Religion and Government

There would be no state religion or anything of that kind inserted then or now.

axeman

________________________________

Where are my posts calling for a theocracy? Where are the calls for a state religion? I am personally abhorrent of either. Religion is absolutely personal and cannot be legislated. Although it can and should be talked about publicly it is by its very nature very private.

If all men are created "equal in the sight of God" then whoever is putting on the superior aire had better go back to square one and get right with their Creator because they just broke at least one commandment on "loving your neighbor".
 
I was not referring to you, but in general, to people
like judge Moron (Moore) and the right wingers who like
to revise history, and claim that all our laws are
based on the christian god and that this is a christian nation.

Hogwash. The U.S. of A. is the greatest nation on earth,
because it protects the beliefs of *individuals*, and does not
place any single class or belief above the rest.

Right wingers who wish to place christian artifacts
on government soil better NOT have an issue
with me placing satanic artifacts on their tax
purchased government property when I become
an elected official :D

Total hypocrisy.

As for the original question:

"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?"

1) It is not acceptable to print "In God we Trust" on our
currency which was added in the 1860's.

2) It is not acceptable to swear in a president using ONE
religions bible.

It is only a matter of time before these are challenged as well.

Of course...when they are challenged, they will all cry and
moan and claim their beliefs are being attacked.

Fact is... the people with differing beliefs are being slapped
in the face as we speak. Slapped in the face since the 1860's
by our currency...slapped in the face since the pledge of
allegiance was changed during McCarthysim in the 1950's.

Maybe "In NO god we trust" should be placed on currency
to "make things even" for the next 100 years?
Then we can remove all phrases and make no mention of
god, or no gods on our currency. The only truly fair solution.


peace

axeman



Quote from Doubter:

There would be no state religion or anything of that kind inserted then or now.

axeman

________________________________

Where are my posts calling for a theocracy? Where are the calls for a state religion? I am personally abhorrent of either. Religion is absolutely personal and cannot be legislated. Although it can and should be talked about publicly it is by its very nature very private.

If all men are created "equal in the sight of God" then whoever is putting on the superior aire had better go back to square one and get right with their Creator because they just broke at least one commandment on "loving your neighbor".
More...
 
Quote from axeman:

I was not referring to you, but in general, to people
like judge Moron (Moore) and the right wingers who like
to revise history, and claim that all our laws are
based on the christian god and that this is a christian nation.

Hogwash. The U.S. of A. is the greatest nation on earth,
because it protects the beliefs of *individuals*, and does not
place any single class or belief above the rest.

Right wingers who wish to place christian artifacts
on government soil better NOT have an issue
with me placing satanic artifacts on their tax
purchased government property when I become
an elected official :D

Total hypocrisy.

As for the original question:

"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?"

1) It is not acceptable to print "In God we Trust" on our
currency which was added in the 1860's.

2) It is not acceptable to swear in a president using ONE
religions bible.

It is only a matter of time before these are challenged as well.

Of course...when they are challenged, they will all cry and
moan and claim their beliefs are being attacked.

Fact is... the people with differing beliefs are being slapped
in the face as we speak. Slapped in the face since the 1860's
by our currency...slapped in the face since the pledge of
allegiance was changed during McCarthysim in the 1950's.

Maybe "In NO god we trust" should be placed on currency
to "make things even" for the next 100 years?
Then we can remove all phrases and make no mention of
god, or no gods on our currency. The only truly fair solution.


peace

axeman
More...
axeman, YOU ARE FUCKING GREAT!!!!!! YES, YES, YES!!!!!!!!!!!

ROCK
 
77% Back Display of Ten Commandments

By the way, a new USA Today/CNN/Gallup Poll says 77 percent of Americans oppose the removal of the Ten Commandments monument in Alabama.
________________________________________
axeman - There is a christian church on every corner,
________________________________________
This may not be a Christian nation but it does have some of the characteristics. It takes attendance to keep all those churches open and maybe all those people do influence their country. Maybe, just maybe the Creator they worship blesses them and their homeland just a little.
_______________________________________
axeman - The U.S. of A. is the greatest nation on earth,
because it protects the beliefs of *individuals*, and does not
place any single class or belief above the rest.
_____________________________________

Can't disagree here at all.

Look at the two Koreas. Contrast the worldview of their peoples and decide in which you would rather live. Just coincidently S. Korea has a more pro-Christian worldview and a whole lot more Christian churches.

Contrast the differing worldviews of the Palestinians and the Jews in regard to the land of Isreal. Prior to 1947 the Palestinians envisioned a desert which is what they had and since then the Jews have envisioned a very productive land which they now have. Maybe their differing beliefs had something to do with it.
 
Quote from axeman:

Man... I really get sick of these people.

There is a christian church on every corner, and they
are free to worship as much as they want.

But that is not enough. They must have a theocracy as well.

Screw the great melting pot.
Screw all other religions. All 1500+ in the united states!
Screw all other belief systems.
Screw the law that holds this country together.

We're SPECIAL! Your NOT!

Everyone else is below us.

:mad:

Then when people fight for nuetral ground, they cry
and whine as if being attacked. Get a life.


peace

axeman
More...



Axeman, once again you demonstrate that your understanding of the issues you wail and moan about is extremely poor; certainly hardly worthy an intelligent response. My advice to you: get a clue before you start talking. And no, I don't mean from the blah blah propaganda of American Atheists, either. Things are far more complicated than your laughably simplistic sixth grade approach to them.
 
Quote from alfonso:

Axeman, once again you demonstrate that your understanding of the issues you wail and moan about is extremely poor; certainly hardly worthy an intelligent response. My advice to you: get a clue before you start talking. And no, I don't mean from the blah blah propaganda of American Atheists, either. Things are far more complicated than your laughably simplistic sixth grade approach to them.
More...
you are out of your mind. axeman is one of the best minds on this web site.

F. P.
 
Quote from FRuiTY PeBBLe:


you are out of your mind. axeman is one of the best minds on this web site.

F. P.
More...


FRuiTY CaKe, you surely can't have based that opinion on what he has been posting thus far; unless you yourself are out of your mind.
 
I don't. I see no evidence to suggest that 'christians' nowadays have any understanding as to what might be suitable as right or wrong under an independant impartial rule of law.

stu
______________________________________
If you get all your analysis from CNN, other major media and the ACLU then that certainly could be your take. If your contacts are more Christians who are law professors, business leaders, Bible school professors, and international mission leaders you witness a difference from CNN & co.
________________________________________
A Secularist is simply someone who believes that religion should be excluded from government and education.
stu
_______________________________________
This isn't even a fraction of the beliefs of the secular religion. Religion here meaning something that man has a belief in or has faith in or bases his worldviews on.
_________________________________________
There is no definition or general understanding of the word secularist which supports a worshipping of man. Apparently you must have made it up, similarly with the 'fallen nature' idea I guess.

stu
_______________________________________
"While secularism exalts the individual animism seeks to dissolve him." Darrow Miller-Discipling Nations- Exalting and worshipping may be somewhat different but the centerness of man to the secularist elevates him and his intellect to worship status.

"fallen nature" Google yields nearly 800,000 references to fallen nature with works by R.C. Sproul (IMHO very good on this subject) near the top. If I made it up it sure spread or I must have made it up in a previous life long ago.
_________________________________________
parallel tactic.. confuse the command.. elicit action. Sir. Lft.Comdr.Doubter... Yesss Sir.

stu
_______________________________
Study the passage again 2:17 "You may eat freely from any fruit in the garden except fruit from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" 3:1 "Did God really say you must not eat any of the fruit in the garden?" 3:3 "God says we must not eat it or even touch it" 3:4 "You won't die."

Parrallel this line of argument to the abortion argument today. Killing is wrong but since a fetus isn't alive or a person then it is under these conditions permissible. The argument moved from the morality of killing to whether something is a life. Especially with the secular need to limit population growth.
_____________________________
But history does. There are many very good laws and government created and developed by mankind without (christian) religion.
stu
_______________________________
With the absolute multitude of subjects in the scriptures and their very wide applications it would be pretty hard to point out a law that had not been touched on or alluded to in the scriptures.

To someone involved in community development in several third world countries and close contacts in many more there are a few(good governments ) but the multitude that have a good level of prosperity and personal freedoms have had at some time in their history a definite Christian or Jewish influence.
________________________________

Doubter, if you are confused with understanding what constitutes adultery under current law,and what adultery meant in biblical times, whether it is immutable to you or not, does not - will not - alter the fact that they have different standards - the meaning has changed ( for the better too, unless you think it's ok to own people as property first, to be able to define adultery) - and therefore the commandment is not immutable by definition, logic and fact.
stu
___________________________________________
We probably are on different wave lengths. When I say "immutable" I mean that God has not changed the commandment. Also in scripture I cannot find anyone who committed adultery who did not suffer in some way. The commandment is not immutable by definition, logic and fact in our laws but although our laws apply to us, as Christians we are still held to His law even though customs have changed many times over the past.
 
Alfonso,

You once again, and consistently I might add, demonstrate that
the only thing you are capable of doing in an intelligent
debate is to attack the debater, make empty assertions,
spew rhetoric, ignore your opponents arguments completely,
and then resort to name calling.

You failed to address a single thing I said!

Laughably simplistic sixth grade approach???
Even a 6th grader would have responsed to my statements.
You seem completely incapable of something so simple.

Now step aside, and let me find a real opponent.


peace

axeman



Quote from alfonso:





Axeman, once again you demonstrate that your understanding of the issues you wail and moan about is extremely poor; certainly hardly worthy an intelligent response. My advice to you: get a clue before you start talking. And no, I don't mean from the blah blah propaganda of American Atheists, either. Things are far more complicated than your laughably simplistic sixth grade approach to them.
More...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top