Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
This might sound radical, or even unconstitutional, but it's not. It would not be a violation of the First Amendment which permits free practice of any religion.
Actually it is. The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." So you are ignoring the first half of the establishment clause with this silly proposal.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont
Right now, the federal and state governments are ALREADY pushing one religion, and that is atheism. Atheism was ruled to be an official religion, "entitled to the same legal protections of other established religions" in the 2005 Supreme Court Case Kaufman v. McCaughtry.
Atheism is not a religion. One cannot make a religion out of not believing something. Atheism is a religion like off is a TV channel. As for the legal implications, that case was debated on the prisoner's request for a study group, not his demand that it be recognized as a religion.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont
We have seen the promotion of atheist values as abortion on demand up until birth regardless of it's health, of forcing businesses under threat of imprisonment to participate in gay weddings, and of forcing Catholics to purchase birth control for others, or face prosecution. New Jersey now requires LGBTQ history be taught in every school. The federal government gives half a billion dollars every year to the Planned Parenthood abortion mills. Every one of these policies pushes the atheist agenda and violates Christian teaching as well as common decency.
Those are not atheist values. Those are moral values. Off does not have specific values. Besides, which supposed "Christian values" are the right ones? Each denomination believes differently. My sister is Apostolic and thinks every woman must wear a dress 24-7. Does that mean every Christian woman has to wear a dress? Amish people believe in no electricity or cars. Do we have to take up horses and buggies again? Some Christians believe in taking Communion at each service or going to confession. Would those sacraments be required in your theocratic world? So what type Christian is the moral and decent type? Yours? Your neighbor's? The Pope's?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont
For folks who squawk about separation of church and state, time has proven this is impossible. There is no such thing as an absence of religion in a vacuum. It is not possible to separate laws from one religious value or another. Inevitably atheism becomes the de facto alternative fill-in. And atheism, as we have shown IS a religion with its own pro-active agenda.
There is only one way to solve this dilemma. Protect the moral and decent. Get rid of the immoral, the perverse, and the hideous. Protect the view that our country was founded on, the view held by most Americans and, really, every moral person: the views of Christianity. If promoting one religion is unavoidable, let's at least promote the right one. Let's do it now.
What is an atheist value? Where is the church of atheism located? If atheism is a religion, what is its creed? Tell us, because I am not aware of it.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Daryl_G
The goverment tried to use religion as a rail or guide when creating laws and the constitution. We have “in god we trust” on money which is what we value most as a country. We have laws that follow religious moral code, otherwise prostitution, gambling, and drugs would be legal everywhere. Would be great for the economy but it’s not “morally” right per religion so we followed that lead.
What eventually happened is religion stated to become a hinderance to those in power right from the establishment of our nation. Hard to argue for slavery, war, capitalism, and treatment of native Americans and stay in line with Jesus. So you have to decide if you want theology to run the country or money. We chose money and justified all the things that go against Christianity by twisting words in the Bible.
Look at religion today, we have remade it to fit our interpretation of what we want Christianity to be. Mega churches, Jesus wants you to be rich, $5 dollar holy water to fix your problems. Where the hell is this stuff in the Bible, Jesus was washing feet and and feeding the poor not building a third house on the Red Sea.
Doesn't 'render unto Caesar..........' in the Bible imply a distinct separation between church and state?
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cheesemont
The Catholic Church, my church, did not. They were out in front against slavery decades before the Emancipation Proclamation.
They were also out in front forming Inquisitions that tortured people.
And given the church hierarchy's protection of predator priests I see little reason to accept their proclamations of just what constitutes 'morality'. Clean your own house before attempting to critique mine!
So the founders wrote the First Amendment because?
The First Amendment was necessary to hold together a diverse country. Secularism has no values, no beliefs, no identity, no ideology, no doctrine, no morals. It is infinitely-malleable. But its power is absolute.
Secular-governments only appear legitimate because they are presumed to be "for the people"(democracy, communism, socialism, etc). Prior to the modern-state, the legitimacy of government came from things like "Romans 13" in the bible. Which basically said you must obey the government because god wants you to.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,411,082 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by Redshadowz
The First Amendment was necessary to hold together a diverse country. Secularism has no values, no beliefs, no identity, no ideology, no doctrine, no morals. It is infinitely-malleable.
Secular-governments only appear legitimate because they are presumed to be "for the people"(democracy, communism, socialism, etc). Prior to the modern-state, the legitimacy of government came from things like "Romans 13" in the bible. Which basically said you must obey the government because god wants you to.
The First Amendment was necessary to hold together a diverse country. Secularism has no values, no beliefs, no identity, no ideology, no doctrine, no morals. It is infinitely-malleable. But its power is absolute.
Secular-governments only appear legitimate because they are presumed to be "for the people"(democracy, communism, socialism, etc). Prior to the modern-state, the legitimacy of government came from things like "Romans 13" in the bible. Which basically said you must obey the government because god wants you to.
And the country is less diverse now than it was in 1789?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Clean your own house before attempting to critique mine!
