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.
Would you rather be flooded with religious propaganda, or with the homosexual propaganda that we have everywhere today?
That is the question Americans are going to have to ask themselves. Take your pick.
Well, one set of 'propaganda' basically states 'live and let live'. That's a good motto which many religious leaders ignore as they foist their views on the public.
The purpose of Separation of Church and State was to keep the state out of the churches. Some reason we've taken all this action to take the churches out of the state and not vice versa.
Very correct!
The prohibition is on the state, not the church.
Also, that "the Church" refers to people and not a religious organization is probably a little to nuanced for statists to comprehend.
Status:
"Let this year be over..."
(set 21 days ago)
Location: Where my bills arrive
19,219 posts, read 17,091,524 times
Reputation: 15538
Quote:
Originally Posted by momonkey
Very correct!
The prohibition is on the state, not the church.
Also, that "the Church" refers to people and not a religious organization is probably a little to nuanced for statists to comprehend.
And yet its "the Church" who receives the tax exemption
And its "the Church" who actively promotes charitable contributions towards themselves and things they are supporting.
And if a religion wants to be involved in politics they should lose their tax exemption because equality is a double edged sword and you don't get to play politics without paying the same as everyone else.
If anybody needs further proof that theocracy is on the rise in the US, I invite you to watch this video of Lauren Boebert. Then tell me that her popularity with so many hard-conservatives and the right-wing won't sway her adoring fans toward at least the 1950s - if not 17th Century Colonial America (minus the British rule, of course).
Definitely don't want this to happen, and it won't. And I disagree that theocracy on the rise. We are just seeing the right wing fringe pushing back against the left wing fringe
If anybody needs further proof that theocracy is on the rise in the US, I invite you to watch this video of Lauren Boebert. Then tell me that her popularity with so many hard-conservatives and the right-wing won't sway her adoring fans toward at least the 1950s - if not 17th Century Colonial America (minus the British rule, of course).
If you like you can try to amend the Constitution so that those with various religious convictions are prohibited from participating in the activities of government.
What the freedom from religion crowd fails to grasp is this "wall of separation" only applies to government which is remarkable because that is exactly what the Constitution says.
Also, that "the Church" refers to people and not a religious organization is probably a little to nuanced for statists to comprehend.
We have already had religious people, and pastors, run for office and take places in the government. There is nothing new here.
But when they do, they can not promote their religion, nor favor it over others. They cannot impose their religion upon the rest of society, they must respect other points of view and other values.
The government must be blind toward religion, both in the writing of laws and in the enforcement.
Boebert is clearly advocating for something else.
How would the posters here feel about it if this idea of Boebert's, word for word, was being advocated by a Muslim? I think we would see some first class freaking out on this thread.
And yet its "the Church" who receives the tax exemption
And its "the Church" who actively promotes charitable contributions towards themselves and things they are supporting.
And if a religion wants to be involved in politics they should lose their tax exemption because equality is a double edged sword and you don't get to play politics without paying the same as everyone else.
Actually, the Church pays taxes just like everyone else.
It's the religious organizations that are tax exempt.
We don't tax free speech or peaceful assembly.
We don't assess a tax for not having your home searched without a warrant.
Why would you expect any activity associated with a Constitutional right to be taxed?
We have already had religious people, and pastors, run for office and take places in the government. There is nothing new here.
But when they do, they can not promote their religion, nor favor it over others. They cannot impose their religion upon the rest of society, they must respect other points of view and other values.
The government must be blind toward religion, both in the writing of laws and in the enforcement.
Boebert is clearly advocating for something else.
How would the posters here feel about it if this idea of Boebert's, word for word, was being advocated by a Muslim? I think we would see some first class freaking out on this thread.
Got all that from, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Part 1: no official state endorsed church such as the Church of England, Church of Denmark, etc.
Part 2: the people are free to practice their faith as they see fit.
The only way to violate the Constitution, as it relates to the First Amendment, is for Congress to pass a law.
Like slavery and slautering natives. No thanks. I will take my chances with Antidisestablishmentarianism.
The ones primarily responsible for American slavery are dominant black tribes in Africa who raided villages and sold them to the Europeans. And the Europeans were not uniquely evil in the world, Arabs were buying just as many slaves except their slaves were castrated so they have no descendants today. And those natives in the US were not ensalved, they fought and were conquered. Many of those dominant tribes also ended up taking African slaves
Please stop using that irritating phrase "Judeo-Christian". As a Jew I can assure you Judaism and Christianity are two very different religious philosophies with very different world views.
I can also assure you that Jesus was a Jew and both religions share the old testament which contains myths and values that are the bedrock of the entire western civilization and all the prosperity it has brought the world
n You don't even have to believe in God to believe in Judeo-Christian values, there is even a fast emerging group of people who call themselves Secular Christians
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.
