It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
(visit the link for the full news article)
In final statement of two-week conference, bishops' synod urges international community to take 'necessary legal steps to put an end to the occupation of the different Arab territories'
Israel cannot use the Biblical concept of a promised land or a chosen people to justify new "settlements" in Jerusalem or territorial claims, a Vatican synod on the Middle East said on Saturday.
"We have meditated on the situation of the holy city of Jerusalem. We are anxious about the unilateral initiatives that threaten its composition and risk to change its demographic balance," the message said
Originally posted by time91
Ironic indeed. This evidence shows that like always, someone knew. The "real owners" of the world. If you will indulge my analogy here
Maurice Strong is to Global Warming
Peter Sutherland is to the Deepwater Horizon
One man links together all of the major players. The occult empire (IMO) that runs everything has their hands all over this disaster. I don't even know what to say. This has me heavily leaning towards complicity, but what do the minds of ATS think? Go ahead and try to debunk it.
Originally posted by burntheships
reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Hey SKL, why dont you tell us what you really think?
Here is a question...why does the Vatican need anything from the UN?
What a bunch of hooey. We know now who really controls the UN...edit on 23-10-2010 by burntheships because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by iamnot
I tried but I could not put into words what I think is going to happen next. All I know is I will be watching the events with my eyes wide open, hopefully. Israel is a tool of Rome but I believe the Pope is nothing more than a tool as well. He is antichrist but I don't believe he is the real antichrist. Will the real antichrist please stand up.
Originally posted by Lemon.Fresh
Reply to post by SpartanKingLeonidas
Wrong. Seperation of church and state is not in the Constitution.
Please try again.
Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com
Quote from : Wikipedia : Establishment Clause of the First Amendment
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".
Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.
The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another.
The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation.
The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.
The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.
Originally posted by burntheships
Lets review the key players shall we? :