If no seperation of church & state....

[45Auto]

Which religion would become the official state religion of he USA if we no longer have the seperation of church & state? Of course it would be Christian, but which one? should we sellect our state religion by voting, or maybe it should be the religion of our president. I'm sure there must be some interesting ideas.

[jack404]

with the president you have now , islam would be the state religion , sharia the law of the land and this forum shut down its members hunted to extinction

[45Auto]

Originally Posted by jack404

with the president you have now , islam would be the state religion , sharia the law of the land and this forum shut down its members hunted to extinction

I've seen him drink beer and eat pork chops. If he's a follower of Islam, he aint into sharia law.

[45Auto]

BTW, Jack, did Australia ever have a state religion?

[tcox4freedom]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

I've seen him drink beer and eat pork chops. If he's a follower of Islam, he aint into sharia law.

If I'm not mistaken, it is perfectly ok to engage in forbidden practices in order to gain power so you can eventually force people into submission; or defeat them.

NOTE:
There is only one TRUE form of Christianity! Though it may manifest itself in different "denominations".

If the government ever took control over religion, we would most likely see the rise of the "tyranny". This would once again lead to people seeking TRUE freedom in Christ. (Which IS the reason the USA was formed in the first place.)

-

[RunningOnMT]

Southern Baptist...cause I say so.

[markfh]

Just curious. Could one of the learned ones here please direct me to the paragraph in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says there is a "separation of church and state".

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by markfh

Just curious. Could one of the learned ones here please direct me to the paragraph in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says there is a "separation of church and state".

SCOTUS and lower court rulings, from what I can discern.

[GunnyGene]

Originally Posted by markfh

Just curious. Could one of the learned ones here please direct me to the paragraph in the Constitution or Bill of Rights where it says there is a "separation of church and state".

It is not explicitly stated in that manner, but is implied in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . Essentially that means the same thing.

It was not always thus, and in fact we went thru several periods during the early colonial days of permitting/rescinding freedom of religion.

[markfh]

Originally Posted by jedwil

SCOTUS and lower court rulings, from what I can discern.

That's all well and good but where's the beef?

Answer: There is NO separation of church and state in the constitution or bill of rights.

What people usually refer to is the "establishment clause" and contorting that to the position that there is a separation of church and state is a perversion of the original intent.

[markfh]

Originally Posted by GunnyGene

It is not explicitly stated in that manner, but is implied in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . Essentially that means the same thing.

It was not always thus, and in fact we went thru several periods during the early colonial days of permitting/rescinding freedom of religion.

No, it is NOT "essentially the same thing". They intended only that the state would not "establish" a state religion.

Let me add that words have meaning and they must be understood in context.

[jack404]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

BTW, Jack, did Australia ever have a state religion?

we where a Christian nation when i first left for Cambodia, somewhere between then and Rwanda we became a multi cultural nation and the attack on Christianity and Christian morals began.. the following year we had our first gay mardi gras

Originally Posted by tcox4freedom

If I'm not mistaken, it is perfectly ok to engage in forbidden practices in order to gain power so you can eventually force people into submission; or defeat them.

NOTE:
There is only one TRUE form of Christianity! Though it may manifest itself in different "denominations".

If the government ever took control over religion, we would most likely see the rise of the "tyranny". This would once again lead to people seeking TRUE freedom in Christ. (Which IS the reason the USA was formed in the first place.)

-

Taqqiya and kitman are islamic doctrines that allows lies deception enjoyment of forbidden things if your long term goal is to advance islam

look up how the 9/11 hijackers lived and on the strict instructions they had to make themselves "clean" again before they got on the planes Zakowi was very very strong about that , read it yourself , they have it all documented

look at the steps they took

first they got the ok from a senior imam and a jurga ( a group of lesser imam's) who agreed it was ok as it was for the glory of islam and a attack against its enemies

then they had a series of acts they had to do to stay clean while they where doing the harum ( forbidden or unclean) things and again before they went on the planes , to ensure they would be accepted by allah

they used hookers drugs booze all for the glory of allah

so by the doctrine of kitman and the use of taqqiya

all is ok

[WHSmithIV]

In a letter dated January 1, 1802 Thomas Jefferson wrote this to the Danbury Baptist Association in Connecticut:

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State"

This was published in a Massachusetts newspaper at the time. Jefferson's metaphor has been cited by the Supreme Court a couple times.

[jedwil]

Originally Posted by markfh

That's all well and good but where's the beef?

Answer: There is NO separation of church and state in the constitution or bill of rights.

What people usually refer to is the "establishment clause" and contorting that to the position that there is a separation of church and state is a perversion of the original intent.

The "beef" is the power of the Supreme Court and the agencies that enforce "their" interpretations of the court rulings. You have no "beef" with me. I certainly believe in the concept of our religious roots and the freedoms to believe and express any of those beliefs.

[ampaterry]

IMHO, it is a language thing.

It is clear to all of us that the second amendment gave ALL the right to bear arms, but those opposed hang on to the word 'milita' to infringe on that right.

The prohibition against establishing a 'religion' was merely to assure that the state would not declare Baptists or Catholics or some other denomination to be THE church of the US. I do not believe they had any conception that this amendment would one day be used to protect groups outside of the original judao-Christian beliefs of the founders, nor to remove all Judao-Christian references from everything public.

I surely do wish they would have used more explicit language in BOTH the First and Second amendments to preclude all the twisting that has been done to both over the years - -

I for one would be overjoyed for the Fed to declare the USA was Judao-Christian or Abrahamic. It sure would solve a lot of the problems we face with this multi-cultural garbage we are embroiled in now -

[Double D]

Originally Posted by 45Auto

I've seen him drink beer and eat pork chops. If he's a follower of Islam, he aint into sharia law.

Dont kid yourself. Watch what the other hand is doing.....

[RunningOnMT]

Originally Posted by Double D

Dont kid yourself. Watch what the other hand is doing.....

I think it's usually in Eric Holder's pants...Oops...Can I say that?

[markfh]

Originally Posted by jedwil

The "beef" is the power of the Supreme Court and the agencies that enforce "their" interpretations of the court rulings. You have no "beef" with me. I certainly believe in the concept of our religious roots and the freedoms to believe and express any of those beliefs.

Precisely! Good reason to have someone in office that would appoint conservatives to the Supreme Court that won't find things in the Constitution and Bill of Rights that aren't.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by markfh

No, it is NOT "essentially the same thing". They intended only that the state would not "establish" a state religion.

Showing particular favor on one religious group over another is establishment.

I am quite happy not to use the government's PA systems to announce a prayer since it keeps the government out of my church.

It's a two-way street. I for one am fine with that street being barricaded.

[Sergeant Major]

We have to be carful with seperation of church and state. It must remain seperate, but it has to come from both sides. I'm a believer, but I strongly feel that the church must stay out of politics..... You can't gry foul and say seperation of church and state, then as a church get right in the middle of it everytime somethings comes up. The preacher should not spend all sunday service telling his flock who to vote for. That maybe should stay seperate time and be spent in worship to our lord...

[ampaterry]

I believe if we MUST err, it should be on the side of separation.
If the twits in DC can't tell the difference between Baptist vs Episcopal and Christian vs Islam, it IS better if they avoid the topic completely.

You're right, CJ about it being a two-way street.
We wanted to assure that other countries had fair elections, and did that through the power of the UN.
Now we have UN observers nosing into OUR elections!

[markfh]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Showing particular favor on one religious group over another is establishment.

I am quite happy not to use the government's PA systems to announce a prayer since it keeps the government out of my church.

It's a two-way street. I for one am fine with that street being barricaded.

You're wrong. "Establishment" as referred to by the founders was a direct response to the Church of England which was an "established" religion dictated by the state.

The founders did NOT want religion to be excluded from government.

Not allowing political speech in churches violates the 1st amendment.

[WHSmithIV]

I don't see any reason for churches to avoid the topic of politics. They are under the rule of the same government as the people and their members, including the preachers vote also.

I also see every reason for the government to stay out of religion. Banning the pledge of allegiance in schools though is going too far. If some atheist parent objects to the pledge of allegiance stating 'one nation under God' fine - they can tell their kid not to say it but the kid should stand with the rest of the class out of respect for the country anyway.

[ampaterry]

The break-point is that a church with 501(c)3 status cannot officially endorse a candidate, nor can they speak against a specific candidate, or they are violating the tax-exempt agreement with the government. They cannot put something like this on their church sign, print it in their bulletin, nor can the pastor say such from the pulpit.

To say they must avoid politics altogether is ludicrous; politics and religion are so entertwined that the two cannot be separated.
Abortion.
Gays.
Wars.
Food stamps.
Welfare.
corporal punishment of children.
Self defense.
Possession of weapons.
And a hundred more.
Political issues all, and each one is deeply involved in Religion as well.

[edprocoat]

Originally Posted by GunnyGene

It is not explicitly stated in that manner, but is implied in the First Amendment. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." . Essentially that means the same thing.

It was not always thus, and in fact we went thru several periods during the early colonial days of permitting/rescinding freedom of religion.

Actually Gunny it not even close to the same thing. What it truly means is that religion and the practise of it and those who practise are free from government intervention, that was true until Obama came along and decided that all christians should pay for " health services " that they find morally objectionable thereby ignoring the constitution once again.

ed