Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[NotfooledbyW]

My point is that Christians should not excuse themselves from taking part in our government.

Why would Republican Christians ever think they cannot take part in government?


I’m voting for a Baptist with the greatest pride and joy of my life. Her religion is welcome in the Oval Office.

What Kamala Harris has said about her faith

Harris grew up visiting both Christian churches and Hindu temples.

www.yahoo.com

Kamala Harris is Baptist​

Throughout her political career, Harris has also drawn strength and inspiration from the Baptist tradition, which is one of the many Christian denominations that comprise Protestant Christianity.

She was introduced to the Baptist Church by her father, Donald Harris, and still identifies as a Baptist today, as the Deseret News previously reported.

In her memoir, Harris cited her early experiences in Christian churches to explain some of her work in politics.

My “earliest memories of the teachings of the Bible were of a loving God, a God who asked us to ‘speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves’ and to ‘defend the rights of the poor and needy,’” she wrote, per Sojourners.

Harris’ home church is Third Baptist Church of San Francisco, which is led by the Rev. Amos C. Brown.

The Rev. Brown took a class from the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. as a college student and was active in the Civil Rights Movement in the 1960s.

He remains known as a civil rights activist, as well as for building bridges with leaders from other faith groups, including The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

It’s fair to say that the majority of the people in this photo are religious and Christian.

 

[TruthNotBS]

That's not my point. My point is that Christians should not excuse themselves from taking part in our government. You might say the same to citizens who hold no belief in God. My point was directed at Christians being part of our/their secular government. All--including Christians--have a duty as citizens.

Sure, but the only issue I see is when Christians enact legislation that favors Christians at the expense of non-Christians. When they violate the rights of non-Christians. I'm also against secularists and liberals who violate the rights of Christians.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I'm also against secularists and liberals who violate the rights of Christians.

Where have secularists and liberals violated the rights of Christians?

Christians do not have a right to spread an airborne killer viral infection just because they don’t want to wear a mask in a supermarket.

Christians who enter the world of commerce to extract a tiny portion of all the global wealth enhanced and protected by US laws for themselves should not demand the right to not provide their goods and services over a “sin” of harmless lifestyle choice by a potential customer.

 

[TruthNotBS]

Where have secularists and liberals violated the rights of Christians?

Christians do not have a right to spread an airborne killer viral infection just because they don’t want to wear a mask in a supermarket.

Christians who enter the world of commerce to extract a tiny portion of all the global wealth enhanced and protected by US laws for themselves should not demand the right to not provide their goods and services over a “sin” of harmless lifestyle choice by a potential customer.

I agree with your first statement. Christians don't have a right to become a public health hazard in the middle of a nationwide (if not worldwide) deadly pandemic. We can agree on that, but I completely disagree with forcing Christian businesses, like the bakery in the state of Oregon about ten years ago, that was fined and litigated out of business for not providing certain services to a Lesbian couple looking for a specially decorated cake (with two female figurines, representing the two women getting married) for their wedding. Those Christian bakery owners and bakers shouldn't be forced to decorate such a cake. Go to another bakery, that doesn't have such religious hang-ups.

Christians should have the right not to decorate such a cake or provide such services to LGBTQ weddings. This has nothing to do with racism, or anything among those lines. The Christian bakery was willing to sell them a cake that they would then decorate on their own. Based upon what I read, they were willing to even provide two female figurines that the Lesbian coupe would add to the cake, but they refused to accept that and demanded the bakers decorate the cake for them. The Christian bakery owners actually made an effort to meet the needs of the Lesbian couple, despite homosexuality being a grave sin in Christianity. Even that compromise wasn't enough.

Christian schools, churches, bakeries and other businesses run by devout Christians, should not be targeted by homosexuals or agnostic atheists like myself. We must respect the rights of Christians to worship and not force them to commit acts that violate their conscience and religious faith. The Lesbians out of rancor, lashed out against this Christian couple who owned this bakery and destroyed their business, through the heavy hand of government and demonizing them. That's wrong.

Your view on mask mandates in the middle of a deadly pandemic, I agree. Christians should follow such laws, for their own protection and that of their fellow citizens, when they're in a public, crowded venue or in a church service. Churches would become vectors for the spread of the virus, infecting thousands, even millions of people. The least that responsible, loving Christians could do is wear a freaking mask in church, big deal.

I would only make an exception for Christian monks and nuns, living in a monastery or convent, who already live together, as essentially, part of the same household. Also, Hutterites, Mennonites like the Bruderhof, or Amish sects, who live in a commune, sharing the same household or living together in close proximity. They would wear masks in public and not in their community, among themselves.

 

[Meriweather]

Sure, but the only issue I see is when Christians enact legislation that favors Christians at the expense of non-Christians. When they violate the rights of non-Christians. I'm also against secularists and liberals who violate the rights of Christians.

Congress enacts legislation. What action of Congress has violated the rights of non-Christians?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

I agree with your first statement. Christians don't have a right to become a public health hazard in the middle of a nationwide (if not worldwide) deadly pandemic. We can agree on that, but I completely disagree with forcing Christian businesses, like the bakery in the state of Oregon about ten years ago, that was fined and litigated out of business for not providing certain services to a Lesbian couple looking for a specially decorated cake (with two female figurines, representing the two women getting married) for their wedding. Those Christian bakery owners and bakers shouldn't be forced to decorate such a cake. Go to another bakery, that doesn't have such religious hang-ups.

Christians should have the right not to decorate such a cake or provide such services to LGBTQ weddings. This has nothing to do with racism, or anything among those lines. The Christian bakery was willing to sell them a cake that they would then decorate on their own. Based upon what I read, they were willing to even provide two female figurines that the Lesbian coupe would add to the cake, but they refused to accept that and demanded the bakers decorate the cake for them. The Christian bakery owners actually made an effort to meet the needs of the Lesbian couple, despite homosexuality being a grave sin in Christianity. Even that compromise wasn't enough.

Christian schools, churches, bakeries and other businesses run by devout Christians, should not be targeted by homosexuals or agnostic atheists like myself. We must respect the rights of Christians to worship and not force them to commit acts that violate their conscience and religious faith. The Lesbians out of rancor, lashed out against this Christian couple who owned this bakery and destroyed their business, through the heavy hand of government and demonizing them. That's wrong.

Your view on mask mandates in the middle of a deadly pandemic, I agree. Christians should follow such laws, for their own protection and that of their fellow citizens, when they're in a public, crowded venue or in a church service. Churches would become vectors for the spread of the virus, infecting thousands, even millions of people. The least that responsible, loving Christians could do is wear a freaking mask in church, big deal.

I would only make an exception for Christian monks and nuns, living in a monastery or convent, who already live together, as essentially, part of the same household. Also, Hutterites, Mennonites like the Bruderhof, or Amish sects, who live in a commune, sharing the same household or living together in close proximity. They would wear masks in public and not in their community, among themselves.

Bless you. I am on my way to babysit my 14 month old granddaughter that I have been babysitting for 14 months. Probably the greatest experience of my life is such a lengthy duration.

Your response to my question is of a quality and intellect that is far too rare on this message board.

I Look forward to responding to your post when I have time to do it respectfully and thoughtfully as you responded to mine

Thank you


You live up to your screen name as far as I can see.

Unlike this poster:

i. I hope the special guest is George w Bush 240822 {post•24}. Independent thinker Aug’24 Sihtsg: ….. I have been ignoring the convention. ndpndntthnkr 240822 Sihtsg00024

 

[TruthNotBS]

Congress enacts legislation. What action of Congress has violated the rights of non-Christians?

1. Anti-BDS Laws:
   • Several states have passed laws requiring individuals or businesses contracting with the state to sign pledges renouncing the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement against Israel. These laws have been criticized as infringing on free speech rights and forcing individuals to conform to political positions that may conflict with their personal beliefs. Evangelical Zionist Christians were the primary supporters of these pro-Zionist state government policies.
2. "In God We Trust" Mandates:
   • Multiple states, such as Arkansas, Kentucky, and Florida, have passed laws requiring public schools to display the phrase "In God We Trust." This has been criticized as a violation of the separation of church and state and marginalizes non-Christian students who do not adhere to this religious statement. Buddhists for example, are non-theists, and of course, agnostic-atheists like myself.
3. Anti-Sharia Laws:
   • Several states, including Alabama, Oklahoma, and Tennessee, have passed or attempted to pass laws banning the application of Sharia law in courts. These laws are widely seen as unnecessary and discriminatory, as they specificly target Muslim communities and reinforce Islamophobic sentiments.
   • The same religious Christian legislators who support these laws, would be completely against laws specifically prohibiting Biblical Christian law or the Bible from being used when witnesses declare their oath before the court at trial. Christians would consider such laws anti-Christian, yet these same Christians are for passing specific laws against Islamic law. Laws that specifically mention Muslims.
4. "Project Blitz" Legislative Agenda:
   • Project Blitz is an initiative supported by religious conservative groups to pass state-level legislation that promotes Christian values in public policy. Examples include bills to allow Bible study in public schools, declare the Bible as the state's official book, and permit religious displays on public property. These efforts are seen as privileging Christianity over other religions and secular beliefs.
5. Ten Commandments Displays:
   • States like Alabama and Texas have passed laws allowing or requiring the display of the Ten Commandments in public buildings, including schools and courthouses. This has been criticized as a violation of the separation of church and state and as privileging Christianity over other religions. That's exactly what it is. Why not have laws from the Quran or Baghavad Gita displayed in our courts that reflect the same ideas or values expressed in the 10 commandments? Why only use the Bible?

These examples illustrate how religious Christian conservatives have used their political power to pass or attempt to pass laws that can infringe upon the civil rights of non-Christians and others who do not share their religious beliefs.

 

[Meriweather]

These examples illustrate how religious Christian conservatives have used their political power to pass or attempt to pass laws that can infringe upon the civil rights of non-Christians and others who do not share their religious beliefs.

"In God We Trust" began being printed on money in answer to governments who believed that they, as ruler, were the highest authority. God is the author of freedom; freedom is not something granted to us by worldly leaders.

We have freedom of religion in this country. Public religious displays from all religions should be accepted as a matter of course, not something that must be fought for.

Bible Study in public schools should be a given--as long as it is an elective and there is enough student interest to hold such a class. Same for any other religious book.

Question: Why are people so terrified of seeing something religious in the public square?

 

[forkup]

"In God We Trust" began being printed on money in answer to governments who believed that they, as ruler, were the highest authority. God is the author of freedom; freedom is not something granted to us by worldly leaders.

We have freedom of religion in this country. Public religious displays from all religions should be accepted as a matter of course, not something that must be fought for.

Bible Study in public schools should be a given--as long as it is an elective and there is enough student interest to hold such a class. Same for any other religious book.

Question: Why are people so terrified of seeing something religious in the public square?

403 U.S. 602

Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

What you are suggesting is in direct contradiction of point 2

And the answer to the question why this is bad, is this.

If you promote a religion over another, something that's inevitable considering one specific religion is dominant, specific religious affiliation can become mandatory within society. Something the founding fathers explicitly wanted to guard against.

 

[Meriweather]

Under the "Lemon" test, government can assist religion only if (1) the primary purpose of the assistance is secular, (2) the assistance must neither promote nor inhibit religion, and (3) there is no excessive entanglement between church and state.

What you are suggesting is in direct contradiction of point 2

As The Bill of Rights says government is to stay out of religions, any "lemon test" would be against that right. Isn't it interesting how government works at trying to get around the practice of religious freedom.

 

[forkup]

As The Bill of Rights says government is to stay out of religions, any "lemon test" would be against that right. Isn't it interesting how government works at trying to get around the practice of religious freedom.

You are free to practice. What you aren't allowed to do is demand that the government promotes your religion. By the way, the lemon test has been upheld under numerous challenges in front of the Supreme Court.

 

[Meriweather]

You are free to practice. What you aren't allowed to do is demand that the government promotes your religion. By the way, the lemon test has been upheld under numerous challenges in front of the Supreme Court.

According to the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government cannot mandate citizens practice a religion. Period. It's hands off of people practicing their religions.

 

[forkup]

According to the Bill of Rights, the Federal Government cannot mandate citizens practice a religion. Period. It's hands off of people practicing their religions.

Sure, that's why you're free to practice. And why the government can not organize bible classes.

 

[Meriweather]

Sure, that's why you're free to practice. And why the government can not organize bible classes.

It is supposed to work the other way: The government cannot prevent bible classes--and nor did it early on.

 

[TruthNotBS]

"In God We Trust" began being printed on money in answer to governments who believed that they, as ruler, were the highest authority. God is the author of freedom; freedom is not something granted to us by worldly leaders.

We have freedom of religion in this country. Public religious displays from all religions should be accepted as a matter of course, not something that must be fought for.

Bible Study in public schools should be a given--as long as it is an elective and there is enough student interest to hold such a class. Same for any other religious book.

Question: Why are people so terrified of seeing something religious in the public square?

At the VA hospital that I go to, there are spaces for different religions, including a meditation room, for non-religious people. One of my doctors is Roman Catholic and in his office, he has a small crucifix on his desk by pictures of his family. I don't see a problem with that. But as far as the official "In God We Trust" on our money, that was a theistic, mostly Christian declaration, "to governments" that Christians feel offended by for not recognizing that civil law supposedly comes from a metaphysical super-being. That's not appropriate. The founding fathers I believe had a statement on the money that said something to the effect of "Commerce & Industry".

Our government should promote life-affirming values, that increase civility, social cohesion and stability, freedom, and happiness. That is good, but when the government officially begins to promote or become a medium for a particular religion with its symbols and dogmas, that's wrong. The government should be for everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. I do believe that Christians have legitimate rights and they should be protected but Christians shouldn't try to make the government Christian because the government isn't religious. That's not the function of our government.
'

 

[forkup]

It is supposed to work the other way: The government cannot prevent bible classes--and nor did it early on.

They don't prevent bible classes. I'm guessing that you went to one.

They simply can't be the ones organizing them.

 

[Meriweather]

At the VA hospital that I go to, there are spaces for different religions, including a meditation room, for non-religious people. One of my doctors is Roman Catholic and in his office, he has a small crucifix on his desk by pictures of his family. I don't see a problem with that. But as far as the official "In God We Trust" on our money, that was a theistic, mostly Christian declaration, "to governments" that Christians feel offended by for not recognizing that civil law supposedly comes from a metaphysical super-being. That's not appropriate. The founding fathers I believe had a statement on the money that said something to the effect of "Commerce & Industry".

Our government should promote life-affirming values, that increase civility, social cohesion and stability, freedom, and happiness. That is good, but when the government officially begins to promote or become a medium for a particular religion with its symbols and dogmas, that's wrong. The government should be for everyone, regardless of their religious affiliation. I do believe that Christians have legitimate rights and they should be protected but Christians shouldn't try to make the government Christian because the government isn't religious. That's not the function of our government.
'

I agree with this. Our Federal Government pokes its humongous nose in many places it has no right to be. On the other hand, I can be happy that government admits on its currency it is not the highest authority. I'm sure I am not the only one who has noticed "In God We Trust" is not printed on government checks, at least not on any of the ones I've ever received.

 

[TruthNotBS]

I agree with this. Our Federal Government pokes its humongous nose in many places it has no right to be. On the other hand, I can be happy that government admits on its currency it is not the highest authority. I'm sure I am not the only one who has noticed "In God We Trust" is not printed on government checks, at least not on any of the ones I've ever received.

From the government's perspective, you and I are its highest authority. The government should serve all of our common interests equally, without favoring one group over another. We are equal before the law and in receiving services from the government.

I'm against what happened to that Christian couple in Oregon about ten years ago. Their business was destroyed by the local authorities and woke hysteria. The Lesbian couple could've simply gone to another bakery. Big deal.