Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 323
view profile
History
Church and StatePage 14 of 14    (1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
Tell you what. Lets make a deal: as soon as any State legislature declares a year to be "Koran Appreciation Year" and says everyone should read the Koran that year, we can all agree that Islam has become a threat to secular democracy. The thing is though, that's not going to happen. So anyone really concerned about the separation of Church and State isn't going to be talking about Islam.

Whereas those who are either delusionally paranoid or want to divert attention from real threats will


How about we don't make any deals. Maybe you haven't noticed but as far as I can tell I am the only one that said total seperation of church and state including Catholic and Jewish arbitration. One bad apple spoils the bunch as they say.

Maybe it wouldn't be a bad idea to consider how small the world really is now. It doesn't take much to travel between countries. There are underground economies all over the place and it is more than just a small issue.

http://www.africanglobe.net/africa/islamists-al-qaeda-impose-sharia-law-in-northern-mali/

http://womenagainstshariah.blogspot.com/2012/04/french-police-seize-10-suspected.html

http://www.magharebia.com/cocoon/awi/xhtml1/en_GB/features/awi/features/2012/04/06/feature-03


"Our war is a holy war. It's a legal war in the name of Islam. We are against rebellions. We are against independence. We are against revolutions not in the name of Islam," Omar Hamaha said in a video obtained by AFP.


To deny that all of this isn't a direct relation to religion and directly relevent to the fear of theocracy in america is just plain ignorant. It is the example. Just too liberal to recognize it.
 HalftimeDad
Joined: 5/29/2005
Msg: 324
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 8:50:43 PM
Types of arbitration isn't the problem.

Real, concrete infringements on separation of Church and State are happening. Religion and pastors have always helped resolve differences between members of their congregations. There's no point in banning it, since it's going to happen anyway. That's one of the strengths of religion. The pastor is someone who is respected by members of the congregation and someone two people can go to for fair counsel.

A pastor helping two members of his or her congregation resolve a conflict is not the same as imposing magic teaching in science classes. Or history classes. Or telling two people they can't get married because an old book says it's wrong.
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 325
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 9:09:42 PM
A pastor helping two members of his or her congregation resolve a conflict is not the same as imposing magic teaching in science classes. Or history classes. Or telling two people they can't get married because an old book says it's wrong.


Correct. It isn't difficult. Arbitration crosses legal boundaries. Nothing you mention requires a formal legal authority. Just some people agreeing to talk without getting law involved. Churches and freedom to worship and who or what to or to not is not changed at all. Arbitration crosses the legal line. Sharia arbitration is not compatible. Sorry, leave it behind or go live somewhere that lives to those standards. There must be a line drawn somewhere or the lines are so wuzzy that no one knows what they are.

http://churchandstate.org.uk/2012/03/in-secular-britain-a-clash-over-public-prayer/


Even normally behind-the-scenes Queen Elizabeth is dusting off the monarch’s historic role as “defender of the faith” and supreme governor of the Church of England, suggesting in recent weeks that by targeting public prayer, secular society has gone too far.

“The concept of our established church is occasionally misunderstood and, I believe, commonly underappreciated,” the queen, deploying her trademark power of understatement, said in what was widely viewed as a thinly veiled reference to the prayer debate


The above is an established religion and as far as I know women still have rights.

So, the natural trend is toward secular because religion is too confusing to deal with. When it goes to its extreme (sharia) it is dangerous and incompatible with western culture and democracy. It really isn't complicated. Church and state are better left separated and as far as legal authority the democratic state makes the rules and not faith.

There should have been a candidate that did not profess a religious conviction by now but there hasn't been. Only one politician I know of has had the courage to even declare he was an atheist. As long as we remain secular maybe someday an irreligious person will have the courage to run and have a meaningful dialog that isn't clouded by religious views for social issues but until then it is what it is.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 326
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/10/2012 11:46:01 PM
Justice William O. Douglas, known as one of the more liberal justices on the Court, wrote the following in Zorach v. Clauson, a 1952 freedom of religion case. It gives an idea why insisting on absolute separation of church and state, in all circumstances, is for so-called liberals who are too busy slinging wild, ill-informed hyperbole around to have thought much about the issue.

"There cannot be the slightest doubt that the First Amendment reflects the philosophy that Church and State should be separated. And so far as interference with the "free exercise" of religion and an "establishment" of religion are concerned, the separation must be complete and unequivocal. The First Amendment within the scope of its coverage permits no exception; the prohibition is absolute.

The First Amendment, however, does not say that, in every and all respects there shall be a separation of Church and State. Rather, it studiously defines the manner, the specific ways, in which there shall be no concert or union or dependency one on the other. That is the common sense of the matter. Otherwise the state and religion would be aliens to each other -- hostile, suspicious, and even unfriendly.

Churches could not be required to pay even property taxes. Municipalities would not be permitted to render police or fire protection to religious groups. Policemen who helped parishioners into their places of worship would violate the Constitution. Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; 'so help me God' in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'"
 Aries_328
Joined: 10/16/2011
Msg: 327
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 12:07:19 AM
Prayers in our legislative halls; the appeals to the Almighty in the messages of the Chief Executive; the proclamations making Thanksgiving Day a holiday; 'so help me God' in our courtroom oaths -- these and all other references to the Almighty that run through our laws, our public rituals, our ceremonies would be flouting the First Amendment. A fastidious atheist or agnostic could even object to the supplication with which the Court opens each session: 'God save the United States and this Honorable Court.'"


Honestly this is one of the main reasons I would like to see atheism covered under the first amendment establishment as well. To protect the history and traditions of the country. "To tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help me God." I don't want to see a biblical basis for a punishment of a crime just as much as I don't want to see the abolishment of the influence of God and religion from our history and culture.
 Earthpuppy
Joined: 2/9/2008
Msg: 328
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 3:14:20 AM
“I want you to just let a wave of intolerance wash over you. I want you to let a wave of hatred wash over you. Yes, hate is good… Our goal is a Christian nation. We have a biblical duty, we are called on by God to conquer this country. We don’t want equal time. We don’t want pluralism.” Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue

“So let us be blunt about it: We must use the doctrine of religious liberty to gain independence for Christian schools until we train up a generation of people who know that there is no religious neutrality, no neutral law, no neutral education, and no neutral civil government. Then they will be get busy in constructing a Bible-based social, political and religious order which finally denies the religious liberty of the enemies of God.”
–Gary North

"Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness. But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice. It is dominion we are after. Not just influence. It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time. It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." From The Changing of the Guard: Biblical Principles for Political Action by George Grant, published in 1987 by Dominion Press

* "Christians have an obligation, a mandate, a commission, a holy responsibility to reclaim the land for Jesus Christ -- to have dominion in civil structures, just as in every other aspect of life and godliness.
But it is dominion we are after. Not just a voice.
It is dominion we are after. Not just influence.
It is dominion we are after. Not just equal time.
It is dominion we are after. World conquest. That's what Christ has commissioned us to accomplish. We must win the world with the power of the Gospel. And we must never settle for anything less... Thus, Christian politics has as its primary intent the conquest of the land -- of men, families, institutions, bureaucracies, courts, and governments for the Kingdom of Christ." --George Grant, a leading dominionist writer in The Changing of the Guard, Biblical Principles for Political Action (pp.50-51).

“God’s plan is for His people, ladies and gentlemen to take dominion…What is dominion? Well, dominion is Lordship. He wants His people to reign and rule with Him…but He’s waiting for us to…extend His dominion…And the Lord says, ‘I’m going to let you redeem society. There’ll be a reformation….We are not going to stand for those coercive utopians in the Supreme Court and in Washington ruling over us any more. We’re not gonna stand for it. We are going to say, ‘we want freedom in this country, and we want power…’”
"What do all of us do? We get ready to take dominion! We get ready to take dominion! It is all going to be ours - I'm talking about all of it. Everything that you would say is a good part of the secular world. Every means of communication, the news, the television, the radio, the cinema, the arts, the government, the finance - it's going to be ours! God's going to give it to His people. We should prepare to reign and rule with Jesus Christ." Pat Roberson.

http://www.publiceye.org/christian_right/dominionism.htm
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article5646.htm
http://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/TheDespoilingOfAmerica.htm
http://www.talk2action.org/story/2012/1/6/14215/07913
 Imported_labor
Joined: 3/7/2008
Msg: 329
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 6:52:49 AM
They have been, since the beginning of their "religion", "promoting" their way of life.......... from where they were founded, across north Africa, over to Spain, eastword across all the way to the Danube river by Belgrade. All of those were military conquests, by the way. You talk of memebers of a religion perverting the religion, and then you infer that islam cannot be perverted?????


So, what are you afraid of? At this point I am not sure what are you suggesting that we should be afraid of. Is it the fear that we may be conquered militarily by the forces of Islam? Or are you afraid that the muslim people immigrating here may impose their religion on us?

Either way, you don't make much sense since you have indicated that the expansion of Islam to North Africa and parts of Europe were military conquests. However, you should check your history books about the time when that happen. That was back in the 8th-9th centuries. Do you know of any countries that have been conquered militarily by Islam lately?

If you want to know how sophisticated about the matters of Church and State the Moors were at the time, in comparison with the Christians, just take some time to learn about the experience of the city of Cordoba in southern Spain.
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 330
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 8:15:10 AM

Honestly this is one of the main reasons I would like to see atheism covered under the first amendment establishment as well. To protect the history and traditions of the country.


It is now, in a way. The First Amendment also protects the free exercise of religion. The Supreme Court has usually upheld religious influences that are part of our national tradition--prayers to begin legislative sessions, the oath in court, Sunday store closings, etc.

Justices Scalia and Thomas think religious customs that date from the country's beginnings are pretty much immune. Thomas doesn't think the Court should even have applied the Establishment Clause to the states, which it didn't do until 1947. He makes a strong historical argument that that defeats the original purpose of that clause, and I tend to agree with him.

Incidentally, it seems to me that if it's legitimate to attribute every criticism of Mr. Obama to racism, the same should apply to criticism of Justice Thomas. Next time I hear some know-nothing slander him, maybe I'll suggest they hate him because he's black.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 331
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 8:52:00 AM
"Next time I hear some know-nothing slander him"

Why? Because his wife is in bed with all the republican lobbyists? Because she made 700K from the rove founded Heritage foundation? Why because he is living high off the hog of republican money, she earned?

Now what is racist about that, greedy maybe, bought and paid for maybe, but hardly racist.

Now what gets to me, is the fact that these alledged conservatives, instead of working within the legislative process, don't work on compromise, only trying to engineer a quasi dictatorship through legislation.

You guys are funny, Islam, womens rights, bought and paid for judges, shiraia law, all this nonsense, to advance an agenda of hate and discrimination.

It's times like these I wish there was a man in the sky, with a he11 below, I would sleep sooo much better knowing you all would burn there, for acting as christian as you do. hahahaha!!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 332
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 10:43:24 AM

Because his wife is in bed with all the republican lobbyists? Because she made 700K from the rove founded Heritage foundation?


Are you claiming Mrs. Thomas has broken the law? Many people called for Justice Elena "Rubberstamp" Kagan to recuse herself after e-mails she wrote as Solicitor General cheerleading for the Obamacare law were made public. But she's refused. In light of that, it seems odd anyone would accuse Justice Thomas of a conflict of interest.

You seem to think Thomas is one of those "bought and paid for judges." If there were any evidence for that, it would certainly justify impeaching him. I wonder why I don't hear anyone proposing to do that. After all, getting rid of him would be quite a blow to all those theocrats the country is swarming with.


Now what gets to me, is the fact that these alledged conservatives, instead of working within the legislative process, don't work on compromise, only trying to engineer a quasi dictatorship through legislation.


What, if anything, does this have to do with church and state?


to advance an agenda of hate and discrimination.


I 'd say that better describes attacks like the one you make on Justice Thomas. Saying he "is living high off the hog" from money his wife earned--illegitimately, you imply--sounds like something from another time. I suspect some people think it's "uppity" of conservative blacks not to be grateful for life on the government plantation.
 Aristotle_Amadopolis
Joined: 12/8/2011
Msg: 333
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 10:51:42 AM

Are you claiming Mrs. Thomas has broken the law?

Is putting false information on your tax return breaking the law?

If so, then yes he broke the law.

If forgetting for some four years that your wife earned ~700K just makes you stupid, then yes he just stupid and not a criminal.
 Paul K
Joined: 3/10/2006
Msg: 334
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 11:19:19 AM
Lets see now........ there is a Justice who has made it very clear that her mind is already made up on the obamacare issue, and you are pointing fingers at other Justices supposed crimes.


Paul K
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 335
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 11:26:57 AM
"it would certainly justify impeaching him"

Hahahahahaha!!! Doncha just love it when they get duplicitous? Of course no one will impeach him, the house would never vote for it, and the Senate would simply use the rules to table any move in that direction.

The Supreme Court is "supposed" to be impartial, alas, politics has long since raised it's head in appointments in this area. Just another of the republican dirty tricks, load the court with conservatives, with a bend toward their issues. I'm fairly sure the great justices in our history, are rolling over in their graves.

But like I say, evil is evil and the republicans denote the ultimate evil. They have never seen a rule they cannot bend or a law they cannot interpret, in order to break it!

Now what about that form he was supposed to fill out, and "FORGOT" for 4 years? Gee he should have used that "the dog ate my homework" excuse, it would have been more believable.

No not all conservatives are bad, just those in the republican party!! Hahahahaha!!
 matchlight
Joined: 1/31/2009
Msg: 336
view profile
History
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 12:35:41 PM
alas, politics has long since raised it's head in appointments in this area.


Yes--and it was started by the "liberals" who made sure the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Court was scuttled. No one could have been better qualified, but some senators went far beyond their constitutional duty to "advise and consent" to make sure Bork never made it.

Arlen Specter, a senator almost as dim as Joe Biden, was one of several jackals who made a point of misconstruing various things Bork had written. Whether that was out of dishonesty or sheer inability to understand the legal issues involved, only he knows.


They have never seen a rule they cannot bend or a law they cannot interpret, in order to break it!


You don't say. Well, the Constitution is the law of laws in this country, and so-called liberals make intentionally distorting and evading it their standard practice. Woodrow Wilson, who with his PhD. was almost as smart as the current president, openly expressed his disdain for the Constitution he was sworn to uphold. Mr. Obama has outright contempt for it but lacks the honesty to admit it. Loathing the Constitution is part of loathing the United States, and it's bad enough when foreigners do it.


Now what about that form he was supposed to fill out, and "FORGOT" for 4 years? Gee he should have used that "the dog ate my homework" excuse, it would have been more believable.


I've heard a lot of very harsh criticism of both Justice Thomas and his wife. I'm not sure just what it's about. I think if an interracial couple want to drive their RV around the country and spend the night in Wal-Mart parking lots, that's their business.

When I want to read really superb legal analysis, whether on issues of church and state, states' rights, abortion, term limits, or whatever, I turn to Justice Thomas. He may be the sharpest tack on the Court. His concurring opinion in McDonald v. Chicago, the historic Second Amendment decision from two years ago, for example, is a masterpiece.

Thomas detailed very convincingly how, historically, an important purpose of gun control laws in the U.S. has been to suppress blacks. The man in the case, Otis McDonald, was an elderly black who lived alone in a bad part of Chicago, had more than once been broken in on and had his life threatened, and yet could not buy a gun.
 OyVay...
Joined: 7/15/2011
Msg: 337
Church and State
Posted: 4/11/2012 7:23:34 PM
Hmmmm, seems a bit sketchy to me!

First you say "I'm not sure just what it's about" but then say "When I want to read really superb legal analysis".

If you are such a fan, why wouldn't you want to know the complete story? It's kinda like sayin I like Derek Jeter, but don't really know his stats. Maybe a more apt comparison would be to say "boy that Al Capone really knows the liquor industry" without really knowing how he knows and what he does!!

But hey, maybe that's how you roll, like all the republicants.
Show ALL Forums  > Off Topic  > Church and State