Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Is it legal because the government says so?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    That is what the first amendment does: It LIMITS the Federal government from creating a state religion, or creating any laws that interfere with religious freedom, freedom of assembly and freedom of the press. It does not give the government any powers at all. It limits their power. It does NOT limit the people's power or freedom. It insures it
    It also limits the privileges of the existing dominant religion, i.e. Christianity, otherwise Christianity by default would become the defacto ‘established religion’. There are many in the US who act as though it is the established religion.

    Yes, there are laws that stop a person from having their religion from harming others. Like if you religion says you have to eat children, you would be prevented from doing so because it interferes with the other person's right to live, which trumps the right to eat them. But there are NO laws or anything in the constitution that prevents religion in the government. The wall is one way. Heck, the President gets sworn in on a bible!
    The wall of separation is two way. Religion can be freely exercised but it cannot infringe on the State, or the freedoms of others. This is how the courts have ruled every time religious privileges have been challenged.

    And the president does not have to be sworn in on a bible, that’s his choice, e.g. Theodore Roosevelt was not sworn in on a bible.
    “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

    Comment


    • #62
      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
      It also limits the privileges of the existing dominant religion, i.e. Christianity, otherwise Christianity by default would become the defacto ‘established religion’.
      Christianity is already established. And not by the state. And it already is the 'defacto religion' in the USA, Canada, South America, Russia, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of Africa and a large part of Asia. The amendment is talking about creating a new religion or denomination or making it an OFFICIAL religion that the state supports while trying to eliminate others. It is a direct response to the the Church of England, which was the official church of Britain, which was started to supplant Catholicism and Protestantism.






      The wall of separation is two way. Religion can be freely exercised but it cannot infringe on the State, or the freedoms of others.
      It can't control the state, correct. But there is nothing about it being eliminated from the state. There is nothing wrong with the state acknowledging God and religion in it's daily schedule, in the mottos of the government, from opening session of policy with a prayer, having a national day of prayer, having chaplains in congress and in the military, from religious people serving in government, and on and on. The liberals are trying to disconnect any mention or hint of God or religion from government and make it and everyone in it completely atheist. If they had there way they would have a test and disqualify anyone from office if they professed to believe in God.


      And the president does not have to be sworn in on a bible, that’s his choice, e.g. Theodore Roosevelt was not sworn in on a bible.
      I never said he HAD to. I said they were. If there can be no religion in government, then how can the leader of the government swear on a bible and to God to fulfill his duties? He is putting his allegiance to his country UNDER his allegiance to God. He has just made God his ultimate leader. Above the country. One Nation Under God. Get it?

      Comment


      • #63
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        Christianity is already established. And not by the state. And it already is the 'defacto religion' in the USA, Canada, South America, Russia, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of Africa and a large part of Asia. The amendment is talking about creating a new religion or denomination or making it an OFFICIAL religion that the state supports while trying to eliminate others. It is a direct response to the the Church of England, which was the official church of Britain, which was started to supplant Catholicism and Protestantism.
        The CofE was really started so that King Henry could get a divorce and acquire the Catholic church's wealth. It didn't supplant Catholicism or Protestantism so much as pick the choicest parts of both.

        Surely the US constitution not only forbids the establishment of a new religion/denomination as the official national church, but also forbids the establishment of an existing one too?
        The liberals are trying to disconnect any mention or hint of God or religion from government and make it and everyone in it completely atheist. If they had there way they would have a test and disqualify anyone from office if they professed to believe in God.
        I haven't checked the numbers, but I suspect that the majority of US liberals believe in a god, and so would not support such a test.
        Jorge: Functional Complex Information is INFORMATION that is complex and functional.

        MM: First of all, the Bible is a fixed document.
        MM on covid-19: We're talking about an illness with a better than 99.9% rate of survival.

        seer: I believe that so called 'compassion' [for starving Palestinian kids] maybe a cover for anti Semitism, ...

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by Roy View Post
          The CofE was really started so that King Henry could get a divorce and acquire the Catholic church's wealth. It didn't supplant Catholicism or Protestantism so much as pick the choicest parts of both.

          Surely the US constitution not only forbids the establishment of a new religion/denomination as the official national church, but also forbids the establishment of an existing one too?
          How can you establish something that already exists? If you mean make it the official and only religion, then yes that is forbidden.

          I haven't checked the numbers, but I suspect that the majority of US liberals believe in a god, and so would not support such a test.
          I was using hyperbole, but heck I wouldn't be surprised if things didn't keep moving in that direction.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Roy View Post
            The CofE was really started so that King Henry could get a divorce and acquire the Catholic church's wealth. It didn't supplant Catholicism or Protestantism so much as pick the choicest parts of both.
            Actually, I think the primary reason Henry VIII wanted to divorce Catherine of Aragon was because she couldn't give him a male heir, which was considered essential for the succession at that time. Little did he realise that his female heir from his second wife Anne Boleyn, would go on to be one of the greatest British monarchs in history namely Elizabeth I. The wealth from the monasteries etc was really just a fringe benefit.

            Surely the US constitution not only forbids the establishment of a new religion/denomination as the official national church, but also forbids the establishment of an existing one too? I haven't checked the numbers, but I suspect that the majority of US liberals believe in a god, and so would not support such a test.
            Yes of course the Constitutional ban on the establishment of religion encompasses the existing majority religion of the day. And this is how the courts have ruled every time this is put to the test.
            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              Christianity is already established. And not by the state. And it already is the 'defacto religion' in the USA, Canada, South America, Russia, Europe, Australia, New Zealand, most of Africa and a large part of Asia. The amendment is talking about creating a new religion or denomination or making it an OFFICIAL religion that the state supports while trying to eliminate others. It is a direct response to the the Church of England, which was the official church of Britain, which was started to supplant Catholicism and Protestantism.
              Christianity was and is is undoubtedly the “majority religion” in the US but this doesn’t give it any status as a defacto official religion. Its adherents have no legal right to exercise their beliefs in defiance of the civil laws of the State...as per Kim Davis etc.

              It can't control the state, correct. But there is nothing about it being eliminated from the state. There is nothing wrong with the state acknowledging God and religion in it's daily schedule, in the mottos of the government, from opening session of policy with a prayer, having a national day of prayer, having chaplains in congress and in the military, from religious people serving in government, and on and on. The liberals are trying to disconnect any mention or hint of God or religion from government and make it and everyone in it completely atheist. If they had there way they would have a test and disqualify anyone from office if they professed to believe in God.
              Correct! Religion can't control the state nor have any authority over the state nor can it attempt to influence legislation in such a way as to promote itself. Hence, the objections to the Ten Commandments on public property, prayer in schools and the teaching of creationism and the court rulings against those discriminating against others on religious grounds.

              I never said he HAD to. I said they were. If there can be no religion in government, then how can the leader of the government swear on a bible and to God to fulfill his duties? He is putting his allegiance to his country UNDER his allegiance to God. He has just made God his ultimate leader. Above the country. One Nation Under God. Get it?
              He is exercising his right to freedom of religion; he is not recognising his religion as the established religion of the land and has the option to not swear on the bible as has occurred on a couple of occasions.
              “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                Christianity was and is is undoubtedly the “majority religion” in the US but this doesn’t give it any status as a defacto official religion. Its adherents have no legal right to exercise their beliefs in defiance of the civil laws of the State...as per Kim Davis etc.



                Correct! Religion can't control the state nor have any authority over the state nor can it attempt to influence legislation in such a way as to promote itself. Hence, the objections to the Ten Commandments on public property, prayer in schools and the teaching of creationism and the court rulings against those discriminating against others on religious grounds.


                So what is your opinion of what is being discussed in this thread:
                http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Indoctrination
                [Public schools teaching classes in "Access Islam" a program teaching all about Islam, including prayers, the 5 pillars, their doctrines, etc, all approved by and paid for by the Department of Education]
                He is exercising his right to freedom of religion; he is not recognising his religion as the established religion of the land and has the option to not swear on the bible as has occurred on a couple of occasions
                He is swearing by God to do his duty and uphold the constitution. He is saying that God is greater than the constitution or the country and that his allegiance is with God. God is the authority he answers to. Basically this is what every Christian believes, swearing on a bible or not. God before Country. God before everything. So a Christian president's allegiance is first with God, then with his country. He is recognizing his religion as having power over his Presidency and the country. chew on that.

                Comment


                • #68
                  Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                  So what is your opinion of what is being discussed in this thread:
                  http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...Indoctrination
                  [Public schools teaching classes in "Access Islam" a program teaching all about Islam, including prayers, the 5 pillars, their doctrines, etc, all approved by and paid for by the Department of Education]
                  Learning about what other people believe is education. Being "taught" that a particular belief is true, is indoctrination and has no place in the education system.

                  He is swearing by God to do his duty and uphold the constitution. He is saying that God is greater than the constitution or the country and that his allegiance is with God. God is the authority he answers to. Basically this is what every Christian believes, swearing on a bible or not. God before Country. God before everything. So a Christian president's allegiance is first with God, then with his country. He is recognizing his religion as having power over his Presidency and the country. chew on that.
                  Nonsense! The president swears (or affirms) that he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's all. Swearing on a bible is not necessary. John Adams swore his oath on a book of law. Theodore Roosevelt didn't swear on any book when he was inaugurated the first time and Lyndon Johnson swore on a Catholic prayer book.
                  “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                    Learning about what other people believe is education. Being "taught" that a particular belief is true, is indoctrination and has no place in the education system.
                    They are being taught how to pray like muslims, what the various doctrines and pillars of islam are, and so on. They even practice what the Muslims do and believe. Check out the lessons.

                    So you are saying you have no problem with teaching religion by the government then?


                    Nonsense! The president swears (or affirms) that he will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States and will, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." That's all. Swearing on a bible is not necessary. John Adams swore his oath on a book of law. Theodore Roosevelt didn't swear on any book when he was inaugurated the first time and Lyndon Johnson swore on a Catholic prayer book.
                    LOL, When you take an oath and swear by a bible or "so help me God" you are making that the authority that you are promising your oath to, Tassman. You are saying that is the reason you are making the oath, and who you owe your allegiance to. You know this. You just don't want to admit it because it undermines your view.

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                      Religion can be freely exercised but it cannot infringe on the State, or the freedom of others

                      "But it cannot infringe on the State", .........because the State is G-D?


                      "or the freedom of others" a.k.a. Religion-is-a-private-matter, a conceit that came about due to the 'stalemate' that resulted from the Reformation and Counter-Reformation that followed. Ironic that a 'pillar' of secularism is really no more than warmed-over Protestant-lite
                      Last edited by OU812; 04-03-2017, 04:44 PM.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                        They are being taught how to pray like muslims, what the various doctrines and pillars of islam are, and so on. They even practice what the Muslims do and believe. Check out the lessons.

                        So you are saying you have no problem with teaching religion by the government then?
                        ‘Comparative Religion’, i.e. what different peoples believe, is a valid subject, provided none of them is being promoted as true.

                        LOL, When you take an oath and swear by a bible or "so help me God" you are making that the authority that you are promising your oath to, Tassman. You are saying that is the reason you are making the oath, and who you owe your allegiance to. You know this. You just don't want to admit it because it undermines your view.
                        Three presidents have not sworn an oath on the bible at their inauguration. It’s not mandatory. Affirmation is just as acceptable, just as it is in a court of law.
                        “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                          ‘Comparative Religion’, i.e. what different peoples believe, is a valid subject, provided none of them is being promoted as true.
                          But they are not comparing religions. They are not teaching other religions or comparing them to Islam. They are teaching Islam only.

                          I find it hilarious that you are so adamant about the government staying out of religion, yet here you are defending the federal government teaching religion IN PUBLIC SCHOOLS and using your tax dollars to do it. So much for consistency. I guess you have just admitted that I was right all along about the first amendment.

                          Thanks for playing! But you are the weakest link.


                          Three presidents have not sworn an oath on the bible at their inauguration. It’s not mandatory. Affirmation is just as acceptable, just as it is in a court of law.
                          Congratulations, three of our presidents did not place God above country in swearing themselves in as President. The rest did. And yes, swearing in on a bible in a court of law is the same thing. You are swearing to God that you will tell the truth, the implication being that God has authority over you and you won't lie because of that promise to Him. No it is not mandatory in either case, but when it is done, it is giving authority over you to God or whatever power you are swearing to. That is what swearing an oath is.

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
                            But they are not comparing religions. They are not teaching other religions or comparing them to Islam. They are teaching Islam only.
                            So long as the religion that’s being taught is not being promoted as “factually true” I have no objection. It’s interesting to learn what different people believe.

                            Congratulations, three of our presidents did not place God above country in swearing themselves in as President. The rest did. And yes, swearing in on a bible in a court of law is the same thing. You are swearing to God that you will tell the truth, the implication being that God has authority over you and you won't lie because of that promise to Him. No it is not mandatory in either case, but when it is done, it is giving authority over you to God or whatever power you are swearing to. That is what swearing an oath is.
                            In the US, non-Christians are supposed to be offered a text appropriate to their beliefs. For atheists they are entitled to affirm their oaths on their own cognisance. A president may take his oath on the bible, because he is free to exercise his own religious beliefs under the First Amendment. But he cannot be made to do so because there is no Established religion in the US. Three US presidents opted not to takes their oath on the bible as was their right.
                            “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              Originally posted by Tassman View Post
                              So long as the religion that’s being taught is not being promoted as “factually true” I have no objection. It’s interesting to learn what different people believe.
                              Like I said, thanks for tanking your own previous argument. It is always a pleasure watching you put your foot in your mouth.


                              In the US, non-Christians are supposed to be offered a text appropriate to their beliefs. For atheists they are entitled to affirm their oaths on their own cognisance. A president may take his oath on the bible, because he is free to exercise his own religious beliefs under the First Amendment. But he cannot be made to do so because there is no Established religion in the US. Three US presidents opted not to takes their oath on the bible as was their right.
                              I love it when you know you are wrong and you keep trying to deflect and just repeat yourself. Here you are ignoring the actual point and trying to claim it is about religious freedom of the President. The ACTUAL point is that when you swear by some higher power, you are saying that higher power is worthy of your loyalty and is your authority. So if you swear by God, you are saying that God is who you submit to as your power of authority. That God is your ultimate power and that He is who you follow and defer to.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                Originally posted by Sparko View Post

                                I love it when you know you are wrong and you keep trying to deflect and just repeat yourself. Here you are ignoring the actual point and trying to claim it is about religious freedom of the President. The ACTUAL point is that when you swear by some higher power, you are saying that higher power is worthy of your loyalty and is your authority. So if you swear by God, you are saying that God is who you submit to as your power of authority. That God is your ultimate power and that He is who you follow and defer to.
                                No the "ACTUAL point", which you've missed, is that 'swearing' in US Law does not have to be on a bible...which undercuts your argument that the US is a Christian nation, with all that implies.

                                ALL citizens, from the president down, are entitled to swear on the text appropriate to their religion or beliefs, whatever that may be. And for atheists they are entitled to swear and affirm, on their own cognisance. All of which is appropriate in a secular state like the US, where there's a "wall of separation between Church And State". .
                                “He felt that his whole life was a kind of dream and he sometimes wondered whose it was and whether they were enjoying it.” - Douglas Adams.

                                Comment

                                Related Threads

                                Collapse

                                Topics Statistics Last Post
                                Started by little_monkey, Yesterday, 04:19 PM
                                16 responses
                                85 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by whag, 03-26-2024, 04:38 PM
                                53 responses
                                281 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Mountain Man  
                                Started by rogue06, 03-26-2024, 11:45 AM
                                25 responses
                                109 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post rogue06
                                by rogue06
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 09:21 AM
                                33 responses
                                195 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post Roy
                                by Roy
                                 
                                Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 03-26-2024, 08:34 AM
                                84 responses
                                355 views
                                0 likes
                                Last Post JimL
                                by JimL
                                 
                                Working...
                                X