Separation of Church and State

[FredFlash]

Why You Should Not Obey Religious Advice From The Government

If you so much as even consider the advice of the government on religious matters, you are on the highway to hell. You are rejecting the absolute and exclusive authority of Christ over the things that are be rendered only to God.

It makes no difference whether the government's advice is good or bad or true or false. The religious advice that the Serpent/Satan gave to Eve was good and true advice. But she still should not have allowed it to influence her religious duty not to eat the forbidden fruit.

When Even was accused of violating her duty to God, the Serpent/Satan was not there to defend her. When you are accused of obeying the religious commandments of the government instead of your conscience and Christ, the government will not be there to defend you.

No man can serve two masters. You need to decide who is the authority over your duties to God. Choose either the government or God?

FVF

[Celeste]

Originally Posted by FredFlash

Would an order by an officer or agent of the government to execute Joe Jones by slow fire for not keeping the Sabbath be an acknowledgment of God as the source of law?

Fred

Yes, in a sense, this could be plausible under the CRA or Senate bill S.520.

With the CRA's passing, the "acknowledgment of God" would serve as valid law.
Both church and state could claim political power, and the general population would be unable to question the dictates of their "divinely" appointed rulers. With CRA in force, many human rights or freedoms would be simply eliminated through excommunication, punishment, or as you suggested, death.

Many have dismissed the CRA as wishful thinking on behave of the Fundamentalists, but the fact is, the bill has found 45 co-sponsors in the House and eight in the Senate. While the likelihood of passage remains slim, the continous support that this bill is receiving makes it deserving of our close attention. If passed, the CRA could also eliminate the portion of the Fourteenth Amendment that applies to the Constitution’s Bill of Rights directed to the state and local governments.
:Noteworthy: On November 11, 2005, the Louisiana state legislature passed a resolution SCR 30, ( "the United States Constitution makes no restriction on the ability of the states to acknowledge God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe,") requesting that Congress pass the CRA. The resolution, passed the state senate unanimously.

As a notary public, I am a commissioned officer of the State. I could arrest and punish my neighbor for mowing his lawn on Sunday under the jurisdiction of the CRA and I would be protected from any review, appeal, or writ of certiorari.....now that's a scary thought...

"While passage is not expected this session, the Constitution Restoration Act would “restore” the United States to a time and place in which civil rights were inaccessible. If passed, this attempted end run around the Constitution and the intent of the Founders will lead to fragmentation and confusion, ultimately failing to meet the equal protection requirement of the ultimate commandment, which is to love our neighbors as ourselves."

[FredFlash]

Originally Posted by Celeste

On November 11, 2005, the Louisiana state legislature passed a resolution SCR 30, "the United States Constitution makes no restriction on the ability of the states to acknowledge God, the Supreme Ruler of the Universe," requesting that Congress pass the CRA.

If the God they believe in is so impotent that he needs the government to inform the people that is the Supreme Ruler of the Universe, then their God is not the one who was crucified dead and buried and who rose from the dead.

The risen Christ did not go back to see Pilate and tell him it was now his civil duty to spread the good news to the people.

Fred

[HydrogenBond]

If I moved to another country I would want to assimilate the culture. It would not bother me if they taught me their religion. I have free will and will learn what I can and want and try to average it with what I know. Imagine if I went to another culture, and me being the minority of one, was able to tell everyone they can not longer do anything I am afraid or ignorant of because I am so insecure in my beliefs. Most cultures would just ignor me or tell me to leave. I would be like a virus trying to take over a cell. If they used the social immune system on me I would deserve it since I am a foreign invader. When in Rome....

[FredFlash]

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

There is no specific mention of separation of church and state in the US Constitution.

That statement reveals that you have no clue whatsoever about James Madison Doctrine of Separation of Church and State.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

However, this does not stop even well educated people from making the claim that all aspects of religion should be barred from mention or visibility in any government matters.

Give me the names of five well educated people and proof that they actually made that claim.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

To me this is a highy radical view. The religious beliefs have been part of the fabric of the US since its inception. And as such they done no harm to any individual's rights. With the swell of anti-religion in the US quite the contrary has been happening. Long standing traditions are being redefined as forced religious ceremonies. Yet the recognition of religious holidays and significant events by the government is not in any fashion the same as making laws establishing religion.

What long standing traditions are being redefined as forced religious ceremonies?

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Yet the recognition of religious holidays and significant events by the government is not in any fashion the same as making laws establishing religion.

What recognitions of holiday are you talking about and who says they are establishments of religion?

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

What is very interesting is that people on both sides of the argument use the same letter written by Thomas Jefferson to a Baptist group in Connecticut, back in 1801 as evidence for their respective arguments. On the separate side people tend to quote one line from the letter saying...... and taking that to mean that the government should have nothing to do with religion whatsoever. But when read in context to the letter he was replying to you find that he was not against being religious, or the governments recognition of religion at all. When the Baptists from Conneticut wrote ...... Thomas jefferson was in agreement with them, and was assuring them that the first Amendment did indeed protect them from the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion, which was their concern.

Show me where in their letter the Danbury Baptists even mentioned a concern about the State of Conneticut establishing an official religion; then I will show you where they complained about the Connecticut Certificate Law of 1791.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

In typical activist style that bit of misquoting has been used ever since in an effort to change the meaning of the Constitution rather than amending the Constitution to mean something different.

What is being misquote and where is some evidence?

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

So the political battle rages, and the secularists who preach acceptance and brotherhood and understanding systematically try to remove all religion from society.

Any religion, that is supposed to be from the eternal being, that can't stand up to a few mortal secularists deserves to be removed from society.

True Christianity asks no aid from the civil authority. It began without civil authority and wherever it has taken such authority, it has perished. To depend on civil authority for its promulgation is to acknowledge its own weakness, which it can never afford to do.

True Christianity is able to fight its own battles. Its weapons are moral and spiritual, and not carnal. Armed with these, and these alone, it is neither afraid nor “ashamed” to be compared with other religions, and to withstand them single-handed. And the very reason why it is not so afraid or " ashamed " is that it is not the power of man," but " the power of God," on which it depends.

True Christianity never shields itself behind majorities. Nero, and the other persecuting Roman emperors, were amply supported by majorities; and yet the pure and peaceable religion of Christ in the end triumphed over them all; and it was only when it attempted, itself, to enforce religion by the arm of authority that it began to wane. A form of religion that cannot live under equal and impartial laws ought to die, and sooner or later must die.

The Board of Education of the City of Cincinnati v. John D. Minor et. al.; Supreme Court of Ohio; December Term, 1872.

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

Each of us should be able to determine his own views on the topic.

Why should you have that right?

Originally Posted by TheBigDog

while our government cannot establish an official religion, there is no restriction upon the recognition of religion, or the recognition of traditions and holidays based upon religious celebrations and holy days.

What exactly is "an establishment of religion?" Is the law recommending a daily affirmation of belief in "one nation under God" an establishment of religion? Is so, what principle or rule did you apply to make your determination?

Fred

[HydrogenBond]

A good example of the inconsistency of the enforcement of the separation of church and state is rationalism. The rational way to look at reality began as a religious cult that worshiped the goddest Rationalis. As a scientist, I am a proud member of this cult, and although I appreciate the State giving Rationalis the extra preferential treatment, it may not be fair to the rest of the religions. In other words, if someone erected a statue of rationalis and reintroduced it as a formal religion, legally, one could no longer use reason in America?

[FredFlash]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

A good example of the inconsistency of the enforcement of the separation of church and state is rationalism. The rational way to look at reality began as a religious cult that worshiped the goddest Rationalis. As a scientist, I am a proud member of this cult, and although I appreciate the State giving Rationalis the extra preferential treatment, it may not be fair to the rest of the religions. In other words, if someone erected a statue of rationalis and reintroduced it as a formal religion, legally, one could no longer use reason in America?

What great eternal, or other type, priniciple of the law of Separation of Church and State did you apply to arrive at that conclusion?

Fred

[Zythryn]

Actually it wouldn't be that no one in America could use reason. What would be the case is that the government would not be lawfully able to recognize reason.

Um.... wait a minute.... must have already happened

Mark

[Zythryn]

As a side note, I don't believe government should remove all religion from public grounds. I do believe that all religions should be given equal treatment.

So, for example, leave the 10 commandments in a courthouse, right next to the important documents from the Koran, as well as other religions such as Wiccan, Hindu and others.

Mark

[HydrogenBond]

Zythryn hit it on the head. The goverment would not be able to use reason as is evident in the irrational nature of partitian politics.

I am not familiar with all the laws associated with the separation of Church and State. Let us look at this scenario. If one of the mainstream religions decided to no longer call itself a religion but a club, then their artifacts would no longer be in violation of the separation of church or state. It would be the choice of the local tax payers whether city hall is green or blue. The same is true of rationalis. It is no longer called a religion but a philosophy and therefore is exempt from religious restrictions, even though its very beginnings can be traced to religion.