If no seperation of church & state....

Discussion in 'Religious Discussions' started by 45Auto, Nov 1, 2012.

  1. Double D

    Double D Administrator Staff Member Supporting Member

    Jul 16, 2009
    North Florida
    Dont kid yourself. Watch what the other hand is doing.....
  2. RunningOnMT

    RunningOnMT New Member

    Nov 19, 2008
    Akron, Ohio
    I think it's usually in Eric Holder's pants...Oops...Can I say that?

    Last edited: Nov 2, 2012

  3. markfh

    markfh New Member

    Dec 16, 2008

    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.
  4. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2007
    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. [​IMG]
  5. Sergeant Major

    Sergeant Major New Member

    Nov 2, 2012
    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...
  6. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Dec 20, 2008
    West Tennessee
    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!
  7. markfh

    markfh New Member

    Dec 16, 2008
    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.
  8. WHSmithIV

    WHSmithIV Well-Known Member

    May 3, 2012
    Moore, Idaho
    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.
  9. ampaterry

    ampaterry *TFF Admin Staff Chaplain* Staff Member Supporting Member

    Dec 20, 2008
    West Tennessee
    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.
    Food stamps.
    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.
  10. edprocoat

    edprocoat New Member

    Nov 3, 2012
    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.

  11. jack404

    jack404 Former Guest

    Jan 11, 2010
  12. BlackEagle

    BlackEagle Well-Known Member Supporting Member

    Nov 25, 2011
    Ed, welcome to the forum. Lots of good discussion here, among good friends who care for each other, who know guns and are happy to help people out. This place is addicting. Enjoy.
  13. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2007
    Which is worse, to declare the Church of England to be the state religion but do nothing about it (as the UK today), or to not have an "established" state religion but to show favoritism to one religious group over others?

    What is an "established" state religion but a religious group that is favored over others? Whether declared or not, favoring any religious group over others is establishing a religion.

    Your first point there is debatable, though I agree with you on it.

    The second is absolutely correct. What freedom of speech is there if not free political speech by absolutely everyone?
    Last edited: Nov 5, 2012
  14. whirley

    whirley Member

    Jan 27, 2008
    If you read early American history, you'll find that the "established church" was supported by the government. Also no other religious group was allowed to own land or buildings. That was bypassed by electing members of the congregation as the property owners. When they became too old, they resigned and younger members were elected in their place. Church groups were not allowed to incorporate until Congress passed enabling laws about 1810. Our Constitution doesn't allow the "state" to give financial support to any religious group, but it also forbids government from interfering with any group in the practice of their religion. That's where it gets sticky, because some people insist that allowing religious grooups to use publicly owned facilities, even for such things as a ball game is a violation of the religious clause. That goes way back where none of the religious groups liked each other very much. For example, in many churches you will occasionally hear the ministers rant about the early Roman Church in the 14th century chaining bibles to the pillars so people couldn't take them. Actually true. A bible at that time represented the life work of perhaps 20 monks, were rare and valuable and few people could read anyway. The first book printed by Gutenberg was a bible.
  15. CampingJosh

    CampingJosh Well-Known Member

    Sep 25, 2007
    Many state governments did have official religions for decades.

    Of course, the 14th Amendment changed the whole nature of the Constitution, making it a limit on state governments that were previously limited only by their own constitutions and their people. The stuff previously disallowed to Congress now applies to all government in this country.
Similar Threads
Forum Title Date
Religious Discussions Got a BIG startle at church today - Sunday at 5:36 PM
Religious Discussions Churches cancelling service on Christmas Day Dec 23, 2016
Religious Discussions Watch your 6 at Church this Christmas season. Dec 22, 2016
Religious Discussions I walked 500 miles to go to church once.... Nov 30, 2016
Religious Discussions Great video we saw in church today Nov 20, 2016