North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

page: 3
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:15 PM
link   
It's as idiotic as all the anti-Christian sentiment we're seeing.

Christianity is about the brotherhood of man under the fatherhood of God's love. It doesn't need to be enshrined or opposed.




posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


I read your post a few times and I still don't see where you defend and atheist's right to serve in public office, or do you think that an atheist's non-belief in gods or deities constitutes a religion? If so, then do you think that these states that bar atheist's from public office are discriminating against atheists based on their religion?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:46 PM
link   

Originally posted by bbracken677
At the time, meetings were began with a prayer. The first congress was begun with a prayer. It has begun each session since the first with a prayer. The Supreme Court building is rife with religious symbolism.


At the time, rich white men owned black slaves. Doesn't make it right.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 06:58 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by bbracken677
 


reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


So you believe that states have a right to legislate laws respecting the establishment of a religion? Do you agree that people who have no belief in a god should be excluding from public office?


edit on 4-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


I believe I was clear with my statement that "people who have no belief in God should be excluded from office" was discriminatory. Let me clarify. It's wrong. Understand? Comprende? Hai capito? vous comprenez?

I was very very clear. I believe strongly in separation of church and state. Period.

I was also very clear when I stated that the constitution leaves it open for states to create their own "state religion". Virtually every (every one that I know of) state constitution has verbage that prevents that. Not sure about the state constitution of NC, but if so then a bill passed by the state congress cannot supersede the state's constitution.

The particular passage in the constitution of the US is as follows: "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of religion". Congress, as referred to, relates strictly to the Congress of the United States. Period.

The current dogma with regards to separation is all related to letters (separate from the constitution) by Jefferson (who wrote most of the constitution) related to his belief that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. If that was the prevailing intent of those framing the constitution at the time, a simple statement could cover that, rather than the current separation clause as it exists.

There is a process for changing the constitution: Amendments. Rather than conveniently twist and mis-construe the simple wording of the clause, ie; interpreting it how the Supremes believe it should be, an amendment should be framed and voted on. I am sure it would pass easily.

There is a danger when our govt decides to interpret the constitution in such a way as to fit what they believe should be the intent, rather than actually taking the only meaning which can possibly arise from such a simple statement as: "Congress shall make no laws regarding the establishment of Religion".



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by HandyDandy

Originally posted by bbracken677
At the time, meetings were began with a prayer. The first congress was begun with a prayer. It has begun each session since the first with a prayer. The Supreme Court building is rife with religious symbolism.


At the time, rich white men owned black slaves. Doesn't make it right.


So you totally choose to miss the point of the above statement?

The quote you cut was making a point regarding a clause in the constitution....had nothing whatsoever to do with right or wrong.

Actually... I could take your reference to slavery to help make my point. Which was...when our govt chooses to interpret the constitution to mean other than what it says, bad things may result.

Slavery has been deemed constitutional on a couple of occasions. Separation of church and state is deemed to be constitutional. Slavery is wrong. Separation is right, how we got to separation is wrong, just as wrong as how we got to slavery being constitutional.

Understand??



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NihilistSanta
 


I read your post a few times and I still don't see where you defend and atheist's right to serve in public office, or do you think that an atheist's non-belief in gods or deities constitutes a religion? If so, then do you think that these states that bar atheist's from public office are discriminating against atheists based on their religion?


I see...so when I stated that it was discriminatory you wouldn't take that as a condemnation?

Or rather, you chose not to take that as condemnation.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:09 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


That post was not addressed to you. I see that you are not in favor of discriminating against atheists. But you are okay with the state establishing a state religion.



edit on 4-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 07:49 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 



The current dogma with regards to separation is all related to letters (separate from the constitution) by Jefferson (who wrote most of the constitution) related to his belief that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. If that was the prevailing intent of those framing the constitution at the time, a simple statement could cover that, rather than the current separation clause as it exists.


What, pray tell, is your point here?
There should be a 'wall of separation' between church and state! Only someone totally uneducated in world affairs would think otherwise.

Are you saying Jefferson was too ambiguous in his statement?

Actually, I think that ALL POLITICIANS should be quizzed and tested, and that ONLY those who are atheist or unaffiliated with any 'organized religion' should be allowed on the ballot.
RELIGION has NO PLACE in politics!!! We are not the Mideast. Gha.

edit on 4-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:26 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by bbracken677
 



The current dogma with regards to separation is all related to letters (separate from the constitution) by Jefferson (who wrote most of the constitution) related to his belief that there should be a "wall of separation" between church and state. If that was the prevailing intent of those framing the constitution at the time, a simple statement could cover that, rather than the current separation clause as it exists.


What, pray tell, is your point here?
There should be a 'wall of separation' between church and state! Only someone totally uneducated in world affairs would think otherwise.

Are you saying Jefferson was too ambiguous in his statement?

Actually, I think that ALL POLITICIANS should be quizzed and tested, and that ONLY those who are atheist or unaffiliated with any 'organized religion' should be allowed on the ballot.
RELIGION has NO PLACE in politics!!! We are not the Mideast. Gha.

edit on 4-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)



Unfortunately, either you did not read the posts, or failed miserably in your comprehension.

Of course there should be a wall of separation.... But one is not provided for in the constitution, ergo, an amendment is needed. As opposed to just interpreting the clause as we think it should be.

Was Jefferson ambiguous? No...I do not think so. The clause is simple and straightforward: "CONGRESS shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion." Need I explain it? again?

There is no mention of any other branch of govt, nor is there mention of the states rights. This, to me, seems rather intentional.

To require that politicians, who are supposed to REPRESENT their constituents, be atheist (or for that matter, Christian) would be to go against the very essence of what a democracy, or for that matter, our country is, or is supposed to be.

While you are at it, would you require that our politicians be of a certain race? After all, you are advocating a specific belief system (or lack thereof). Perhaps you would also dictate what sexual orientation they were? Perhaps their eating habits would qualify them? Perhaps all politicians would not be allowed to own dogs?

Thank God you are not our Dictator-in-Chief.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
Only someone totally uneducated in world affairs would think otherwise.



edit on 4-4-2013 by wildtimes because: (no reason given)


I dare say, with some security, that given your response that I am less uneducated than yourself in more than just "world affairs".

I have even been through the arguments, the reasoning behind the "separation clause" which prompted the current "interpretation" of the clause.

I also consider myself to be "educated" enough to be totally capable of arguing this before the Supreme Court in such a way that should they uphold the previous ruling they would be openly admitting to legislating from the Bench.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:33 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 



While you are at it, would you require that our politicians be of a certain race? After all, you are advocating a specific belief system (or lack thereof). Perhaps you would also dictate what sexual orientation they were? Perhaps their eating habits would qualify them? Perhaps all politicians would not be allowed to own dogs?

Thank God you are not our Dictator-in-Chief.

Oh, for heaven's sake!!
My comprehension is faulty??
NO.....I don't think that our politicians should be of a certain race! I think that politicians who use their 'faith' to dictate their decisions should not be allowed to be legislators.

I read all the posts. I'm speaking my mind. There should be NO talk of 'God' in politics. It's very simple.
I'm not an atheist. I'm not a hard-core fundamentalist 'Christian', either.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by bbracken677
 


But you are okay with the state establishing a state religion.



edit on 4-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)


You are kidding, right?



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by bbracken677
 



While you are at it, would you require that our politicians be of a certain race? After all, you are advocating a specific belief system (or lack thereof). Perhaps you would also dictate what sexual orientation they were? Perhaps their eating habits would qualify them? Perhaps all politicians would not be allowed to own dogs?

Thank God you are not our Dictator-in-Chief.

Oh, for heaven's sake!!


My comprehension is faulty??



Um...I stated rather clearly, on more than one occasion that I believed rather sincerely that separation of church and state was needed, necessary. But apparently you didn't understand.


Originally posted by wildtimes
NO.....I don't think that our politicians should be of a certain race! I think that politicians who use their 'faith' to dictate their decisions should not be allowed to be legislators.

I read all the posts. I'm speaking my mind. There should be NO talk of 'God' in politics. It's very simple.
I'm not an atheist. I'm not a hard-core fundamentalist 'Christian', either.




Well...I just do not know what to think about someone who would, in a democracy, require that it's leaders be of a particular belief system. Given that freedom of religion is a right guaranteed by the constitution,...given that our whole system of morality is based on Judeo/Christian values...given that this is, ostensibly, a democracy, and not the opposite of a theocracy, I am just at a total loss for words here.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are our politicians not supposed to represent us?


Frankly I believe it more likely that those politicians who use the word "God" often in their speeches are not genuine, but rather are trying to garner favor from a particular segment of our population. After all...politicians are liars, no?
edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)
edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:45 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Correct me if I am wrong, but are our politicians not supposed to represent us?

Yes, they are! Which is why they should have no affiliation to any religion! I should go back and edit out 'atheists'.....because the atheists also have an 'agenda.'

Legislators need to be neutral, and listen to their constituents and go with what the constituents say.



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 08:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by bbracken677
 


Correct me if I am wrong, but are our politicians not supposed to represent us?

Yes, they are! Which is why they should have no affiliation to any religion! I should go back and edit out 'atheists'.....because the atheists also have an 'agenda.'

Legislators need to be neutral, and listen to their constituents and go with what the constituents say.


It is virtually impossible for any human being to be neutral regarding any important issue, let alone consistently neutral. You might as well wish for the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow.

Oh...and if none of our politicians had ANY religious affiliations, who would represent those who do? Seems to me that only atheists would be represented, seeing as how the definition of an atheist is one who does not believe in God. One who does is likely to have some identification with some religious affiliation or other.

What kind of leader would always go with what their constituents want? What Joe Public wants is as fickle as the wind...we would declare war on someone and then a week later sue for peace. Really? Do you live in the same world I do? 60% of the population wanted us to kick Saddam's butt and then a couple years later blamed it all on Bush/Cheney. lol



,

edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: added the last line
edit on 4-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: Added last paragraph



posted on Apr, 4 2013 @ 09:03 PM
link   
reply to post by bbracken677
 


What kind of leader would always go with what their constituents want?

Really?
The kind that are elected by their constituents to represent them!!



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 07:33 AM
link   

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by bbracken677
 


What kind of leader would always go with what their constituents want?

Really?
The kind that are elected by their constituents to represent them!!



Yes, REALLY!

"What kind of leader would always go with what their constituents want? What Joe Public wants is as fickle as the wind...we would declare war on someone and then a week later sue for peace. Really? Do you live in the same world I do?"

Do you really think the average american knows anything about the current issues?
Should the politician fund a poll to gauge what the "will of the people is?" Seriously?
Most people cannot even name who their representatives are, specially at the state level. Most people do not know the particulars of any issue, let alone one that the MSM has not spoon fed them the spin...
Talk about a screwed up situation...might as well eliminate the politicians and just put a poll on the internet for people to vote on every issue...LOL

Can you imagine that? Bill to increase welfare payments by 500% passes!

What a joke....

The average voter's ignorance is why we get the politicians we have in office...think about that for a moment.

Most people vote for names on the ballot and really have no clue what the person is about. That in itself is a condemnation of the system.

Politicians are supposed to represent our values, our philosophies, our needs(generally speaking), our morals, etc etc but are not supposed to look to the masses for how to vote on every bill that comes up. They are supposed to act in our interests...that is something that is lacking.

Not enough people care...or we wouldn't have the politicians elected that are elected...

Who are the greatest offenders, who are the most ignorant of voters? Who is unaware of the history of the last 50 years? Who is the most ignorant voters of all, who swallow the crap spewed out of Washington?

The younger voters. I am not a Bush fan, by any means, form or fashion, but he got blamed for crap that had nothing to do with anything he did. The first recession of his term actually began before the repubs had even selected their candidate. Jobs had been flying overseas by the millions during the 90s, but Bush was beat up for it. The stage had already been set for the most recent economic problems in the 90s (personal debt at unsustainable levels). Bush, much as his predecessor, much as Obama, took no steps to prevent what was coming...and what has yet to pass. The younger voters swallowed the crap about how the economy of 2004 was the "worst since the depression"...BS. Those of us who were around during the Carter admin know better than that. PT Barnum was right: There IS a sucker born every minute.

There is so much more....
edit on 5-4-2013 by bbracken677 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 08:13 AM
link   
reply to post by windword
 

What happened to "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
We already have a US "state" religion that might as well be a constitutional amendment, of the principle that no one is allowed to question the appropriateness of a Jewish state, meaning of course the Zionist regime illegally occupying Palestine.
So, now, I think it would be pure hypocrisy if the Supreme Court tried to nullify a state law making Christianity the official religion.



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 11:17 AM
link   
I find very interesting the difference in religious viewpoints between the US and Canada.

Unlike the US, men such as these NC legislators would be almost unelectable in most of Canada. Our current Prime Minister is a fundamentalist Christian yet he never speaks to his religious beliefs and keeps a fairly tight reign on those of his party who would be more vocal in their religious views. This is in part due to a former party leader who was more overt in expressing his religious views suffering an electoral backlash.

This is no doubt due in some part to the fact that only 42% of Canadians feel that religion is an important part of their life (from a Leger poll in 2012).



posted on Apr, 5 2013 @ 02:24 PM
link   
reply to post by erwalker
 

We're a little more open minded in Canada, a little more aware, a little more educated, and therefore a little less fanatical and narrow minded and by that I'm referring to both sides of the argument that's raging in the US.

There's a lot of black and white biased ignorance in the US even by supposedly well educated adult people. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.





new topics

top topics



 
22
<< 1  2    4  5 >>

log in

join