What Really Happens When You Don't Separate Church and State

[Annie]

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government..

that whole 'oooh...*they* want to ban religion is just bizarre, imo.

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

I'd say that those calling themselves Christian that bomb abortion clinics would fall under that category, while never 'many', it seems to me the question i; is that accepted by government or the rest of 'Christian culture?' I've never heard any Christian preacher advocate that violence against anyone is acceptable because of violence against the unborn.

Can one make a candidate's religion or religious views your #1 issue to base your vote on? Sure, even though it sounds lame to me, doesn't make that wrong.

 

[manifold]

Ah, but we have the right to burn Korans, the Bible, the flag, and any other symbol that we wish to protest about-as long as not destroying others property. We have the right to see Westboro yell about fags and mock them. Same with drawing inflammatory cartoons or exhibits like 'piss Christ'.

We do not have the right to cut off parts of gays or attack others property-then we meet the judicial system, after the police system.

That is a significant difference don't you think?

the law as it exists allows us to be as stupid as we want.

i'm not quite certain what your complaint is about the latter since all that is is a prohibition against letting one's stupidity take away rights from others.

i'm not sure what your point is, though. sorry.

She's pointing out the absurdity of comparing Islamic theocracy as practiced in Iran with some fancifully concocted hypothetical about the possibility of the same thing happening here in the US. The mere fact that people actually argue over the "constitutionality" of such trivial and inconsequential matters like a nativity scene on public property should hammer this point home loud and clear... to anyone paying attention.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government.

I don't mind a connection, as long as there's no civil government authority whatsoever over religion.

I am equally concerned that religion have no authority whatsoever over government. by the example of the O/P, you see what happens when that is taken to the extreme.

and you can't have one without the other.

If we allow belief in God to influence Civil Government, the Civil Government will have the authority to influence or even dictate that we believe, or deny belief, in God.

 

[Annie]

Ah, but we have the right to burn Korans, the Bible, the flag, and any other symbol that we wish to protest about-as long as not destroying others property. We have the right to see Westboro yell about fags and mock them. Same with drawing inflammatory cartoons or exhibits like 'piss Christ'.

We do not have the right to cut off parts of gays or attack others property-then we meet the judicial system, after the police system.

That is a significant difference don't you think?

the law as it exists allows us to be as stupid as we want.

i'm not quite certain what your complaint is about the latter since all that is is a prohibition against letting one's stupidity take away rights from others.

i'm not sure what your point is, though. sorry.

She's pointing out the absurdity of comparing Islamic theocracy as practiced in Iran with some fancifully concocted hypothetical about the possibility of the same thing happening here in the US. The mere fact that people actually argue over the "constitutionality" of such trivial and inconsequential matters like a nativity scene on public property should hammer this point home loud and clear... to anyone paying attention.

Well said, thanks. There is a world of difference between the acknowledgment of some nutters and giving tacit support for those nutters. Oftentimes we hear that 'conservatives' are just like the pedophile priests, the abortion clinic bombers, and gay haters. Truth is, it's not so. They do not garner tacit support form conservatives or Christians, formally or informally. Indeed they are condemned by 99.99% of either group.

Not so with those arguing for Sharia Law. Most are NOT violent, not at all. Yet they do give tacit support by 'understanding why' there is the violence.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

“Passive displays like the World War I Memorial, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, or statements like the National Motto do not force anyone to participate in a religious exercise and, thus, do not establish religion,” commented Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, in response to the high court’s ruling.

The slightest suggestion of civil authority over religion is an immoral and wicked trespass upon the prerogatives of the Almighty.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm"

I agree, it just requires eradication of anything that hints at civil authority over religion.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

No one wants to ban religious activity. it just shouldn't have any connection to our government..

that whole 'oooh...*they* want to ban religion is just bizarre, imo.

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

Newt Gingrich.

 

[lizzie]

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

Actually, they believe that people derive their natural rights from God, and that government derives its power from free individuals.

 

[lizzie]

If we allow belief in God to influence Civil Government, the Civil Government will have the authority to influence or even dictate that we believe, or deny belief, in God.

The very basis of civil government is due to societal belief in God, or some other source of moral code, which comes from a belief system of one form or another. As long as a specific religious doctrine is not dicatating government, it's something that works. When the specific religious doctrine becomes comingled with law, then it becomes a problem of theocratic rule.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

If we allow belief in God to influence Civil Government, the Civil Government will have the authority to influence or even dictate that we believe, or deny belief, in God.

The very basis of civil government is due to societal belief in God, or some other source of moral code, which comes from a belief system of one form or another. As long as a specific religious doctrine is not dicatating government, it's something that works. When the specific religious doctrine becomes comingled with law, then it becomes a problem of theocratic rule.

A belief in the existence of a God is a specific religious doctrine.

 

[lizzie]

If we allow belief in God to influence Civil Government, the Civil Government will have the authority to influence or even dictate that we believe, or deny belief, in God.

The very basis of civil government is due to societal belief in God, or some other source of moral code, which comes from a belief system of one form or another. As long as a specific religious doctrine is not dicatating government, it's something that works. When the specific religious doctrine becomes comingled with law, then it becomes a problem of theocratic rule.

A belief in the existence of a God is a specific religious dogma.

Not at all. If that were the case, we would all adhere to the same specific dogma.
The history of religion is almost as old as the history of mankind, and evolved to maintain civil societies. What works for individuals differs according to time and place. We currently range in doctrinal beliefs from tribal religion in remote corners around the globe to the doctrines encompassing Christianity, Judaism, Islam, Bhuddism, Paganism, and several more. A belief in God, in and of itself, just implies that one has a belief system transcending the authority of solely man.

 

[Missourian]

I didn't read the whole thread, sorry...my wife is putting me to work so I have to be quick.



I would NEVER be in favor of a Christian theocracy.

What I am OPPOSED to is the notion that all religion must be removed from the public square.

I agree 100% with this statement:

“Passive displays like the World War I Memorial, the Ten Commandments, Nativity scenes, or statements like the National Motto do not force anyone to participate in a religious exercise and, thus, do not establish religion,” commented Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, in response to the high court’s ruling.​

"The ruling" referred to is Salazar v. Buono.

On April 28, 2010, the United States Supreme Court ruled 5-4 to send the case back to a lower court.[9] Writing for the majority, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote, "The goal of avoiding governmental endorsement [of religion] does not require eradication of all religious symbols in the public realm".[10]​

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

they sent it back for further action.

and there are clearly symbols in the public realm.... there are menorah's, christmas trees, etc,

interestingly

The cross was stolen on the night of May 9–10, 2010.[11][12] National Park Service spokeswoman Linda Slater said a $25,000 reward has been offered for information leading to the arrest and conviction of the thieves. The VFW promised that the memorial will be rebuilt."This was a legal fight that a vandal just made personal to 50 million veterans, military personnel and their families," National Commander Thomas J. Tradewell said.[13] On May 20, a replica cross was discovered to have been erected in place of the original. Park officials said it was erected overnight, but because of the court ruling park employees would have to remove the replica

Salazar v. Buono - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's not in-teresting...it's in-justice.


But the ends justified the means, right?

Alinsky’s rules about the ethics of ends and means.

1. One’s concern with the ethics of means and ends varies inversely with one’s personal interest in the issue.



3. In war the end justifies almost any means.


5. Concern with ethics increases with the number of means available and vice versa.
​

 

[The Rabbi]

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

Newt Gingrich.

Link?

 

[The Rabbi]

Many "Conservatives" see no distinction between God's authority over religion and Government's authority over it. They believe government derives it's authority from god, not from the people. This brand of "Conservative" practices "Counterfeit Christianity."

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

I'd say that those calling themselves Christian that bomb abortion clinics would fall under that category, while never 'many', it seems to me the question i; is that accepted by government or the rest of 'Christian culture?' I've never heard any Christian preacher advocate that violence against anyone is acceptable because of violence against the unborn.

Can one make a candidate's religion or religious views your #1 issue to base your vote on? Sure, even though it sounds lame to me, doesn't make that wrong.

FAIL. That is not citing one legitimate conservative.

 

[The Rabbi]

Could you please cite one legitimate "conservative" who believes this.

Newt Gingrich.

Link?

Here's Gingrich himself. I dont see anything like what you're saying. Perhaps you are talking out of your ass. Again.
FOXNews.com - NEWT GINGRICH: Memorial Day Is an Opportunity to Reflect On Sacrifice

 

[Charles_Main]

do you think that if the line between church and state were destroyed in this country that the 'g-d hates fags' or 'let's burn korans' crowd would be any different? you know, like when we had witch hunts here.

I Agree 100% the line between Church and state should never be "destroyed" in this country. Where we part ways is how the left ignored that fact that we have done just fine for 200 plus years with this alone

Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It was not until recently that the LEFT began pushing for an extreme Interpretation of these words that leads to attacking any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land.

Our founders knew that what was important were only 2 things really in guaranteeing freedom of Religion.

1 -making sure the Government of the US Never sanctioned an official State religion.

and

2- Making sure that Nobodies right to worship what and how they wanted was ever violated.

These same people included references to GOD in our founding documents, and Had many Religious Symbols on State and Federal Land.

So What I guess I am asking you Jill. Is what is the point of this post? Are you saying that if we do not Fight any sign of Any religion on any state or Federal land that we will wake up in a Christian Theocracy? Why did that not happen over the last 200 Years when we did have all sorts of Religions symbols all over the place?

As long as Congress never passes a law establishing a state religion, and People can worship as they wish. The occasion cross on state land is NOT going to lead to a Christian Theocracy in America.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

As long as Congress never passes a law establishing a state religion, and People can worship as they wish. The occasion cross on state land is NOT going to lead to a Christian Theocracy in America.

Congress established religion when it passed the evil wicked law that put "In God We Trust" on the nation's coins.

 

[boedicca]

Nonsense.

That is not what the establishment clause means.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

RELIGION, (re-lid'-jun) n. i. Virtue, as founded upon a reverence of God and an expectation of future rewards and punishments.

--A Dictionary of the English Language; 1787 Edition​

The Constitution means Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of virtue, as founded upon a reverence of God and an expectation of future rewards and punishments.

The establishment by Congress of the people's duty to trust in God is an establishment of virtue, as founded upon reverence of God and an expectation of future rewards and punishments.

 

[rdean]

So what do you do with people who have no "occult" beliefs?