The Founders of our nation (USA) never intended "separation of Church & state" as we know it..

[BackAgain]

if you are saying people who go to Church were not intended to have any involvement in govt...!!

I said no such thing.

you do not know the history of this country and are wrong as can be

The confusion is entirely yours.

Again, the OP and site stand... That is truth and anyone who disagrees is wrong as hell

Your understanding of the rationale behind our First Amendment’s religion clauses may be off. While it was Jefferson, in a mere letter, who made the notion of a “wall of separation between church and state” A common parlance, it is also fair to say that he maybe overstated his case.

But it remains absolutely true that: our government cannot tell us who to worship or even whether to worship, and our religions do not get to tell the government what laws they must pass or oppose.

They can ask the government for such things. But they don’t get the power to vote on such laws themselves. (And no, that does not mean that a person of faith cannot run for office or win a seat in office.)

 

[22lcidw]

That is only because you belong to the majority.
What if you were Hindi, Moslem, Bhuddist, Zoroastrian, etc.?

And as a Christian, you should be against all laws that impose without defending anyone else, like Prohibition, the War on Drugs, etc.
You should also have been against all wars that were not defensive, which is all wars since 1812.

before WW 1 there were many people who felt that way. Then the globalists got the Federal Reserve Act, the Federal Income Tax and the 17th amendment in 1913. A couple of years later, we were in the war and by WW 2 we were ready for wars as we suffered during the manufactured great depression. Now we are war mongers.

 

[Mustang]

not sure you agree or not with oP but OP & site stands as truth regardless

Baloney. In the US Constitution, there is no mention of God, or a state religion, or the involvement of any church or any religion in the matters of state.

 

[nomadic5]

They can ask the government for such things. But they don’t get the power to vote on such laws themselves. (And no, that does not mean that a person of faith cannot run for office or win a seat in office.)

well, maybe you should edit your posts b4 Replying

And you are still not making sense (above)

A Christian or any person of any religiion has a right and a DUTY to try to change bad policies that harm others or harm society in general

 

[progressive hunter]

I said no such thing.

The confusion is entirely yours.

Your understanding of the rationale behind our First Amendment’s religion clauses may be off. While it was Jefferson, in a mere letter, who made the notion of a “wall of separation between church and state” A common parlance, it is also fair to say that he maybe overstated his case.

But it remains absolutely true that: our government cannot tell us who to worship or even whether to worship, and our religions do not get to tell the government what laws they must pass or oppose.

They can ask the government for such things. But they don’t get the power to vote on such laws themselves. (And no, that does not mean that a person of faith cannot run for office or win a seat in office.)

but people can use their religious beliefs to make laws and policy,, in fact most of our laws are based on religious tenets,,

 

[nomadic5]

If you take away the word Christian and Judeo from ancient Judeo-Christian teachings and just look at the teachings by themselves

you will find LOGIC

and THAT is what should prevail in society (Example: Fornication wreaks havoc in society by causing unplanned pregnancies, unhappy relationships where there is no commitment... etc... etc)

Instead, today we have this Anything goes religion that is ripping apart our country. We cannot survive this insanity much longer (assuming you call it Surviving at this point)

 

[nomadic5]

but people can use their religious beliefs to make laws and policy,, in fact most of our laws are based on religious tenets,,

or so called religious tenets

see post above this one

 

[BackAgain]

well, maybe you should edit your posts b4 Replying

Nah. I can’t control what you glean from a post. The lack of comprehension issue is a “you” problem.

And you are still not making sense (above)

Yes. I am. You’re not exactly in the best position to tell.

A Christian or any person of any religiion has a right and a DUTY to try to change bad policies that harm others or harm society in general

A Christian or a Jew or a Muslim is free to decide such things for themselves.

But no Mullah or Rabbi or Bishop has any authority to tell any of us what we must or must not do as a matter of our civil laws.

 

[progressive hunter]

or so called religious tenets

see post above this one

doesnt change what I said,, any person can make policy or laws using their religious beliefs,, that just cant be removed from their decision making process,,

 

[progressive hunter]

Nah. I can’t control what you glean from a post. The lack of comprehension issue is a “you” problem.

Yes. I am. You’re not exactly in the best position to tell.

A Christian or a Jew or a Muslim is free to decide such things for themselves.

But no Mullah or Rabbi or Bishop has any authority to tell any of us what we must or must not do as a matter of our civil laws.

but they can pass laws that do it as long as it doesnt violate the constitution,,

 

[BackAgain]

but they can pass laws that do it as long as it doesnt violate the constitution,,

Yup. Unless the Catholic Church itself forbids priests from seeking elective office (as they do), there is no governmental rule against a clergy person of any faith from doing so.

And, of course, regardless of one’s faith or lack of faith, they can also vote for representatives and Presidents, etc.

 

[Richard-H]

Care to define your terms?

Which words do you not understand?

 

[progressive hunter]

Yup. Unless the Catholic Church itself forbids priests from seeking elective office (as they do), there is no governmental rule against a clergy person of any faith from doing so.

And, of course, regardless of one’s faith or lack of faith, they can also vote for representatives and Presidents, etc.

that has nothing to do with my comment,,

why are you dodging what I said that proves you wrong??

a religious person elected to office can use his religious beliefs to pass laws as long as it doesnt violate the constitution,,

and most of our laws are already based on religious tenets,,

 

[Richard-H]

Secularists have created the division by rejecting the teachings of Christ and the Bible. Not sure how you can twist that around, but I'd be interested in seeing your thought process.

When did Jesus say that Christians should use Government to promote their religion?

Many secularists are Christians. Jesus was a secularist.

Secularists have not rejected the teachings of Christ and the Bible, but apparently you have!

 

[ActionJackson]

When did Jesus say that Christians should use Government to promote their religion?

Many secularists are Christians. Jesus was a secularist.

Secularists have not rejected the teachings of Christ and the Bible, but apparently you have!

When Christians create a government, they can make whatever rules they wish. If you created a gay government, you could make a national rainbow flag and dictate that all cabinet members be sexually strange. Oh ... too late ... that's already happened.

 

[Richard-H]

When Christians create a government, they can make whatever rules they wish. If you created a gay government, you could make a national rainbow flag and dictate that all cabinet members be sexually strange. Oh ... too late ... that's already happened.

'Christians' didn't create the U.S. government. The founding fathers were disciples of the Enligtenment.

The fact that they were Christian wasn't the basis for founding the government. They had multi-faceted beliefs. Which is probably more than you can comprehend.

IF they founded the U.S> Government on their Christian beliefs they would have started the the Constitution with:

"Our Lord Jesus doth Ordain....." or some other religious bunk.

 

[BackAgain]

that has nothing to do with my comment,,

why are you dodging what I said that proves you wrong??

a religious person elected to office can use his religious beliefs to pass laws as long as it doesnt violate the constitution,,

and most of our laws are already based on religious tenets,,

I’m not dodging anything. And there isn’t one word from you that has or could prove me wrong. Unlike you, I actually understand the purposes for which we crafted the Bill of Rights.

And I also deny your claim that our laws are based on religious tenets. There is of course a law prohibiting the act of murder. That there has long been religious rules proscribing such behavior doesn’t mean that laws against murder are religiously based.

Finally, if a person of the cloth seeks political office and wins a legislative seat, of course that religious person can vote on laws. There is also no religious l-based prohibition against a person of the cloth holding office. Again, the First Amendment doesn’t tolerate a religious qualification for office one way or the other.

Beyond that, maybe the problem is that your position just isn’t being stated clearly.

 

[progressive hunter]

I’m not dodging anything. And there isn’t one word from you that has or could prove me wrong. Unlike you, I actually understand the purposes for which we crafted the Bill of Rights.

And I also deny your claim that our laws are based on religious tenets. There is of course a law prohibiting the act of murder. That there has long been religious rules proscribing such behavior doesn’t mean that laws against murder are religiously based.

Finally, if a person of the cloth seeks political office and wins a legislative seat, of course that religious person can vote on laws. There is also no religious l-based prohibition against a person of the cloth holding office. Again, the First Amendment doesn’t tolerate a religious qualification for office one way or the other.

Beyond that, maybe the problem is that your position just isn’t being stated clearly.

why are you moving the goal posts??
I never said a person of the cloth,,

we are talking about religions and people that follow them and according to you religious beliefs cant be used to make laws,, and thats simply not true,,

murder along with theft and fraud are purely religious based, along with aspects of many other laws,,

 

[ActionJackson]

'Christians' didn't create the U.S. government. The founding fathers were disciples of the Enligtenment.

The fact that they were Christian wasn't the basis for founding the government. They had multi-faceted beliefs. Which is probably more than you can comprehend.

IF they founded the U.S> Government on their Christian beliefs they would have started the the Constitution with:

"Our Lord Jesus doth Ordain....." or some other religious bunk.

Wrong!!

 

[Burgermeister]

In God We Trust