Your Opinion: Separation of Church and State

a reply to: peter vlar

So if today, 75% of Americans identify as Christian and closer to 85% in the 50’s, what god exactly do you think they’re referring to?

Isn’t that a pretty large number of people to throw under the bus, based on an assumption?

The Freemasons God fits better with what we observe.

How does Freemasonry define God? Monotheism is the sole dogma of Freemasonry. Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of the Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation. Freemasonry is not concerned with theological distinctions. This is the basis of our universality.
Grand Lodge of Indiana, Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide, 1993 Edition, page 41

Source
The trinity and baptism would be more distinguishing signs of Christianity. The trinity sign would have been an better indicator for the Christian faith rather than the eagle on the back of our coins.

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: peter vlar

So if today, 75% of Americans identify as Christian and closer to 85% in the 50’s, what god exactly do you think they’re referring to?

Isn’t that a pretty large number of people to throw under the bus based on an assumption?

Yes assumptions, just facts here. Please feel free to falsify the numbers I’ve supplied though.

Freemasons God fits better with what we observe.

How does Freemasonry define God? Monotheism is the sole dogma of Freemasonry. Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of the Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation. Freemasonry is not concerned with theological distinctions. This is the basis of our universality.
Grand Lodge of Indiana, Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide, 1993 Edition, page 41

26 year old outdated data doesn’t sway me much. If we were talking about something that had occurred in the late 18th or early 19th century you may have a point with this Freemason diversion, but we aren’t. We’re talking about revisionist history from the mid 20th century.

The trinity and baptism would be more distinguishing signs of Christianity. The trinity sign would have been an better indicator for the Christian faith rather than the eagle on the back of our coins.

the eagle predates the inclusion of In God We Trust. You’re grasping at straws to make this a non religious, non Christian issue when it’s very much an issue of including Christianity in both our currency and the National Anthem

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: FyreByrd

So the federal government is not supposed to pick one to impose, but neither is it necessarily supposed to hinder any of them simply for being religions, either.

The federal government hinders religious practices that it considers nonorthodox. The government does this by calling them cults or abhorrence's of orthodox historical religion. The Mormons were chased out of the Midwest for their unorthodox practices. The government hinders native American shamanistic religious practices outside of the designated tribal lands. So the government does hinder religious practices the latest would of been the Branch Dravidian's.

a reply to: ketsuko

I was talking about religion, the Green New Deal has nothing to do with that. If you are suggesting that non-religious people can also make mistakes, it is true, but at least one can engage with them in a discussion by pointing out logical problems with their plan, or facts that go against them, or the scientific basis of their assumptions. (It doesn't work to pretend like the science is fake when it isn't.).

I don't want to live in a society where someone says being gay deserves the death sentence "because God said so" and the government isn't persuaded by scientific evidence or moral arguments outside of ancient books. I don't want to live in a society like Saudi Arabia where women are treated as property, and this is justified as a divine right.

Leaders can get away with doing anything they want if all they have to say is they have a divine reason for their rules. They aren't held accountable for anything. This can lead to a dangerous situation where the leaders aren't taking into account the perspectives of some of their populace because, instead of accounting for those perspectives, which takes work, the leaders prefer to channel their feelings to make policies and attribute those feelings to their respective God or Gods.

I don't even think I support the Green New Deal, although to be realistic, it is a non-binding proposal, just a statement about a direction to go in for the country. It seems to be overly-optimistic, especially since it combines fighting climate change with an overly-ambitious employment plan, which just makes it less likely to succeed at combatting climate change.

Climate change is a real issue, not a fake one, and conservatives ignoring it will just cost them votes AND the opportunity to fix it their way in the long run. If conservatives have no proposals to fix the very real problem, obviously liberals will be the ones fixing or attempting to fix, it. Climate change is going to cost the American economy billions, if not trillions, eventually.

originally posted by: peter vlar
a reply to: Observationalist


Today, there are 240 million Christians in America. Or roughly 75% of the population. This percentage was even higher in the 50’s. So with such a disproportionate number of Christians in the US, exactly which god do you think they were trusting in during the McCarthy Commumism Scare era that Eisenhower signed into law? And the pyramid wasn’t in question, it was the addition of these phrases only 60 years ago, phrases that weren’t part of the original documents in question. So if today, 75% of Americans identify as Christian and closer to 85% in the 50’s, what god exactly do you think they’re referring to?

It is well-known in numismatic circles that the first federal coin to bear the inscription IN GOD WE TRUST was the 1864 two cent piece.

In God We Trust: A Brief History

So , you were very , very wrong....
Sometimes I hold back information till the correct time
BARF ?
Grow up.

Everyone should be free to be openly religious, tax dollars shouldnt go to pay for it. You dont want the government supporting specific religions because politics is a corrupting force. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and unto God the things that are God's. They will teach your kids things about God that you disagree with. They will use what people find holy in order to gain power and control. That stuff should between you, God, your family, your church, community, etc. You don't need government involved. Thats how you get antichrists, shariah law, pharaoh and all that.

a reply to: FyreByrd

And yet religious groups do influence these things and not by individual conscious as expresses by individual voters but by secret and semi secret organizations funded by People with religious agendas.

So do people who believe in global warming. So do people who believe in population reduction. So do people who believe in evolution. So do people who believe in veganism. So do people who believe in feminism. So do people who believe in transgenderism. So do people who believe anything and everything we can name. And things we can't name. Religion is no different than any other philosophy or ideology.

Hence the need for government to regulate and legislate in a way that allows everyone to do as they will, believe what they will, love who they will, etc -- without government dictating what anyone can and cannot believe.

Because it implies ( or screams) preference to a specific religious tradition.

Maybe. It could also quote (or scream) of an historical rule of law informing our law today. It all depends on how much power it has in that courtroom... which is none. I have never ever heard of a judge in a courtroom with or without the 10 commandments sentencing someone according to 7th commandment... or the 6th... or the 9th... and so on. People are charged, tried and sentenced according to our codified laws.

Do the women attorneys wearing pants scream of feminism? Do the judges eating salads scream of veganism? Do all the Caucasians scream of white supremacy?

It doesn't matter what it "implies" or even "screams" to anyone of anything as long as they have no power over anyone else. Which brings us back to regulating and legislating appropriately.

While I believe it to be prudent that individuals express their religious convictions when the vote, I do not believe it is Just or Fair, for Churches (which are not individual citizens) should push their agenda into governing decisions. These are organizations that are by and for a very small portion of their co-religionists.

So no more women's groups fighting for women's rights, because they "push their agenda into governing decisions"? No more vegan groups? No more Black Lives Matters? All of these groups organize and discuss and are activists in politics and governing decisions. It's not just religion.

Regulatory capture is real. Just look at Trans Activism and the Trans Agenda being pushed on us without due process and without regard for the rights of others. But it's not just churches and religions that do it.

Which brings us back -- AGAIN -- to the state regulating and legislating appropriately in accordance with freedom and conscience and Natural Law.

a reply to: darkbake

The Green New Deal is a drastic overhaul of the economy and American life on every level based on a near religious belief that the planet will be destroyed in 10 years if we don't.

That's more religious than it is actually scientific.

a reply to: FyreByrd

The separation of church and state is not in the bill of rights. The first amendment says:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Given the context of the church of england, it's quite obvious what it means. There will be no official religion of the USA, federally. Nor will a religion be banned. This has been twisted into "you can't legislate based on morality in your religion!!!" which is not only false, but it's quite an impossible standard. Thou shalt not kill is the first commandment in the bible, so can we not outlaw murder? After all, doing so would be legislating the morality of your religion.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: strongfp

Well, I suppose that makes it OK then. Imagine having to pay a tax for being black; you know to remind you that you aren't Asian or something which is what the jizya is -- a tax paid to remind the infidels they aren't Muslim.

The jizya is a prime example of why there is now official state religion the Federal government backs. It would then be prime to start charging you for not being whatever that religion is ... maybe Mormon or Lutheran or these days, it wants to tax you for being Christian. Isn't that the aim of taxing churches?

actually that tax is more akin to extortion or a geld like payed to the Vikings to leave you alone. than being akin to things like paying the same religious tax muslims are expected to pay. there is no set amount. it's whatever they feel they can extort out of you. and set up to work at forcing people to convert in order to get out of having to pay it. than just something to remind you, you are not muslim, and thus have no standing.

and the thing is at some point even that does not stay in place, or even be put into place at all. and it's just the evil mohammad's convert or die policy, that he was so fond of using.

originally posted by: strongfp
a reply to: ketsuko

I'm not defending it. I'm simply bringing forth the facts that Muslim nations dont jail or kill off Christians just because they are Christian.

you are being funny. muslim nations do in fact jail and kill off Christians, as well as any non muslim, just because they are not muslim. that has been their way led by the example of their unholy prophet.

even almost worse is the fact that converting away from being a muslim is a death sentence. i had a close friend who had to flee his country. because his WIFE converted to Christianity. and thus since we all know how muslims regard females, it was HIS place to deal with her appropriately (as in either forcing her to convert back through abuse, or to simply kill her), being he was responsible for her actions. and since he refused to do so, he was apostate and thus under death sentence. (and people wonder why things like honor killings take place).

and that is exactly the type of things they were trying to prevent by not allowing the state to control religion as written into the constitution. as it was mentioned many of the very first settlers were fleeing from religious prosecution in their home countries. which made this of extreme importance to them. and because of that, many people far later immigrated to the US to flee religious prosecution. and that is what a real refugee is about. and should be the very first and main ones to be accepted into the country as refugees. those who live in oppressive countries where their religious beliefs put them at extreme risk. as well as things like racial persecution (such as the white South Africans right now for example, that no one seems to want, or the Jews fleeing Germany, in which only the Philippines really tried to help in a decent way). as well as other ideological ideals that put them at high risk, like currently those in Hong Kong trying to save themselves from communist China, as well as all those China persecutes because of religion.

a reply to: peter vlar

Your numbers are fine. You’re assuming that this God on the dollar and in the pledge is the Christian biblical God based on a majority of people at the time being Christians. No documents or voting records from congress that say we believe that from here on forward that the God in God we trust and in the pledge is the Biblical Christian God?

Masons have a history in our founding just as much as Christians. I’m sure they had something to say about this.

Eisenhower was a Mason, even Billy Grahm is said to be a mason. Sadly many Christians felt it was okay to cross over to Freemasonry. Their values are basically the same and Jesus fell under their canopy of God.

Canopy Deity
"You have learned that Freemasonry calls God, 'The Great Architect of the Universe" (G.A.O.T.U.). This is the Freemason's special name for God, because he is universal. He belongs to all men regardless of their religious persuasion. All wise men acknowledge His authority. In his private devotions a Mason will pray to Jehovah, Mohammed, Allah, Jesus or the Deity of his choice. In a Masonic Lodge, however, the Mason will find the name of his Deity within the G.A.O.T.U."

So...Show me a clear distinction between a Masonic Canopy God and Biblical Christian God. If not, then I say this God they refer to in the dollar and the pledge is nothing more than this canopy God that is neutral and left up for interpretation.

I think its an important facet of the nations founding, for obvious reasons.

Id just prefer the cultural narrative expands it beyond strictly theistic religions. They dont really seem particularly relevant, in this context, outside of those folks who love to fight their own shadow.

Biggest threat nowadays is the non-theistic identitarian cult/religion that has overtaken the "left." I feel they have a "right" to their beliefs, no matter how obviously nutty, but it has no place establishing its power through policy and legislation.. even if its practiced under the paper-thin veil of "politics."

a reply to: Serdgiam

Ironically, they should want to keep the "in God We Trust" slogan on everything. Their god is the state. It's a very tangible god with the power to enforce their will on everyone who deviates from their preferred orthodoxy, and they've been very successful so far in petitioning it to their great success.

a reply to: ketsuko

Thats a very solid point..

I suspect that the "state," as it currently exists in the US, has too many stopgaps and controls in place. There is diversity, opposition, and competition.

However, I predict that this current course will only remain on track as a temporary measure. What I expect to see next is a further conflation of corporations and people tying their personal identity to them.

Im not sure of the timeframe, but I think what we are seeing (even right now) is the foundation being laid for corporations to declare sovereignty and independence from the nations in which they reside.

It's not particularly difficult, given the social engineering at play. As long as they dont actually use words like "sovereignty," and maintain the illusion that dangerous levels of zealotry is exclusive to theistic religion.. Specifically Christianity.. Most wont think of anything other than blind support. This is easily leveraged by using propaganda to show how "theocracy is rising nao!" or other nonsense.

And those that dont will simply be excommunicated as heathens, "racists," etc.

originally posted by: Observationalist
a reply to: peter vlar

So if today, 75% of Americans identify as Christian and closer to 85% in the 50’s, what god exactly do you think they’re referring to?

Isn’t that a pretty large number of people to throw under the bus based on an assumption?

Yes assumptions, just facts here. Please feel free to falsify the numbers I’ve supplied though.

Freemasons God fits better with what we observe.

How does Freemasonry define God? Monotheism is the sole dogma of Freemasonry. Belief in one God is required of every initiate, but his conception of the Supreme Being is left to his own interpretation. Freemasonry is not concerned with theological distinctions. This is the basis of our universality.
Grand Lodge of Indiana, Indiana Monitor & Freemason's Guide, 1993 Edition, page 41

26 year old outdated data doesn’t sway me much. If we were talking about something that had occurred in the late 18th or early 19th century you may have a point with this Freemason diversion, but we aren’t. We’re talking about revisionist history from the mid 20th century.

The trinity and baptism would be more distinguishing signs of Christianity. The trinity sign would have been an better indicator for the Christian faith rather than the eagle on the back of our coins.

the eagle predates the inclusion of In God We Trust. You’re grasping at straws to make this a non religious, non Christian issue when it’s very much an issue of including Christianity in both our currency and the National Anthem

a reply to: ketsuko

It isn't religious because they don't believe in a deity, for one thing, that represents this calamity. I believe that the effect of climate change is going to be fairly drastic. I think the science backs up the idea that we have until 2030 to take action, or the effects will worsen.

The report issued Monday by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), says the planet will reach the crucial threshold of 1.5 degrees Celsius (2.7 degrees Fahrenheit) above pre-industrial levels by as early as 2030, precipitating the risk of extreme drought, wildfires, floods and food shortages for hundreds of millions of people.

The date, which falls well within the lifetime of many people alive today, is based on current levels of greenhouse gas emissions.

The planet is already two-thirds of the way there, with global temperatures having warmed about 1 degree C. Avoiding going even higher will require significant action in the next few years.

"This is concerning because we know there are so many more problems if we exceed 1.5 degrees C global warming, including more heatwaves and hot summers, greater sea level rise, and, for many parts of the world, worse droughts and rainfall extremes," Andrew King, a lecturer in climate science at the University of Melbourne, said in a statement.

Climate Change

So that is what the scientists say, they aren't religious by the way, they have to use the scientific method. They are held accountable to reality. I guess at the 1.5 C mark, there might be more droughts and heatwaves and hurricanes and things in the U.S.

Anyway, the Green New Deal people might be over-reacting a bit, or not practical. Not religious, though.

a reply to: peter vlar

Does it really matter? Does saying/reading those words turn you into Christian? Are your own beliefs and convictions shredded to their core?

If so, that says more for how weak your own beliefs and convictions truly are.

Anyways the inclusion of the phrase was a reaction to atheist communist influence, not an intent to institute a state religion.

Perhaps it was motivated by underlying and not-visible to the common man, power structures that involved religious institutions. I just read recently, for example, that a position in a particular church in England automatically placed you into the House of Lords. Then there is the Vatican and the Jesuits..

Perhaps the founders of the US wanted to separate themselves from old world power structures.

What bothers me is that a muslim can throw down a rug in a public school and pray three times a day and no one dares to say a word about it. But, a Christian cant sit alone silently praying to himself in the same school because that may offend someone.

Liberal whiners have made it illegal for children to pray quietly to themselves anywhere on school grounds if they happen to be Christian. No mention of God is allowed on school grounds. But when there is a shooting the very first thing liberals want to do is hold hands and pray for gun control - on school grounds.

Hypocritical bullsh*t.