Seperation of church and state?

[Votto]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

 

[G.T.]

A 'Spiritual problem' assumes a spirit exists, and its not the state's business to affirm or deny that, especially since a spirit hasnt been empirically proven...... its simply the State's job to preserve Liberty for its citizens as Individuals, and in as limited a way as possible.

A Church of any bent has no bearing on that, except to say that the State should be within its right to protect free worship from persecution.

 

[TNHarley]

Love your enemy? Why would he do that? He is a hate filled, violent psychopath. With some other mental disorders as well.
Possibly bi polar and schizophrenia..

 

[denmark]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

Can you not separate MLK’s words from religion?
I understand USA respects ALL religious thought ... as long as it does not influence government actions at the expense of others, including those who are not religious!

 

[BULLDOG]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

You don't think a person can be moral without being religious?

 

[G.T.]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

You don't think a person can be moral without being religious?

Its so scary that people actually think this way....it translates to the only thing keeping them from going on a murderous rampage is the fact that there's no peer reviewed journal completely debunking their particular Sect. Gross

 

[Votto]

Love your enemy? Why would he do that? He is a hate filled, violent psychopath. With some other mental disorders as well.
Possibly bi polar and schizophrenia..

This is what Christ taught.

…43You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45that you may be sons of your Father in heaven. He causes His sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous.…

As I said, it is counterintuitive. As a result, I can only declare it supernatural in origin. This does NOT come naturally. But does it work?

To see, just look at history.

Gandhi was not a Christian, but he admired the teachings of Christ and implemented his doctrine. Gandhi, therefore, preached not to render evil for evil. He then led a movement that drove out the English from India without firing a shot.

Or look at Lech Wałęsa that led the Polish resistance against the USSR. He also did it without firing a shot.

MLK also was successful with his pursuit of the Civil Rights legislation.

And I could go on and on. Shrug, it works. All one has to do is target a social injustice, and take the high road. Assuming you do not lower yourself to the unrighteous standards of those you oppose, or worse, go lower than they are currently, the sheer weight of your righteous cause will eventually crush them to pieces.

As for Jesus, he was a son of a poor carpenter who never led and army, never held a political position, and only had a following of 12 men, yet there is a building on every street corner proclaiming his teachings.

Very telling.

 

[denmark]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

You don't think a person can be moral without being religious?

I understand most of the conservative religious leaders supported Trump. Do they actually think Trump has “more morals” than other politicians or businessmen?
If so, then the conception of “morality” is relative to one’s belief preferences and not an absolute.

 

[Votto]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

You don't think a person can be moral without being religious?

We all have a moral code of some kind.

Choose wisely

 

[Votto]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

You don't think a person can be moral without being religious?

I understand most of the conservative religious leaders supported Trump. Do they actually think Trump has “more morals” than other politicians or businessmen?
If so, then the conception of “morality” is relative to one’s belief preferences and not an absolute.

I don't know what they think. You would have to ask them.

What I do know is, that opposition to Trump that I've seen has devolved into a hate filled frenzy of insanity. Now we have people like Maxine Waters embracing a racist goon like Louis Farakahn who preaches hate against Jews and white folk. And we wonder why Bernie Sanders supporters go out and try to assassinate the entire GOP Congress.

IF MLK had not been the front person for the Civil Rights movement and someone like Malcolm X had, I don't believe the Civil Rights movement would have been successful.

In fact, the very people that Malcolm spoke for murdered him.

It was merely a superiority of religious doctrine that made MLK successful and Malcolm unsuccessful.

 

[Dogmaphobe]

We all have a moral code of some kind.

Choose wisely

The word I would use is "develop. When a person develops a moral code, they are part of the process of becoming moral . If they simply choose one, they aren't.

The Pharisees thought they were moral by following certain absolute dictates but did not understand the genesis of such. It is only through understanding WHY something is moral that one becomes moral.

Morality involves something beyond the mere adherence to a rewards/punishment system of conduct so simply choosing a system doesn't cut it. A person needs to apply reasoning to the entire process of morality as morality, itself is a product of reason and not some divine code of conduct. It is predicated upon the notion of understanding one's own behavior as it relates to other individuals and to the society as a whole.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Votto asked if "the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, . . .".

Since the 1st Amendment protects religious thought, the answer is of course "no."

While we cannot have organized religious practice in much of the public space, some specific exceptions do exist. Military Chaplains and prayer in Congress and in many government meetings run by adults, school boards, for example.

 

[Penelope]

Yes I remember the holy pious people of the tea party. Just because there is a maj of Christians, (Catholics and protestants) in the US, its not that big of a maj. We have a nasty history so take that and shove it into your brain.

I believe in the Separation of Church and State, or we'd be like SA, women just got to drive this weekend.

To even say this is a Christian nation is hypocrisy, esp now.

 

[JakeStarkey]

I believe in separation of church and state in that organized religious practice should not be allowed in the public square.

However, to dictate that religious beliefs cannot influence government is an insane violation of 1st Amendment practices.

 

[denmark]

For those that think that there should be no link between church and state, for those who think that the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, I challenge them to support tearing out the Martin Luther King Memorial in Washington DC.

Naturally, no one would ever do that. MLK showed us the true nature of racism and hate, and that is, it is a spiritual problem. It really has nothing to do with the color of our skin or our race. And just think where the Civil Rights movement would be if MLK had not embraced the teachings of Christ and his message of "love our enemies". They would probably be where the Palestinian people are today as they send their children out into the streets to blow themselves up in opposition so the Zionist state.

And is today any different? As I hear hate preached on both sides of the political isle, MLK should remind us of the real answers that we need to embrace. It is a counterintuitive, it is other worldly. It is by far the hardest thing to and I would even argue it takes the divine to help us do it, and that is, love your enemy.

You don't think a person can be moral without being religious?

I understand most of the conservative religious leaders supported Trump. Do they actually think Trump has “more morals” than other politicians or businessmen?
If so, then the conception of “morality” is relative to one’s belief preferences and not an absolute.

I don't know what they think. You would have to ask them.

What I do know is, that opposition to Trump that I've seen has devolved into a hate filled frenzy of insanity. Now we have people like Maxine Waters embracing a racist goon like Louis Farakahn who preaches hate against Jews and white folk. And we wonder why Bernie Sanders supporters go out and try to assassinate the entire GOP Congress.

IF MLK had not been the front person for the Civil Rights movement and someone like Malcolm X had, I don't believe the Civil Rights movement would have been successful.

In fact, the very people that Malcolm spoke for murdered him.

It was merely a superiority of religious doctrine that made MLK successful and Malcolm unsuccessful.

If i recall my history correctly, MLK advocated for civil rights in a PEACEFUL way, like Ghandi. In the past, that was successful, and explains why Malcolm X was not effective in the long term.
Peace & respect for all is the superior stance. Religion may or may not advocate those virtues; the Muslim extremists are an example.

 

[G.T.]

Religious folks dont seem to vote their religious conscience...let alone should our Laws make anything binding in virtue of it being a Religious tenet.

If folks werent by and large faking it till they make it with how they vote...theres a guy in the oval office right now that doesnt believe in the Religious sanctity of Marriage ~ for one thing.

 

[G.T.]

 

[Votto]

Votto asked if "the answers to our political needs today must be devoid of religious thought, . . .".

Since the 1st Amendment protects religious thought, the answer is of course "no."

While we cannot have organized religious practice in much of the public space, some specific exceptions do exist. Military Chaplains and prayer in Congress and in many government meetings run by adults, school boards, for example.

So you support Dims who espouse the teachings of Jesus regarding the poor, that the state needs to feed them cuz Jesus want us to. but you oppose the notion that abortion or gay marriage should be outlawed, on the assumption that there must be a separation of church and state.

Do I read you correctly?

 

[Votto]

Being a man of science, I assume you embrace Charles Darwin?

I would further assume you knew that he was an ardent racist.

I would then assume further that you are aware of his euge

I would assume that being so sold on science you are a fan of Charles Darwin?

I would also assume that you are aware that Darwin was a racist and viewed blacks as racially inferior?

I would further assume that you are aware that he was very much into eugenics.

So tell us, should human beings breed for strength, much like the farmer breeds cattle for desirable characteristics? Also, why help the weak and dying if they weigh down society? Darwin seemed to think that helping the weak is a "noble" thing. Why? What does nobility have to do with science? In fact, what does evil have to do with science?

Hitler merely brushed it aside as being weak and sentimental.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

 

[G.T.]

Being a man of science, I assume you embrace Charles Darwin?

I would further assume you knew that he was an ardent racist.

I would then assume further that you are aware of his euge

I would assume that being so sold on science you are a fan of Charles Darwin?

I would also assume that you are aware that Darwin was a racist and viewed blacks as racially inferior?

I would further assume that you are aware that he was very much into eugenics.

So tell us, should human beings breed for strength, much like the farmer breeds cattle for desirable characteristics? Also, why help the weak and dying if they weigh down society? Darwin seemed to think that helping the weak is a "noble" thing. Why? What does nobility have to do with science? In fact, what does evil have to do with science?

Hitler merely brushed it aside as being weak and sentimental.

“With savages, the weak in body or mind are soon eliminated; and those that survive commonly exhibit a vigorous state of health. We civilised men, on the other hand, do our utmost to check the process of elimination; we build asylums for the imbecile, the maimed, and the sick; we institute poor-laws; and our medical men exert their utmost skill to save the life of every one to the last moment. There is reason to believe that vaccination has preserved thousands, who from a weak constitution would formerly have succumbed to small-pox. Thus the weak members of civilised societies propagate their kind. No one who has attended to the breeding of domestic animals will doubt that this must be highly injurious to the race of man. It is surprising how soon a want of care, or care wrongly directed, leads to the degeneration of a domestic race; but excepting in the case of man himself, hardly any one is so ignorant as to allow his worst animals to breed.

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, if so urged by hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with a certain and great present evil. Hence we must bear without complaining the undoubtedly bad effects of the weak surviving and propagating their kind; but there appears to be at least one check in steady action, namely the weaker and inferior members of society not marrying so freely as the sound; and this check might be indefinitely increased, though this is more to be hoped for than expected, by the weak in body or mind refraining from marriage.”
― Charles Darwin, The Descent of Man

Do you know what non sequitur means? This whole post was a complete waste of your time. You should challenge yourself to address points that are actually made, and not ones you feel are implied because more often than not, youre going to be wrong in your assumptions.