get into office. Is there a conspiracy to keep alternative religions out of the White House?
There have been several articles stating that people are leaving their religions on a steady increase. When events such as Rev. Wright's comment happen, I tend not to believe these articles. People seem to be get in arms when a person of political stature is linked to an outrageous religious leader. This response to me states that people are NOT abandoning their faith.
It happened with McCain as well. He has flip flopped with Falwell, Robertson, and guys like that. Then the Dems lash out.
So where does Separation of Church and State stand? Has it been just lost sight of or has it been totally abandoned?




posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by palehorse23
Is there a conspiracy to keep alternative religions out of the White House?


No conspiracy is necessary. Too few voters would cast a ballot in favor of anyone outside the Judeo-Christian or Jewish persuasion, in my opinion. Obviously, most ardent Christians tend to vote Republican and the GOP, therefore, will not disenfranchise such a huge number of loyal supporters by nominating a candidate without recognizable ties to the Christian church (real or perceived).

Such a candidate could emerge from the Democratic party, but not any time soon. Clearly, the current anti-Muslim bias in America (or at least a powerful fear of it) would doom any candidate. An atheist could run on a Democratic ticket, but the lack of religion would probably work to focus neutral Christians toward the Republican ticket and make the subject of God a central issue in an election year.

Regardless of your personal feelings about religion, one undeniable truth is that Christians vote, en masse. It's a highly organized movement. Any candidate running who claims an alternative religious stance would need to have a campaign platform that quashes any concerns about God and Church. It might take the arrival of an alien mothership to do so, maybe.

Of course, most politicians use religion as a press op. Being seen in church is as wholesome as kissing babies and waving the stars and stripes at a July 4 picnic.



posted on Mar, 21 2008 @ 11:50 PM
link   
The seperation of church and state started waaaay back when Congress changed the Pledge of Alligence to include the phase "Under God" (right between 'one nation' and 'with liberty and justice'), because of the Red Scare... after all, Congress reasoned, if God was on OUR side, then He wasn't on THEIRS.

Or perhaps it all started on day one, with the printing of our money... In God We Trust, and all that.

There was never a seperation, really... just different degrees of involvment.

You mention the importance of the religious choice of politicians. It isn't so much the path they walk, it seems, but rather which group of religious people have the higher number of voters. The political runners are just trying to get as many people on their cause as possible. That's why you don't see the Wiccan or the Pagan candidate (why not, I have no idea)... the 700 Club fanatics would hold a linching not seen since Salem!

However, it is rather disgraceful seeing how many Christians are running, and yet how many different views of things they have; if they can't be true to their faith, how can they be true to us?

***

I don't think I would want someone like Robertson or Huckabee in office simply because they are rather... zealous in their beliefs. I have no problem with someone with religion or who is spiritual... but at the same time, I don't want someone to say "God told me to do it". We had enough of that with Manson and the Son of Sam. I do not want to see another Holy Crusade. I do not want to see the choices we have slowly eradicated.

On the same side, I wouldn't want a Satanist (the true Satanist, not the fake movie kind) in office, either. Sure, life is all about enjoyment... but that isn't a very sensable way to run things. Although it would give other nations a chance to think twice about what their plans regarding us.

Where was I?

Ehh...

America is a country based on Christian beliefs, so it is of little wonder that the Christian mainstream is in command, so to speak. Other, smaller belief groups cannot get the positive attention they so rightly deserve because those of the status quo will not allow that. You won't see a Jewish President simply because Jews killed Jesus. You won't see a Wiccan President because that is vile. Nor will you ever see a President who practices magic because that will lead this country straight to hell.



posted on Mar, 26 2008 @ 01:19 AM
link   

Originally posted by The Soothsayer
Or perhaps it all started on day one, with the printing of our money... In God We Trust, and all that.

You got it right there.

There is no such thing as separation of church and state. While the phrase In God We Trust is printed on the currency, the whole country is doomed to follow lock-step.

Religion and money, two of the most fundamental forms of control. You can't have one without the other.



new topics

top topics
 
2

log in

join