• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is the division of church and state on shaky ground?

Uh huh.

"The heart of the wise inclines to the right, but the heart of the fool to the left." - Ecclesiastes 10:2
Ecclesiastes 2
15 Then I said to myself, “The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?” I said to myself, “This too is meaningless.”
16 For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered; the days have already come when both have been forgotten. Like the fool, the wise too must die!
 
Ecclesiastes 2
15 Then I said to myself, “The fate of the fool will overtake me also. What then do I gain by being wise?” I said to myself, “This too is meaningless.”
16 For the wise, like the fool, will not be long remembered; the days have already come when both have been forgotten. Like the fool, the wise too must die!

Psalm 14:1
 
To say there's been no partial birth abortions in this country is not true. Partial Birth Abortion

And if they're illegal now it's in part because Christians have come out against it.

In other words, you're wrong but if you are wrong it's because of Christians. Okay...

Lobbying against the redistribution of wealth - passing laws and bills taking money from earners and giving it to those of lesser means.

So as a Christian, you would do what with those who can't support or care for themselves?

Finally, just what law that Christians want are you against?

Changing the interpretation of the 1st amendment so that states can have an official religion.

Enshrining the false idea that the USA was founded as a Christian nation.

Trying to legislate that fertilized eggs are "persons" that the state must defend with force.

There are others like trying to get rid of the 17th amendment, but I'll just stick with those for now.
 
Jesus was a Liberal. I don't look for Christian Truth from a Political Party. The Republican Party is controlled by the 1%ers, and is nothing but a scam and a lie. The Democrats attempt to separate Religion from Politics, but in many ways, they are inseparable. If you are looking for Christian truth from Politics, you're barking up the wrong tree.

So many oxymorons in your comments...first off, Jesus was and is for Theocracy...he himself said his kingdom was no part of this world...that would include democracy, socialism, communism...whatever...to even include him in the same subject matter as worldly governments is an insult to him, to God, and everything they stand for...you are right about one thing...to look to political parties for truth or solutions to man's problems is sheer foolishness...
 
I can tell you what didn't make sense and that part of your post that I said didn't make sense. It is your sentence structure that's not a Slam against do some people English as a second language and it's particularly hard to learn.

Can you tell me specifically why my statement doesn't make sense?



It really all depends on the type of government. A Theocratic dictatorship yes. A constitutional republic no.

If the Republican party controls the President votes, the majority of Administration votes , the majority of House votes, the majority of Senate votes would this party not control any bill that gets submitted? Of course not to be bias if the Democrats had all this they would also control any bill that was submitted. However both parties have had this in the past 17 years and where are we now.
Since one of the major voter blocks of the Republican party is Religious some may say why not let the Church get involved more into politics.

However some people have long memories like the priest that abused children. The Bakers, Jim Jones, and lets not forget Falwell's quote on national T.V saying all Jews are going to Hell, then there's the preacher who got on national T.V and said if I don't get 5 grand I'll die. and the list goes on
The priest were any ever convicted of the crime they committed?
The Bakers stole over 25 to 50 grand off the top of prayer money and charitable organizations Baker got 1 to 5 time off for good behavior , his wife never prosecuted,
Falwell or whatever his name was, when ask to rephrase the question refused saying it is the truth I KNOW
.The preacher asking for money or he would die , probably a televangelist now.
Jim Jones dead a lot of people that unfortunately followed him dead. who speaks for the victims that were manipulated and worked as slaves and abused? Had it not been for a politician getting killed this would still be going on and still might be?

What of Waco?

These are just a few and you would have all religion move further into politics? WHY????:peace
 
You made a couple of false claims in your opening post, I called you on them. How can we move forward until you have addressed that? :shrug:

There was never a separation of church and state in the Constitution. How can something which never existed be in jeopardy?

The interrogative sentence put to you not once but twice , 3 times if you read the name of this thread.
So ya got an answer or are you just here to criticize my post .
I'd like to sling mud with ya Sir but I already been warned by the moderators once maybe catch me another time.:peace
 
So many oxymorons in your comments...first off, Jesus was and is for Theocracy...he himself said his kingdom was no part of this world...that would include democracy, socialism, communism...whatever...to even include him in the same subject matter as worldly governments is an insult to him, to God, and everything they stand for...you are right about one thing...to look to political parties for truth or solutions to man's problems is sheer foolishness...

Agreed! However, I can never see Trump saying, "Blessed are the Meek, for they Shall Inherit the Earth". Bannon - no. Icahn - no. Obama - Yes! Nader - Yes! Pelosi - Yes!
 
Logicman: Finally, just what law that Christians want are you against?

Changing the interpretation of the 1st amendment so that states can have an official religion.

I haven't seen any real movement for that. No one I know wants a state-sponsored religion.

Enshrining the false idea that the USA was founded as a Christian nation.

The early Americans were predominately Christians. Here's a list of what you might have missed in all that:

The Moral Foundations of America: https://righterreport.com/2011/07/16/the-moral-foundations-of-america-2/

Also, did you know the founding fathers and later individuals used to hold church services in government buildings from the time of the American Revolution up to the time of the Civil War? Yeah! Kind of gives you a better idea of how they viewed church and state.

Trying to legislate that fertilized eggs are "persons" that the state must defend with force.

I don't think that's a major movement on the part of Christians in general, but ok.
 
Constitutional literalism and Religious fundamentalism is human subjugation at its best. They make an individual's ability to grow with inevitable change on the edge of impossible. They blind the mind.
 
Constitutional literalism and Religious fundamentalism is human subjugation at its best. They make an individual's ability to grow with inevitable change on the edge of impossible. They blind the mind.

I understand and agree with your statement about religious fundamentalism, but am curious about the constitutional literalism part....:confused:
 
Before we can answer this question, we first need to define what religion is. Not all religions worship deities. For example, Buddhism does not have deities, yet it is one of the largest religions in the world. Religions can be more about philosophy and lifestyle without any mention of God.

One may ask is PC is form of religion that has no deities? One cannot use certain godless names in vane. Is feminism a form of religion? Is man made global warming and environmentalism religious sects that all worship mother earth? Are political parties forms of religions? Politics and religion can trigger the same levels of excitement or combativeness in their flock. What about all the fake news worship services against Trump. Is that a form of religion since it teaches things that are imaginary to its worshipers who then blindly believe?

The left tends to define religion as anything associated with Christianity. That is the only religion they seem to target. This output affect sort of tells you their definition of religion. What can be done to Christianity would be called a hate crime for other religions. There is unspoken definition of religion that is too narrow and self serving. There is no big first 1st Amendment push against Muslims. If anything there is state run accommodation. Is this a break down in the separation of church and state, based on the leftist definition of religion? Or is that how the state should respect all religions?

The definition of religion needs to be clarified so we don't leave anyone out. A better way may be to define religion based on the affect on the individual instead of cause. The cause may or may not have deities, but the affect will often be very similar. If you met a devout Buddhist or Christian one can see their faith in their eyes even though one has deities and the other not. Reg output affect can be induced in many ways.

How is the output affect of a preacher teaching of heavenly paradise any different from a socialist painting the idealist picture of a socialist utopia that never seems to fully exist? Both are wishful places and both can make the audience feel good and can even motivate the audience along lines of prescribed behavior.

Back in the time of Rome, various human collective expressions from agriculture to war, had a god or goddess associated with it. If you were in the military this had the patron God, Mars. The difference today is we take away Mars; deity, but nothing else really changes in terms of the philosophy of the warrior. The output affect is still the same. Adding or taking away a deity is not a good litmus test. Separation of church and state allows for all these differences, which is why it is close to free speech, which can become political; non-deity religion.

One has to bear in mind that the state has an army and police, it can make laws, it has jails, it can tax, all backed by force. There is no religion, regardless of definition, that has this much power. Religions cannot form an army, their laws and taxes; tithes, are all voluntary. The state is the big dog and religion the little dog. The big dog does not need to protect itself from the little dog who has no teeth. Separation is there to keep the big dog on the leash, since he is all the big teeth.
 
I understand and agree with your statement about religious fundamentalism, but am curious about the constitutional literalism part....:confused:

T, there are those who take the Constitution's content be "literal", without variation from the Framer's original words as though they are to remain in context and the spirit of the document as it was written in the late 1700's.

The Framers had enough snap to know that the future would be the impetus for adjusting the Constitution "in some ways" to meet the needs of the day.

In other words, pretty much the same as religious fundamentalism.
 
Before we can answer this question, we first need to define what religion is. Not all religions worship deities. For example, Buddhism does not have deities, yet it is one of the largest religions in the world. Religions can be more about philosophy and lifestyle without any mention of God.

One may ask is PC is form of religion that has no deities? One cannot use certain godless names in vane. Is feminism a form of religion? Is man made global warming and environmentalism religious sects that all worship mother earth? Are political parties forms of religions? Politics and religion can trigger the same levels of excitement or combativeness in their flock. What about all the fake news worship services against Trump. Is that a form of religion since it teaches things that are imaginary to its worshipers who then blindly believe?
The U.S. courts have never ruled explicitly as to what can be considered a religion. In Washington Ethical Society v. District of Columbia 249 F.2d 127 (1957), The US Court of Appeals for DC ruled that the Society qualified as a religious group for tax purposes in that it functioned as a church even though they do not believe in any deity.

The California Appeals Court ruled similarly in Fellowship of Humanity v. County of Alameda (1957) 153 CA2d 673 stating:
"It is perfectly obvious that any type of statutory exemption that discriminates between types of religious belief--that discriminates... on the basis of the content of such belief--would offend both the federal and state constitutional provisions... Under the constitutional provision the state has no power to decide the validity of the beliefs held by the group involved... Thus the only inquiry in such a case is the objective one of whether or not the belief occupies the same place in the lives of its holders that the orthodox beliefs occupy in the lives of believing majorities, and whether a given group that claims the exemption conducts itself the way groups conceded to be religious conduct themselves."

And in the US Supreme Court Decision Torcaso v Watkins 367 U.S. 488 (1961), Justice Black cited these cases as examples of protection.

Note that the distinction is organization and function as opposed to beliefs. So while one might consider some members of NOW as fanatical and devout to the precepts of feminism, NOW does not act for function in any way like a church. And the 9th Circuit Court explicitly ruled in Peloza v Capistrano School District 37 F.3d 517 (1994) that "neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or secular humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes.""


The left tends to define religion as anything associated with Christianity. That is the only religion they seem to target. This output affect sort of tells you their definition of religion. What can be done to Christianity would be called a hate crime for other religions. There is unspoken definition of religion that is too narrow and self serving. There is no big first 1st Amendment push against Muslims. If anything there is state run accommodation. Is this a break down in the separation of church and state, based on the leftist definition of religion? Or is that how the state should respect all religions?
Christians are the majority in this country and therefore the largest offenders in Establishment Clause cases.

Now if there are any specific cases where you think Christians have been unfairly targeted and treated differently from other religions, then please share and we can discuss.
 
Before we can answer this question, we first need to define what religion is. Not all religions worship deities. For example, Buddhism does not have deities, yet it is one of the largest religions in the world. Religions can be more about philosophy and lifestyle without any mention of God.

One may ask is PC is form of religion that has no deities? One cannot use certain godless names in vane. Is feminism a form of religion? Is man made global warming and environmentalism religious sects that all worship mother earth? Are political parties forms of religions? Politics and religion can trigger the same levels of excitement or combativeness in their flock. What about all the fake news worship services against Trump. Is that a form of religion since it teaches things that are imaginary to its worshipers who then blindly believe?

The left tends to define religion as anything associated with Christianity. That is the only religion they seem to target. This output affect sort of tells you their definition of religion. What can be done to Christianity would be called a hate crime for other religions. There is unspoken definition of religion that is too narrow and self serving. There is no big first 1st Amendment push against Muslims. If anything there is state run accommodation. Is this a break down in the separation of church and state, based on the leftist definition of religion? Or is that how the state should respect all religions?

The definition of religion needs to be clarified so we don't leave anyone out. A better way may be to define religion based on the affect on the individual instead of cause. The cause may or may not have deities, but the affect will often be very similar. If you met a devout Buddhist or Christian one can see their faith in their eyes even though one has deities and the other not. Reg output affect can be induced in many ways.

How is the output affect of a preacher teaching of heavenly paradise any different from a socialist painting the idealist picture of a socialist utopia that never seems to fully exist? Both are wishful places and both can make the audience feel good and can even motivate the audience along lines of prescribed behavior.

Back in the time of Rome, various human collective expressions from agriculture to war, had a god or goddess associated with it. If you were in the military this had the patron God, Mars. The difference today is we take away Mars; deity, but nothing else really changes in terms of the philosophy of the warrior. The output affect is still the same. Adding or taking away a deity is not a good litmus test. Separation of church and state allows for all these differences, which is why it is close to free speech, which can become political; non-deity religion.

One has to bear in mind that the state has an army and police, it can make laws, it has jails, it can tax, all backed by force. There is no religion, regardless of definition, that has this much power. Religions cannot form an army, their laws and taxes; tithes, are all voluntary. The state is the big dog and religion the little dog. The big dog does not need to protect itself from the little dog who has no teeth. Separation is there to keep the big dog on the leash, since he is all the big teeth.

First of all most if not all religions are based on something more than human beings whether it.s God , Jehovah, Reincarnation, or a prophet or the Holy Trinity to say that all religions agree would not be true. However there is the division between Church and State to keep Religion, all of Religion out of political business , for if one Religion encroaches on political business who's to say that all Religions will encroach deeper into politics creating more of a mess than what we currently have.

I started this thread so I will answer any question pertaining to it.
At no time did I single out any 1 religion I said all religions for it does state, THE DIVISION OF CHURCH AND STATE , don't say any particular Church.
As far as Feminism, worshiping mother earth global warming, the so called Fake news worship .
All have one thing in common they pay taxes, religions do not.

Both Left and Right veiw Religion only in Christian. However the Republican parties main voter base is based on Religion is it not?
What of the Jewish faith they too have hate crimes against them in this country. that's just 1 example.

The output affect of a preacher preaching heavenly paradise is exempt from taxes no matter what he preaches . The socialist pays taxes no matter how he paints the socialist utopia . Neither should interfere with american politics and the progress of America

As for me I have faith in God I need not where my faith on y sleeve or describe it.

Funny thing about little dogs they grow big , their teeth get longer, and if not careful they will bite you.:peace
 
T, there are those who take the Constitution's content be "literal", without variation from the Framer's original words as though they are to remain in context and the spirit of the document as it was written in the late 1700's.

The Framers had enough snap to know that the future would be the impetus for adjusting the Constitution "in some ways" to meet the needs of the day.

In other words, pretty much the same as religious fundamentalism.

OK, I see your point I guess. I tend to favor a literal interpretation based upon the words as they were used in 1787, and I understand and agree that amending the document is both necessary and wise to help it evolve.
 
OK, I see your point I guess. I tend to favor a literal interpretation based upon the words as they were used in 1787, and I understand and agree that amending the document is both necessary and wise to help it evolve.

Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you; he thought that as a society changed, its founding documents needed to change with the cultural changes. As the letter I quote here shows, TJ felt no regulations should be enforced for more than 19 years as doing so could be seen as ancestors telling the living citizens how to live, even when the world has changed.
Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 6 Sept. 1789


On similar ground it may be proved that no society can make a perpetual constitution, or even a perpetual law. The earth belongs always to the living generation. They may manage it then, and what proceeds from it, as they please, during their usufruct. They are masters too of their own persons, and consequently may govern them as they please. But persons and property make the sum of the objects of government. The constitution and the laws of their predecessors extinguished then in their natural course with those who gave them being. This could preserve that being till it ceased to be itself, and no longer. Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.--It may be said that the succeeding generation exercising in fact the power of repeal, this leaves them as free as if the constitution or law has been expressly limited to 19 years only.
 
Thomas Jefferson would disagree with you; he thought that as a society changed, its founding documents needed to change with the cultural changes. As the letter I quote here shows, TJ felt no regulations should be enforced for more than 19 years as doing so could be seen as ancestors telling the living citizens how to live, even when the world has changed.

I think you misread my post, or I wrote it poorly. Thanks for the words from Jefferson. Maybe Lysander Spooner was emulating him.

I favor the evolution of the document. I favor the cautious use of the amendment process, and I favor constitutional governance.
 
I think you misread my post, or I wrote it poorly. Thanks for the words from Jefferson. Maybe Lysander Spooner was emulating him.

I favor the evolution of the document. I favor the cautious use of the amendment process, and I favor constitutional governance.

apologies for misunderstanding your meaning in the previous post. It was the word "literal", a word which is used by the 'originalists', few of whom have any comprehension as to how great are the changes in our language during the past two hundred plus years.

A bit more from TJ's letter to Madison
The question Whether one generation of men has a right to bind another, seems never to have been started either on this or our side of the water. Yet it is a question of such consequences as not only to merit decision, but place also, among the fundamental principles of every government. The course of reflection in which we are immersed here on the elementary principles of society has presented this question to my mind; and that no such obligation can be so transmitted I think very capable of proof.--I set out on this ground, which I suppose to be self evident, "that the earth belongs in usufruct to the living": that the dead have neither powers nor rights over it.

Those who claim they are simply following the actual intent of the Founders seem to know little about the discussions that took place in the days leading up to the creation of the Constitution and the years following when Jefferson, Madison, Adams and others were still alive.
 
The left tends to define religion as anything associated with Christianity.
A good point, but the action is not unwarranted as it is so called Christians that wish to impose their ignorant zealotry on others. There are no similar attempts by Jews or by Muslims as of yet.
 
A good point, but the action is not unwarranted as it is so called Christians that wish to impose their ignorant zealotry on others. There are no similar attempts by Jews or by Muslims as of yet.

A small quibble with your comment. More accurate would be the following: There are no similar attempts by Jews or by Muslims in America, as of yet.

Certainly, in Israel, orthodox Jews are imposing their beliefs on the people and in multiple Muslim-majority nations, the Islamic faith is imposed on the populace.

They are a small minority but we must acknowledge that there are Americans who not only wish to impose their "ignorant zealotry' but who have even called for the slaughter or imprisonment of those they see as un-repentant sinners.
 
Back
Top Bottom