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.

 

Treaty of Tripoli: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded o

page: 2
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 08:21 AM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Regardless of the sect of Christianity, the code of cannon law is present. The intolerance of others is present. The bible itself as laid out by the Council of Nicaea and thus created the bible as cannon, it's dictates and laws for all Christians to follow.

The founders of this country knew through the study of history how detrimental it can be for the church to dictate to a government how it should govern, this is why we have the first amendment. It's not just there to keep the government from interfering with the way churches govern themselves, but it also makes it so that the church doesn't dictate what the government does.

The problem with a government run by a church or influenced by a religion is evident with the holy inquisition. Something that religions would happily love to return to at their earliest opportunity. This was shown plain as day when Christian groups were protesting mosques around the country and the mosque in New York.

If given even the slightest real power in our country over our political system, Christians would dust off the Malleus Maleficarum, start up the holy inquisition, and start burning people at the stake once again. They would make the Westboro Baptist Church group look like the Salvation Army. This cannot happen in this country, and this is the reason that any politician professing his faith should be viewed as a threat to freedom, this nation, and the American way of life.

It's all fine and good what a person believes themselves. It's entirely their right to believe in any religion they should choose, but once a person crosses the point between private citizen and public figure, they must work for the public good, and not the good of their own belief system or deity. This is why the Treaty of Tripoli is an important document. Our founding fathers had absolutely no problem with Islam as a faith. We as a nation should welcome those of all religions to this nation of freedom. As long as those religions realize that freedom ends at the door to our government.




posted on Sep, 19 2012 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

Dear HauntWok,

While you raise some interesting points, I think I interpret some things differently than you do.

If we are to believe wikipedia, the first "Code of Canon Law" was made effective in 1918. Up until then there were just various rules found in different collections, which were sometimes confusing or contradictory. en.wikipedia.org...
Now, if you're calling the Bible "Canon Law," I suppose you're free to, but I don't know of anyone who uses it that way, and it does lead to confusion.


The founders of this country knew through the study of history how detrimental it can be for the church to dictate to a government how it should govern, this is why we have the first amendment. It's not just there to keep the government from interfering with the way churches govern themselves, but it also makes it so that the church doesn't dictate what the government does.
Here, I believe, we have a great difference of emphasis. My understanding is that one of the purposes for the settling of the US was the desire to have religious beliefs unfettered by government. The First Amendment, to my understanding, prevented Congress from establishing a single national religion, or in any other way depriving the citizens of their right to exercise their religion. There is nothing in the First Amendment that I can see that prohibits religion from having an effect on government. Indeed, at least for the first hundred years, presidents routinely called on God and advised their citizens to be moral and pray.

This "separation of Church and State" business was introduced as an idea of the Supreme Court fairly recently, it wasn't applied to the states until 1947. This "ancient" idea of the separation of church and state, supposedly intended by the founders, was in fact created out of air less than 70 years ago.

The problem with a government run by a church or influenced by a religion is evident with the holy inquisition. Something that religions would happily love to return to at their earliest opportunity. This was shown plain as day when Christian groups were protesting mosques around the country and the mosque in New York.
I'm sorry, how do you connect a peaceful protest by individuals to the Inquisition? And I don't see any indication that religions want to go back to that. More likely would be government inquisitions with waterboarding to see if you were obeying the Canons of Obama's law.

This cannot happen in this country, and this is the reason that any politician professing his faith should be viewed as a threat to freedom, this nation, and the American way of life.
Do you think Kennedy went around saying "Vote for me, I'm Catholic?" Romney isn't pushing his religion. Who knows what Obama's religion is? These guys aren't professing their faith, the media are going after them about it. Why does "Magic Underwear" keep popping up? Because people who don't like Romney are using his religion to attack him.

Or, are you saying that a public figure must have no religion, they must be an atheist or an agnostic? I think you are.

As long as those religions realize that freedom ends at the door to our government.
You really believe that citizens who serve the government should lose their Constitutionally protected rights to religion and free speech?

I'm sorry, but we seem to be walking on different paths. I wish you well.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 05:43 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Here, I believe, we have a great difference of emphasis. My understanding is that one of the purposes for the settling of the US was the desire to have religious beliefs unfettered by government.


Which is a correct understanding...


The First Amendment, to my understanding, prevented Congress from establishing a single national religion, or in any other way depriving the citizens of their right to exercise their religion. There is nothing in the First Amendment that I can see that prohibits religion from having an effect on government.


And thus the problem with the lack of understanding here. While yes, the government doesn't have the right to establish a national religion, religions don't have any right conversely to dictate their theology upon the government and therefore establish themselves as a national religion.

Some would like to backdoor a national religion upon the people and that should never be allowed to happen.


I'm sorry, how do you connect a peaceful protest by individuals to the Inquisition?


I was simply trying to avoid Godwin's law and equate the "peaceful protests" to what the reality of the situation is.

If given half a chance, these groups would have started lynching Muslims in the street based solely on the unfounded fear they have of Muslims. Then, they would have continued on with gays, single mothers, or other modern day "witches" and it would be a complete bloodbath. Freedom of speech is fine, but using your freedom of speech to try and oppress other people's freedom of religion is morally and ethically wrong on a level that would make the founding fathers turn in their graves. The people at these protests in my opinion are no better than the wingnuts at the westboro baptist church.


And I don't see any indication that religions want to go back to that.


You don't? If you don't see how violent and nasty people are when they believe a deity condones their behavior, obviously you must have a very myopic view of the world.


More likely would be government inquisitions with waterboarding to see if you were obeying the Canons of Obama's law.


That was started under Bush, not Obama. Sorry, don't start blaming things the last administration did on this president especially when this president took steps to halt those practices.


Or, are you saying that a public figure must have no religion, they must be an atheist or an agnostic? I think you are.


Not at all, a person should be free to believe whatever religion they should choose, however when they are working in the interests of the people. They should NOT use their religion in any shape or form. Their opinions should be the opinion of their constituents not their faith.

They are on our dime, not gods, if they want to do gods work be a missionary or a monk or a priest or whatever. But they chose to be a politician and politicians work for the people and not a god.


You really believe that citizens who serve the government should lose their Constitutionally protected rights to religion and free speech?


While actively working as a representative of the government, absolutely. When they aren't actively in that position of power, then they can have whatever freedoms we all enjoy, but that ends the second they cross that door into the office they are elected by the people for. And begins the second they leave that office.



posted on Sep, 22 2012 @ 08:52 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

Dear HauntWok,

Thank you very much for your thorough response. It opens some areas of agreement, and I'm grateful for that.
Please know that in this post I won't be trying to score any points or persuade anybody of anything. This time around, at least, I'm only looking for understanding.

And thus the problem with the lack of understanding here. While yes, the government doesn't have the right to establish a national religion, religions don't have any right conversely to dictate their theology upon the government and therefore establish themselves as a national religion.
Would you believe I absolutely agree with you? I do.

I believe there are only two forces that may legitimately dictate to the government, the people, and the Supreme Court. Here's where I need my first confusion cleared up. Please allow me to use a ridiculously extreme example. Assume that 90% of the population belongs to the religion of Gaia. They believe that hurting the Earth Mother is terribly immoral. May they vote in politicians, state laws, and amendments with extraordinarily strict laws on tree harvesting and mining? I would think they could. I don't know where they could be stopped.

Could 60% (I'm just guessing on the number) of the country, who believe abortion to be immoral, do the same? What if instead of it being immoral, they said that they objected to it on economic, or psychological grounds?

Some would like to backdoor a national religion upon the people and that should never be allowed to happen.
I really don't want to see that. But are we confusing "national religion" with "beliefs learned in a church," or perhaps from the Bible?

If given half a chance, these groups would have started lynching Muslims in the street based solely on the unfounded fear they have of Muslims. Then, they would have continued on with gays, single mothers, or other modern day "witches" and it would be a complete bloodbath.
Here's a difference we have. It's really tough to say what would happen "if." I tend to think they wouldn't go on a "bloodbath" rampage because of their religion, simply because, in America at least, that sort of thing hasn't happened in my lifetime, and we're becoming more tolerant of religious differences, not less. But this is something you can clear up for me.

Freedom of speech is fine, but using your freedom of speech to try and oppress other people's freedom of religion is morally and ethically wrong on a level that would make the founding fathers turn in their graves.
This one baffles me completely. Aren't you using your freedom of speech to say that elected officials shouldn't exercise their freedom of religion?

The waterboarding comment and the "Canons of Obama's law?" I wasn't trying to be partisan, really. Change waterboarding to torture, and Canons of Obama's law to a government decree, if you'd like. Same point.

. . . when they are working in the interests of the people. They should NOT use their religion in any shape or form. Their opinions should be the opinion of their constituents not their faith.
What do we do if someone is elected to the House from a district that is heavily Catholic, or Jewish, or whatever? If their opininions should be the opinions of the constituents, shouldn't he push those opinions to establish religion based laws?

One last question. Remeber the Titanic? It was "women and children first." Some clergymen gave up their places in the life boats, as did the orchestra and some officers. Why? I believe it was because they were brought up believing that was the right thing to do, even at the cost of their lives. If that was so embedded in their very lives, how do we tell a politician not to be even affected by the core beliefs he was brought up with? I don't think it's possible. I don't think people can just "shut off" a major part of their characters so easily. But I may be misunderstanding.

Besides all that, there is a national tradition to consider. Presidents have offered prayers from the very beginning of the country. "In God We Trust." I think the majority want those things to continue. How can we get past that?

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 



Please allow me to use a ridiculously extreme example. Assume that 90% of the population belongs to the religion of Gaia. They believe that hurting the Earth Mother is terribly immoral. May they vote in politicians, state laws, and amendments with extraordinarily strict laws on tree harvesting and mining? I would think they could. I don't know where they could be stopped.


I'll use your example as given. Now, thankfully we live in a Republic, and not a Democracy, this way, that 90% cannot just overrun the 10% of people who aren't of the Gaia, religion. The way our system works and how it's handled most of those laws would be found unconstitutional as they would more than likely be worded in such a way as to give a clear establishment to the religion.

Hopefully the Supreme Court would hear the case and decide to strike down the laws that were passed based on religious preferences instead of legitimate concerns about the environment.


Could 60% (I'm just guessing on the number) of the country, who believe abortion to be immoral, do the same? What if instead of it being immoral, they said that they objected to it on economic, or psychological grounds?


The abortion issue confuses me on many levels, simply because it's so easy to not have an abortion. I am puzzled why people would choose to shove their belief systems and codes of ethics upon others. I am personally of the opinion that if you are pro life, don't have an abortion and there's no issue. I personally am pro choice, my (now ex) wife was also pro choice, when we found out she was pregnant, we discussed the matter and chose to have our child. Now I have a healthy, smart, wonderful 9 year old that I love very much. I think the confusion with the pro life crowd is that for some reason they believe that the pro choice people are pro abortion people and would choose to abort every pregnancy.


I really don't want to see that. But are we confusing "national religion" with "beliefs learned in a church," or perhaps from the Bible?


Oh, it's happening my friend. more and more churches are getting involved heavily in politics. Pastors are telling their flocks who to vote for, money from churches is going to superpacs, and some organizations have heavy lobby groups that I am completely against.


Here's a difference we have. It's really tough to say what would happen "if." I tend to think they wouldn't go on a "bloodbath" rampage because of their religion, simply because, in America at least, that sort of thing hasn't happened in my lifetime, and we're becoming more tolerant of religious differences, not less. But this is something you can clear up for me.


It has happened in your lifetime, it just hasn't happened here to a great extent. There are people who are murdered for their beliefs, their sexual orientation, their sex, their race. It happens in this country often. It's just sugar coated in the news so that it's palatable. Worldwide this happens with a regularity you can set your watch by.

Humans are a vile vicious animal with nearly 0 redemptive qualities, those few redeemable qualities go right out the window when people start using religion as an excuse for their behavior. The same people who rally against Muslim extremists may be the first people trying to draw and quarter a family just for being a different religion than them. It's happened before, and if we as a society allow it, it will happen again.


This one baffles me completely. Aren't you using your freedom of speech to say that elected officials shouldn't exercise their freedom of religion?


The finer point was, elected officials doing the work they were elected for. I'm not saying that elected officials shouldn't have any religion. They can believe whatever they wish. Just when they are doing the work of the people, and we the people are paying their salary, it's inappropriate in my view for them to use their religion in their work. On their own time, they are of course citizens of this great nation and have the same freedoms as everyone else, but when they are doing the work of the people God shouldn't have any say in the matter.


What do we do if someone is elected to the House from a district that is heavily Catholic, or Jewish, or whatever? If their opininions should be the opinions of the constituents, shouldn't he push those opinions to establish religion based laws?


No, he should push the opinions of the secular views those heavily Catholic or Jewish or whatever people have and leave the religious views to the churches respectively.

(continued on next post)



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 05:16 PM
link   
(continued from previous post)


how do we tell a politician not to be even affected by the core beliefs he was brought up with? I don't think it's possible. I don't think people can just "shut off" a major part of their characters so easily. But I may be misunderstanding.


Politicians need to understand they aren't there to push their own beliefs, they are there to do the will of the people. It's irrelevant what the politician themselves believe, it's the will of the constituents they need to voice. The problem with this country is that we the people have forgotten that these elected officials work for us and they shouldn't have opinions of their own. Any politician that thinks for themselves without getting the pulse of their constituency isn't a politician they are an autocrat.


Besides all that, there is a national tradition to consider. Presidents have offered prayers from the very beginning of the country. "In God We Trust." I think the majority want those things to continue. How can we get past that?


Part of that national tradition was slavery, genocide, insane courts where the accused was guilty with no chance of defending themselves before being burned at the stake.

Should we continue those traditions? Of course not, we have learned a better way, we have grown as a country and threw off most of those belief systems.

Religion is fine for the individual, it's fine for a congregation of people. But when those people get power in our political system, it becomes dangerous. We as a nation need to understand that religion has it's place, just like everything else in life.

To everything a season as the good book says.

Representative government is for the secular voice of the people. If a person is religious and has their own code of ethics and beliefs that the secular views don't cover, they should be free to believe those views themselves, live by those views themselves. but not force those views upon the rest of the nation.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 06:19 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

Dear HauntWok,

I had to give you stars for each of your posts, you put a great deal of work into them.


Now this doesn't happen very often at all, but I think I'm going to have to walk away from this thread for a while. It seems that through some failure on my part, I have been unable to explain my thoughts to you and I haven't thought up an alternative approach.

We're probably disagreeing, but I don't know for sure. I'm really sorry, because you have been patient and hard-working. It just seems that for some reason, I can't get you to see what I'm talking about. As soon as I think of something, I'll try again.

With respect,
Charles1952



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:36 PM
link   
reply to post by charles1952
 


Disagreeing with someone isn't a bad thing, differences of opinion are one of the greatest things about America. I'm not here to make you question your faith or even your belief system. I firmly believe that each and every person has the absolute right to believe in whatever religion they should choose even if they choose no religion at all.

I just look to history to judge what outcome will come from particular variables. If one looks at the fall of the Roman Empire and the subsequent dark ages. One can see how a too powerful religion can be a detrimental thing to civilization.

I personally believe in a strong separation between church and state. I don't believe that the state should in any way shape or form dictate what a religion does, believes in, or how it conducts it's affairs. And on the other side, I also believe that religions no matter what religion they are should have absolutely no say so in government. The individuals in those religions are of course free to elect whatever person they think will represent them the best.

I just believe that people that we elect should work towards the secular good of the civilization. While religions should work for the spiritual good of the civilization. Each has their place, and each have good and bad aspects to them. This is why they should never mix.

I do hope I haven't angered you or upset you. That was not my intent. My only intent is to show the logical necessity of a strict separation of church and state for the good of the greatest nation on earth.

God has no business dictating the laws of man just as man has no business dictating the laws of God.



posted on Sep, 23 2012 @ 08:50 PM
link   
reply to post by HauntWok
 

Dear HauntWok,

If there is one thing that I have to make clear in this post, it is that you have not angered me or upset me in any way. This has been one of the better discussions, no name calling or insults, no one line snarky responses. I've enjoyed it very much and look forward to talking with you again.

Seriously, I'm just trying to think of a different way to communicate. I'm sure this is a mistaken idea, but it has seemed that I will try to make a point or ask a question, and your response tells me that I didn't get my idea across.

I agree with you that disgreement isn't necessarily a bad thing. I look for agreement where I can, but no two people will agree about everything. That's not a problem, it's just life.

Again, I am grateful, not upset, for the time you've spent with me so far. I hope we get many more chances to exchange thoughts. Amd if I come up with any more ideas on this topic, I'll be back with bells on.

With respect,
Charles1952



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 1   >>

log in

join