Religion and Government

aphexcoil

aphexcoil

Why is my country pulling double standards left and right? Why is it acceptable to print "In God we Trust" on U.S. currency and also to swear a president into office using a bible but it is unacceptable to have a monument of the ten commandments on public display in a court of law?

I'm not trying to be funny -- I am just confused. Why is it acceptable for the government to use religion when it benefits them and yet use the separation of church and state clause when they don't feel like dealing with religion?

If the monument has been there for quite some time, what negative affect is it having on anyone? Where do you separate a religious shrine from a historical one?

Why aren't there any pending lawsuits to get God off the dollar bill?

I'm confused. :confused:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html
 
It is part of a moment to eliminate any static beliefs in the world. The real politicos of the world understand that if people have a belief in an objective truth, a natural law then society will change more slowly or not at all.

So you have to eliminate any religious thought that can be appealed to in order determine if there is right and wrong. The first thing is to eliminate religion and right and wrong from public life, then you eliminate it from private life.

Now liberals may believe that they are struggling for John Lennon utopia. I only wish it were that benign. You see this taking the religion and right and wrong out of public life is part of the manifesto of how to bring the world to socialism or communism. If you do not belive me--- see that Hillary Clinton's stuff about it takes a village was lifted or developed from the same strain as the stuff from the UN conference on women. Read the documents and pronouncements about religion. I use to think people who thought this stuff were wacky, I mean how can there be any communists and super socialists left? (Just read the UN stuff and you will see I promise.)

It will blow you away that this is in writing. Then check on the UN conference on the environment see how they desire to take everything from the west.

In the end it is about taking power, wealth and self governance from the west. unfortunately many progressive do gooders do not see who is really setting the agenda.

In the beginning we had right and wrong, we had a country founded on certain morals and principles (Check the meat thread to see thorughly researched the non christian deist arguement really is. We had a great country where people could worship, speak as they pleased and elect their own leaders. The US prospered.

Now entities struggle to take the away our moral compass. As morals break down so do civilizations. The ACLU is just one of the tools of the anti-west.
 
Quote from jem:

It is part of a moment to eliminate any static beliefs in the world. The real politicos of the world understand that if people have a belief in an objective truth, a natural law then society will change more slowly or not at all.

So you have to eliminate any religious thought that can be appealed to in order determine if there is right and wrong. The first thing is to eliminate religion and right and wrong from public life, then you eliminate it from private life.

Now liberals may believe that they are struggling for John Lennon utopia. I only wish it were that benign. You see this taking the religion and right and wrong out of public life is part of the manifesto of how to bring the world to socialism or communism. If you do not belive me--- see that Hillary Clinton's stuff about it takes a village was lifted or developed from the same strain as the stuff from the UN conference on women. Read the documents and pronouncements about religion. I use to think people who thought this stuff were wacky, I mean how can there be any communists and super socialists left? (Just read the UN stuff and you will see I promise.)

It will blow you away that this is in writing. Then check on the UN conference on the environment see how they desire to take everything from the west.

In the end it is about taking power, wealth and self governance from the west. unfortunately many progressive do gooders do not see who is really setting the agenda.

In the beginning we had right and wrong, we had a country founded on certain morals and principles (Check the meat thread to see thorughly researched the non christian deist arguement really is. We had a great country where people could worship, speak as they pleased and elect their own leaders. The US prospered.

Now entities struggle to take the away our moral compass. As morals break down so do civilizations. The ACLU is just one of the tools of the anti-west.
More...

Couldn't have said it better. Although AAA will have a great thought too!
 
If you want a great read along these lines that explains the true philosophies behind these problems and how beliefs affect cultures and worldviews and the results get "Discipling Nations" by Darrow R. Miller. It will really open your eyes and help you to understand what is going on now and in the past.
 
Quote from aphexcoil:

Why is my country pulling double standards left and right? Why is it acceptable to print "In God we Trust" on U.S. currency and also to swear a president into office using a bible but it is unacceptable to have a monument of the ten commandments on public display in a court of law?

I'm not trying to be funny -- I am just confused. Why is it acceptable for the government to use religion when it benefits them and yet use the separation of church and state clause when they don't feel like dealing with religion?

If the monument has been there for quite some time, what negative affect is it having on anyone? Where do you separate a religious shrine from a historical one?

Why aren't there any pending lawsuits to get God off the dollar bill?


I'm confused. :confused:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/08/21/ten.commandments/index.html
More...
Aphe,

To me the ultimate double standard exists in the House Chamber, take a look at my post on the subject in this thread:

http://www.elitetrader.com/vb/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21062&perpage=6&pagenumber=14

DS
 
Aphie poses some good questions. Why is it ok for the congress to start each session with a prayer but somehow it's unconstitutional for a high school football team to do the same thing? If the government is supposed to stay out of religion why is it ok for the armed services to have chaplains? And why is Christmas a holiday? Doesn't that make Muslims and Jews feel excluded? Why can schools kids be taught about every religion but the one that founded this country? And why can they be endoctrinated into nature worship through environmental "religion" but will be sent home if they bring a Bible to school?

The Supreme Court's precedents on the First Amendment religious clauses are an embarrassment. Every constitutional lawyer knows it, but many are liberals who want a religion-free society so they pretend it's all just so very intellectual.

Through various make-it -up-as-we-go-along decisions the Court has articulated a test of avoiding excessive governmental entanglement in religion and the appearance of endorsing one religion over another. The only problem with that standard is it is not in the Constitution. It gives federal judges way too much power to dictate their policy preferences to local authorities under the guise of constitutional law. This 10 Commandments case is a perfect example.

We have the absurdity that state governemtns can be sued if they try to remove pornographic "art" or refuse to subsidize it but cannot display the 10 Commandments. Call me old school but I seriously doubt if that was the outcome the Founders envisioned.
 
AAAintheBeltway, you are right it's a mess. Religion should be a thing that consenting adults do between themselves and preferably in private. It should not be part of State activities or funding.

The Supreme Court should only have to get involved should any particular religious sect attempt to force its teachings onto others in public places.

People should be free to practice their different faiths but not with taxpayers dollars. Get it out of State affairs, problem diminished.

It seems the rev Moore is in violation of Federal Law AND "God's Law". He is worshipping an extraordinarily large graven image. This is surely going to get Moses really pissed.
 
Quote from stu:

AAAintheBeltway, you are right it's a mess. Religion should be a thing that consenting adults do between themselves and preferably in private. It should not be part of State activities or funding.

The Supreme Court should only have to get involved should any particular religious sect attempt to force its teachings onto others in public places.

People should be free to practice their different faiths but not with taxpayers dollars. Get it out of State affairs, problem diminished.

It seems the rev Moore is in violation of Federal Law AND "God's Law". He is worshipping an extraordinarily large graven image. This is surely going to get Moses really pissed.
More...

Hey Stu let me ask you something then. Based on your arguement should we allow women to play god with tax payer money as well? Of course I am talking about abortion. It seems there is a double standard here. Am I wrong?
 
Maverick,

I presume by "we" you mean in law.
I don't know what you mean by "play god". I would have to have a clear definition of what god is supposed to be.

If you mean is it right from by standards of morality - as explainable and definable by humanity itself - that abortion should be allowed... I think you need another thread, It's off topic. I don't see how your question is based on my argument.

There is right and wrong, there are morals and principles, all of them are and always have been expounded and put into practice by mankind itself.

Religious doctrine has no role to play other than the one it rewards to itself, which is to attach to whatever was already present anyway and try to claim the kudos for it.
 
Quote from stu:

AAAintheBeltway, you are right it's a mess. Religion should be a thing that consenting adults do between themselves and preferably in private. It should not be part of State activities or funding.

The Supreme Court should only have to get involved should any particular religious sect attempt to force its teachings onto others in public places.

People should be free to practice their different faiths but not with taxpayers dollars. Get it out of State affairs, problem diminished.

It seems the rev Moore is in violation of Federal Law AND "God's Law". He is worshipping an extraordinarily large graven image. This is surely going to get Moses really pissed.
More...
as usual, stu rules.

as AAA and aphie pointed out, right now things are a total mess with double standards all over the place. eventually religion will be out of the government, but it won't happen overnight. it should happen overnight, but there's too many brainwashed people around. another 50 years and all the god stuff will be off money, out of the pledge, etc., just like it should be.

F. P.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top