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 - Executive Order 13397

page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 3 2006 @ 11:41 AM
Executive Order 13397

Nancy Levant
July 25, 2006

The separation of church and state - gone with the stroke of a pen. As of March 7, 2006, our nation’s leader signed another Executive Order, which tied the Department of Homeland Security to our leader’s “faith-based” churches. Okay, all you non-profit churches out there – you now serve the federal government’s primary spying agency.....

the rest of the article:

This may have been discussed here already. Any comments or thoughts from anyone about this?

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 12:06 PM
Hmm...separation of church and state. Where did I hear that before? Ah yes! It was Lenin in Russia, 1918:

In the Decree of Separation of Church and State, and of School and Church in January 1918, the Soviet government established the separation of Church and State, transferred the registration of births, marriages and deaths to civil authority, prohibited instruction of religion in any school -- private or state, and forbade the ownership of private property by churches or religious associations because they did not possess the rights of juridical persons.

Further clarification of the execution of this decree, referred to as the instruction, was published in Izvestia in August 1918. The instruction included the following:

1. The management of all ecclesiastical property would be transferred to the local Soviets of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

2. Representatives of the religious creed, who managed the church and other property, were required to submit, in triplicate, a list of all property intended for use in religious services to the local Soviet of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

3. The deputies would take over the property and give it to the inhabitants of the same religious creed, who wanted to use the property. This group would be composed of at least 20 citizens, who must sign the agreement. The agreement provided that these 20 citizens were to maintain the "National Property" and to use it solely for satisfying religious needs. Further, they must prohibit in these buildings political meetings hostile to the Soviet government, the spreading or selling of literature hostile to the Soviet government, and sermons hostile to the Soviet Government. Maintenance of the Church required that the 20 citizens must see to the payment of taxes, insurance, repairs, etc. Additionally, they could not refuse any citizen, who was a co-religionist, the right to sign the agreement after the date of the agreement. Moreover, they must allow all citizens to be buried in church cemeteries. If all conditions were not fulfilled, the 20 citizens would be held criminally liable.

4. If the persons who managed the ecclesiastical property refused to do the above, the local Soviet of Workmen-Peasants Deputies would compile a list of the property in front of witnesses and turn it over to the group of 20 citizens of the religious creed; churches of historic, artistic and archaeological value would be transferred to the Museum Section of the Commissariat of Education; local citizens of the religious creed could sign the agreement, after the transfer, to participate in the administration of the ritual property.

5. If there were no local applicants to take over the building, the Comissariat of Education would determine the purpose for the use of the building; so called sacred items, not utilized in religious services, would be turned over to citizens responsible for religious items.

6. All other property of churches and religious associations, and abolished departments, such as schools and charitable institutions, would be immediately confiscated. This included all landed property, funds and profit-making investments.

7. Failure to turn over monies by the holder would result in a charge of civil and criminal embezzlement, and the illicit use of the property of the Republic would be a criminal offense.

8. The buildings of spiritual, educational and training establishments of any creed, as well as the building of the parish church schools should, as national property, be turned over to the local Soviets of Workmen-Peasants Deputies.

9. This decree prohibits the instruction in any creed in state, public and private educational institutions.
Also discussed in greater detail in Discretion and Valour by Trevor Beeson

Sounds good? Then great news for you, such a country exists today! One plane ticket will get you there. All the best, send me a postcard from the Kremlin.

[edit on 4-10-2006 by saint4God]

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 04:40 PM
The separation of church and state that this country was founded upon was a concept promoting freedom and protection. Quite different from the communist version.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 05:50 PM
The faith-based initiative is one area where I differ with the president. The fear that I have is not what religion will do to the government, but what the government will do to churches.

The president is correct to recognize and seek to promote the good that churches do in our communities, but where government money goes, government regulations follow.

I worked for a private homeless shelter in New Orleans about a decade ago and it was the only shelter that did not accept government funds and that practice gave the shelter control over the activities at the shelter that none of the others had and was therefore able to prevent or put an end to violence that would have escalated otherwise.

We could ban men from the shelter for continued infractions of the rules because we had no obligation to serve anyone. It was a pretty good system, because many of the homeless believed that we had an obligation to serve them regardless of their behavior and when they realized that a night on the street was what was at stake, they got polite and well behaved in a hurry.

Government money never comes without strings attached.

posted on Oct, 4 2006 @ 07:31 PM
Thanks for the reply, and you made a very good point from your example.

One of the biggest issues I can see effecting us right now is probably a topic for another discussion, and that's the psycho/social hegelian dialectic being used as model in our schools - which are funded by the taxpayers. This way of thinking is what is being pushed now and naturally it flows over into the churches. Absolute truths are no longer absolute, basic principles are now called hate speech, what is right for you may not be right for me, etc... Perhaps it's a good example of the communist model of 'separation of church and state' - and a false notion of 'social evolution.' To the point that those of faith (or the children of those being taught at home) collide quite drastically.

Is there any overlap between this concept and the subject of this thread? I hope not, but I suppose time will tell.

new topics

top topics

log in