It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Separation of Church and State-Mortgages

page: 1

log in


posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:21 AM
I got into a discussion on the separation of Church and State and a thought came across my mind. I know, it was a short trip. But it was kind of a funny idea.

Now, we all here know all about the basics of where the idea came from. Some attribute it to Locke others to Thomas Jefferson, but it had no power until the Supreme Court wrote it up in some decision. Anyway, enough about the origons, but we have seen the ramifications.

We see that in almost every instance where the government has any involvement in any activity, the zealots come out and scream the "Separation of Church and State". We have seen it recently where a person at a football game, part of the school admin if I remember correctly, brought up one of the recent decisions in regards to it and asked if anyone wanted to pray they could now. Raised a big furor with the zealot "Separation of Church and State" people.

It is getting to the point that anyone working for the government is not allowed to talk about religion or even mention it. Any thing involving government or public property you are not allowed to discuss religion or have any religeous artifacts on the grounds.

Here is a question for you. Since the government now, with the takeover of all the mortgages in the failing banks around the US, has left the entities Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac holding 97% of the mortgages of US homes.

Now, we all know that if you have a mortgage the holder of the mortgage is actually the owner.

Tell me, when do you think the zealots are going to go after the religious artifacts in your home and tell you that you can no longer discuss religion in your own home?

Or am I just trying to twist some chains?

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 04:47 AM
I kind of think you are trying to twist some chains........

thank you for trying to distract us from all those personal problems that have been dumped on us compliments of the powers that be, but well.....
don't think it's gonna work this time....

and that is just about what I think is happening when there's these big media blitzes about christmas being wiped off the face of the earth, ect....

just a distraction, something to keep the people occupied arguing between themselves, have to keep them busy ya know, there is still a few billion left to be misappropriated, conned, and just plain swindled out of the people....
and look, there's those people over there still to do something about that one!!! keep them busy a little longer, that one person seems to be getting interested in what we are doing over here!

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 05:04 AM
It sounds like you're writing from the United States.

No, a mortgage holder doesn't own the property. It enjoys a lien on the property. Basically, you can't sell without paying the lien holder. Depending on your agreement and the laws of the jurisdiction, there will be other rules that define the rights and obligations of the parties.

You still own the property, you have simply given somebody else some specific interests. If the premises are a dwelling place, then the mortgage holder generally does not have the right to enter the premises uninvited and without a court order, for instance.

Even if that were not the case, the First Amendment guarantees that the federal government will not interfere with the free exercise of religion. So, it really cannot force people to remove religious articles from their homes.

What complicates school administrators' religious expressions in the line of duty is that the same First Amendment (along with the Fourteenth) forbids establishment, a tax supported religion. Schools are very tricky places, because young children may misunderstand adult actions as endorsement, to name one reason.

In any case, students retain their own First Amendment right to religious free expression on school grounds, subject only to reasonable time, place, and manner regulations. Those regulations must not be based on the expression being religious, but apply to everything similar. (A ban on wearing any jewelry on chains in the machine shop is OK, but a ban on wearing crucifixes on chains is not OK.)

Freedom endures another day. There are other problems with Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, of course.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 06:12 AM
reply to post by endisnighe

In the short term, I think the secularist agenda is the suppression of evangelism, rather than the suppression of worship as such.
So stopping religion in the home is way down the list of priorities, compared with stopping religion outside the home.

posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 06:17 AM
Thanks for the comments folks, just trying to see all the components.

Agree with everyone, sometimes my mind wanders, not very far mind you.

I like to brainstorm when things cross my mind is all.


posted on Jul, 29 2010 @ 11:39 AM
I think the idea of it being done through mortages is a little out there but the concept is on the right path though. The worst totalitarian governmenrts we have seen all banned religion and took up State atheism. The Khmer Rouge, Soviet Russia and North Korea are all examples of what happens when you start banning religion.

top topics

log in