Religious Liberty Isn't Christian

  • Thread starter Thread starter In_Spiration
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
It should be understood where the whole phrase separation of church and state came from. You also have to realize that even if there was no separation, at least as far as the papacy is concerned, America would not be a theocracy, not in the ancient sense or like what Iran is, because part of Church teaching is that things like belief and having faith is all about freedom, you have to choose to let God in, so to say that a papal theocracy is bad is really misinformed but it wouldn’t happen here just because of that fact, you need the choice to choose God or not, even though He Is and knows what your gonna pick.

Also the separation doesn’t mean stay out of my business I’ll stay out of yours, it means something different and it wasn’t made to keep the Church out of the public square. Al Cresta gave a good explanation
 
XiWang717 said:
You really believe that had Russia been richer, most Catholics in the world would be supporting it?
Click to expand...
I do if Russia was without an alternative as a rival like the United States.

This is just my observation of people.
 
In_Spiration said:
Here’s the presentation by the late Michael Davies. A couple of the papal encyclicals cited are:
That the State must be separated from the Church is a thesis absolutely false, a most pernicious error. Based, as it is, on the principle that the State must not recognize any religious cult, it is in the first place guilty of a great injustice to God; for the Creator of man is also the Founder of human societies, and preserves their existence as He preserves our own. We owe Him, therefore, not only a private cult, but a public and social worship to honor Him. Besides, this thesis is an obvious negation of the supernatural order. It limits the action of the State to the pursuit of public prosperity during this life only, which is but the proximate object of political societies; and it occupies itself in no fashion (on the plea that this is foreign to it) with their ultimate object which is man’s eternal happiness after this short life shall have run its course. But as the present order of things is temporary and subordinated to the conquest of man’s supreme and absolute welfare, it follows that the civil power must not only place no obstacle in the way of this conquest, but must aid us in effecting it.​
What do y’all think? How does this square with the founding principles of America?
Click to expand...
No “state religion” but morals and natural law should always be respected.

Shalom
God bless
 
The government is supposed to be neutral when it comes to religions. That is the true meaning of Separation of Church and State.

But we don’t have that. Atheism is the official state religion.
The government is proactively making sure Christianity cannot be in the public square, but Atheism can be. And even Islam.

And there is a movement to make Islam the official state religion - Sharia Law. It will happen because protestantism is dying in the USA. Catholicism in the USA is dying slower.
 
PaulinePresbytr said:
Considering that when persecution involves Christians we are on the persecuted end of it I would call it such, and the separation of Church and state protects the Church
Click to expand...
The HHS mandate is a violation of “Separation of Church and State” since it’s the government bossing around the Church and trying to dictate what our beliefs and religious life should be.
 
livingwordunity said:
The HHS mandate is a violation of “Separation of Church and State” since it’s the government bossing around the Church and trying to dictate what our beliefs and religious life should be.
Click to expand...
This is true and it isn’t the only example. A while ago I think the gov’t was trying to make it so they would choose the priests for the Churches.
 
ndeparis88 said:
This is true and it isn’t the only example. A while ago I think the gov’t was trying to make it so they would choose the priests for the Churches.
Click to expand...
They wanted to force the LCMS to hire women pastors.
 
BobCatholic said:
The government is supposed to be neutral when it comes to religions. That is the true meaning of Separation of Church and State.

But we don’t have that. Atheism is the official state religion.
The government is proactively making sure Christianity cannot be in the public square, but Atheism can be. And even Islam.

And there is a movement to make Islam the official state religion - Sharia Law. It will happen because protestantism is dying in the USA. Catholicism in the USA is dying slower.
Click to expand...
ndeparis88 said:
This is true and it isn’t the only example. A while ago I think the gov’t was trying to make it so they would choose the priests for the Churches.
Click to expand...
Swiss_Guy said:
They wanted to force the LCMS to hire women pastors.
Click to expand...
Any neutral sources for all these claims?
 
Swiss_Guy said:
I was wrong about it being about women pastors, although that would be the next logical step if this “discrimination” was ruled unconstitutional.

Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. E.E.O.C.
Click to expand...
Correct me if I’m misreading…but didn’t the Church and School win this case? Did the Court not create a “ministerial exception”?

“They” lost, so the case can’t be used as evidence for the encroachment of government into the running of the church. It is instead an example of the court stopping such encroachment.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Correct me if I’m misreading…but didn’t the Church and School win this case? Did the Court not create a “ministerial exception”?

“They” lost, so the case can’t be used as evidence for the encroachment of government into the running of the church. It is instead an example of the court stopping such encroachment.
Click to expand...
Correct, they won. But the administration still wanted to force them to hire women ministers
 
Swiss_Guy said:
Correct, they won. But the administration still wanted to force them to hire women ministers
Click to expand...
People “want” a lot of things. That’s why we have laws and a court system, which clearly did the job in this case.
 
Seeker1961 said:
People “want” a lot of things. That’s why we have laws and a court system, which clearly did the job in this case.
Click to expand...
That’s the point. I said They wanted to force the LCMS to hire women pastors. So you said Any neutral sources for all these claims?. Then I gave you a source. I don’t see where you’re going. 🤷
 
Swiss_Guy said:
That’s the point. I said They wanted to force the LCMS to hire women pastors. So you said Any neutral sources for all these claims?. Then I gave you a source. I don’t see where you’re going. 🤷
Click to expand...
This case is NOT evidence of impending government control of Churches, it is evidence that the Constitution protects such things from happening, that’s where I’m going.
 
Seeker1961 said:
Any neutral sources for all these claims?
Click to expand...
Yes. Read the news…

Time and time again, some atheist screams bloody murder when a cross is displayed on private property. Lawsuits abound for taking down Christian symbols - hey Christians, to the back of the bus! The government’s official religion is atheism, so no crosses allowed here!

SOCAS is defined not by government neutrality toward religion, but outright opposition to God - and Christianity in particular.

Then look at the cases where Muslim judges apply Sharia law to their cases. it happens more often than you think.
 
BobCatholic said:
Yes. Read the news…

Time and time again, some atheist screams bloody murder when a cross is displayed on private property. Lawsuits abound for taking down Christian symbols - hey Christians, to the back of the bus! The government’s official religion is atheism, so no crosses allowed here!

SOCAS is defined not by government neutrality toward religion, but outright opposition to God - and Christianity in particular.

Then look at the cases where Muslim judges apply Sharia law to their cases. it happens more often than you think.
Click to expand...
I read several news sources daily, and what I have seen are cases like the won listed above where the Courts sided with the religious organization-which is NOT a loss for religion. It is a WIN for religion and the protection thereof.

The only articles I have seen on Sharia law are those which debunk the email circulated theory that the US is immediate danger of living under Sharia law. If you have any actual examples of these cases where Sharia law trumped US law in any way, please let me know-because the legal journals and other news outlets have not caught up with you. Or just go straight to those organizations and give them the scoop! They might even pay you for such information.
 
Seeker1961 said:
This case is NOT evidence of impending government control of Churches, it is evidence that the Constitution protects such things from happening, that’s where I’m going.
Click to expand...
Yes it does. But just because the Constitution protects against government interference in religion doesn’t mean the Obama Administration doesn’t want to interfere with religion.
 
Swiss_Guy said:
Yes it does. But just because the Constitution protects against government interference in religion doesn’t mean the Obama Administration doesn’t want to interfere with religion.
Click to expand...
Believe what you wish then, don’t let the actual events get in the way.
 
Seeker1961 said:
I read several news sources daily, and what I have seen are cases like the won listed above where the Courts sided with the religious organization-which is NOT a loss for religion. It is a WIN for religion and the protection thereof.
Click to expand...
Please show me the ruling where Mt. Soledad cross is permitted to stand where it is.
Show me where prayer is allowed in government run schools. Show me where the Christian religion is allowed on government property. It is not. The only religion allowed on government property is Atheism.
The only articles I have seen on Sharia law are those which debunk the email circulated theory that the US is immediate danger of living under Sharia law. If you have any actual examples of these cases where Sharia law trumped US law in any way, please let me know-because the legal journals and other news outlets have not caught up with you. Or just go straight to those organizations and give them the scoop! They might even pay you for such information.
Click to expand...
Actually the news outlets have reported this too 🙂

Justice Ginsburg says SCOTUS should use international law.
opiniojuris.org/2010/08/02/justice-ginsburg-on-using-foreign-and-international-law-in-constitutional-adjudication/

US Judge says Muslims have a right to assault others who offend them (Sharia Law concept)
opposingviews.com/i/society/crime/muslim-admits-attacking-atheist-muslim-judge-dismisses-case
(Some wrongly called the judge a Muslim, but he’s not a Muslim so that part is untrue, the case is true)

greeleygazette.com/press/?p=12698
A [CALIFORNIA] judge has stated that Muslim students who allegedly harassed Jewish students and even assaulted a woman with a cart was engaging in protected political speech.
Click to expand...
Yes, Muslim violence is protected speech. More Sharia law concepts here.

islamist-watch.org/10088/judge-rules-enforcing-muslim-law-on-everyone-not
A federal judge says an Ohio prison that forces all inmates to adhere to a strict Islamic diet is not an establishment of religion because everyone eats the same food.
Click to expand...
.

Yup. More Sharia here. You know if this was “everyone eats fish on Friday during Lent” menu, the SOCAS types would have fits.

Should I continue? Or is this not enough evidence?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top