chomerics Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Religion and Politics has NEVER been about seperations.. It's ALWAYS been about all inclusive. That is what made the constitution so different Bear, and that is why it is the greatest document ever written in the history of society. Our founding fathers recognized the foils of previous societies, and went outside of popular opinion to change it. They saw the downfall of the melding of both religion and poitics, and tried to keep them away from each other. It is the seperation of church and state that makes us different, and great. It is also how we have survived as a society for over 200+ years and thrived. What you are seeing now is what the founding fathers tried to avoid. They knew 200+ years ago what the problems were with government, and they were right. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 8, 2006 Author Share Posted January 8, 2006 That is what made the constitution so different Bear, and that is why it is the greatest document ever written in the history of society. Our founding fathers recognized the foils of previous societies, and went outside of popular opinion to change it. They saw the downfall of the melding of both religion and poitics, and tried to keep them away from each other. It is the seperation of church and state that makes us different, and great. It is also how we have survived as a society for over 200+ years and thrived. What you are seeing now is what the founding fathers tried to avoid. They knew 200+ years ago what the problems were with government, and they were right. Wrong Again! you cant agree and then disagree... The Constitution in its own words are not about the seperation of church and state.. Lets try this again. It about not having a State sponsored Church/Religion. NOT, lets repeat this again NOT about complete seperation of church and state.. but you keep trying.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 The seperation was to be between church and State,not politics or everyday life. No official state religion or a requirement for worship or faith. Jeffersons writings clearly show this was not to punish religion ,but to protect the freedom of it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Drockvb Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 I don't think our founding fathers would have raised their children to be athiests. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cdowwe Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 Your opinion would be wrong according to the founding fathers, and our Constitution. Just so you understand this, you are saying you don't believe our Constitution was right, and that we should change one of the basic tenents of it. Chom, according to you...you dont believe in the founding fathers...so why even bring them into it. All you believe in is the Constitution. Further, I DO believe in teh Constitution...I just dont interpret it like you. Just because I interpret it in a different way does NOT mean I am wrong. I agree with Thiebear... in that it means no state sponsored religion. Are you saying you dont think we should change the Constitution ever? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 8, 2006 Share Posted January 8, 2006 That is what made the constitution so different Bear, and that is why it is the greatest document ever written in the history of society. Our founding fathers recognized the foils of previous societies, and went outside of popular opinion to change it. They saw the downfall of the melding of both religion and poitics, and tried to keep them away from each other. It is the seperation of church and state that makes us different, and great. It is also how we have survived as a society for over 200+ years and thrived. What you are seeing now is what the founding fathers tried to avoid. They knew 200+ years ago what the problems were with government, and they were right. If I'm not mistaken, all the Constitution says on the subject is "Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chomerics Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Here is what the constitution says. . . Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; Make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, which could be interperted as not giving taxpayer money to a single religion, ie faith based initiatives. And TWA, you are 100% right, and it is EXACTLY what I believe. Jefferson wanted EQUALITY for ALL religions, but this is not what we have right now. If you go back to how this discussion got started, it was from Prophet saying "Muslims worship a false god, probably a deamon." (paraphrasing). I agree with Jefferson, and I agree with the first amendment. I have said before if you could hold office while not using religion before the law, then that would be OK with me, but Prophet would not do that, as well as most evangelicals. This is why they should NOT be in politics. Your duty as a politician is to protect and promote the constitution (I know it is a simple definition) and placing religion before the Constitution is wrong. Giving federal money to churches is wrong, and any interaction between church and state is wrong. It is not what Jefferson wanted, and he was not a man who viewed government as an outlet for religious funding. Unfortunately, it IS part of the republican party now, and it is the downfall of the party. People are just to slow to realize this, but they will see it in a few years. History is not going to look good at this time period, and you have the intermelding of faith and politics to thanks for it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Chom ,where is your condemnation for the Dems that campain in churches? It has to work both ways...including the Rev. Jackson IMO the clergy and churches should avoid politics,but the membership is duty bound as citizens to participate. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thiebear Posted January 9, 2006 Author Share Posted January 9, 2006 Prophet has the right to say Muslims pray to the wrong God as Harry Belafonte has a right to say Bush is the worst terrorist on Earth. This has nothing to do with the Bill of Rights or Congress or anything else. IF its o.k. for David Duke and Senator Bird why is it not o.k. for people of Religion? Anyone can run for office as long as they don't break the law once they get in... I'm still not quite getting your argument? Your saying that anyone who is Orthodox in their beliefs are not eligible to run? Only Agnostic or Atheist or slightly non-practicing religious types are allowed to run? No Roman Catholics? No Muslims No Orthodox Jews No Evangelical No Holy Rollers Must be easy to say that as an agnostic/atheist.. and someone that wants to run. Would make it easier for me to run against you though Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zguy28 Posted January 9, 2006 Share Posted January 9, 2006 Here is what the constitution says. . .Make no law RESPECTING an establishment of religion, which could be interperted as not giving taxpayer money to a single religion, ie faith based initiatives. And TWA, you are 100% right, and it is EXACTLY what I believe. Jefferson wanted EQUALITY for ALL religions, but this is not what we have right now. If you go back to how this discussion got started, it was from Prophet saying "Muslims worship a false god, probably a deamon." (paraphrasing). I agree with Jefferson, and I agree with the first amendment. I have said before if you could hold office while not using religion before the law, then that would be OK with me, but Prophet would not do that, as well as most evangelicals. This is why they should NOT be in politics. Your duty as a politician is to protect and promote the constitution (I know it is a simple definition) and placing religion before the Constitution is wrong. Giving federal money to churches is wrong, and any interaction between church and state is wrong. It is not what Jefferson wanted, and he was not a man who viewed government as an outlet for religious funding. Unfortunately, it IS part of the republican party now, and it is the downfall of the party. People are just to slow to realize this, but they will see it in a few years. History is not going to look good at this time period, and you have the intermelding of faith and politics to thanks for it. You can say all you want about how this group or that group shouldn't be in politics because of their beliefs, (which is a form of fascism btw) but until the majority decides otherwise you're going to have to live with it. Definition of Fascism (paraphrase): The most notable characteristic of a fascist country is the separation and persecution or denial of equality to a specific segment of the population based upon superficial qualities or belief systems. Tell me if this doesn't sum up your attitude/belief toward those pesky evangelicals? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.