Supreme Court once confirmed: We are a Christian nation

[Belsnickel]

(03-30-2016, 08:55 AM)Vlad Wrote: Actually "separation of church and state" is never mentioned in the Constitution. It was first coined by Thomas Jefferson in response to the Danbury Baptists who had asked for Jeffersons intervention regarding a religious matter in Connecticut.
Jefferson said sorry cant help you... for there must be a wall of separation between the Feds and religious matters of the states.

Leftist judges have taken that phrase and ran with it...cant have the 10 Commandments displayed in a judges courtroom because it violates the separation of church and state clause to which there is no such clause lol.


Congress shall make no law with regards to the establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.   No official religion is all it says.

It was first coined by Jefferson, but the idea of SOCAS is something that really got a kick start with Martin Luther in his two kingdoms doctrine. The idea became a large part of the Enlightenment thanks to John Locke. The Enlightenment, more than anything else, is what influenced the Bill of Rights. Jefferson used the term to describe a concept that was a large part of the Enlightenment and was designed to protect primarily the church from corruption by the state.

Now, I've never seen a judge refer to a SOCAS clause, but they have interpreted the establishment clause to mean that, essentially, an all or none approach should be taken to religions. In order for a government to give favor to one religion, they must give favor to all. If they are not willing, then they cannot give favor to any.

The country may have been founded on Christian beliefs because the country always has been predominantly Christian and therefore the people in power have always had an influence of their faith. But, this is not a Christian nation. We do not have a state church. There is no official status within any religion for our elected officials and clergy are afforded no positions in the government due to their status simply as clergy. The state is secular, and that is as it should be.

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2016, 09:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The country may have been founded on Christian beliefs because the country always has been predominantly Christian and therefore the people in power have always had an influence of their faith. But, this is not a Christian nation. We do not have a state church. There is no official status within any religion for our elected officials and clergy are afforded no positions in the government due to their status simply as clergy. The state is secular, and that is as it should be.

This.

[fredtoast]

(03-30-2016, 08:55 AM)Vlad Wrote: Leftist judges have taken that phrase and ran with it..

And right wing justices have ran with phrases like "corporations are people" and "money is speech" even though neither of those appear in the Constitution either.

[fredtoast]

(03-28-2016, 10:54 PM)BFritz21 Wrote: I agree that no one should be forced to go to Church or worship in any way, but to argue that God wasn't the basis for morality in this country is ignorant and people need to do their homework.

Just curious, but where exactly in the Bible do you find your god's "rules of morality"?

Seems to me that your god's main rule was to worship him above all other gods, and I don't see that anywhere in the Constitution.

[Vlad]

(03-30-2016, 09:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: The country may have been founded on Christian beliefs because the country always has been predominantly Christian and therefore the people in power have always had an influence of their faith. But, this is not a Christian nation. We do not have a state church. There is no official status within any religion for our elected officials and clergy are afforded no positions in the government due to their status simply as clergy. The state is secular, and that is as it should be.

Of course, that's what I was getting at.  Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion...means exatly that... there is to be no official religion, nothing more.

True we are not a Christian nation by mandate or decree, however it is not wrong to say we are Christian nation based on religious demographics...the vast majority of Americans identify as one Christian denomination or another ... like saying Pakistan is a Muslim nation, India a Hindu nation, Korea a Buddhist.

Saudi Arabia however is a theocracy... a Muslim nation by both decree and population. Their Constitution is the Koran. The laws of the land are in the Koran.

[Belsnickel]

(04-01-2016, 12:14 PM)Vlad Wrote: Of course, that's what I was getting at.  Congress shall make no law regarding the establishment of religion...means exatly that... there is to be no official religion, nothing more.

True we are not a Christian nation by mandate or decree, however it is not wrong to say we are Christian nation based on religious demographics...the vast majority of Americans identify as one Christian denomination or another ... like saying Pakistan is a Muslim nation, India a Hindu nation, Korea a Buddhist.

Saudi Arabia however is a theocracy... a Muslim nation by both decree and population. Their Constitution is the Koran. The laws of the land are in the Koran.

The Vatican and the Tibetan Government (which is in exile). The two remaining theocracies. Iran is a hybrid. Then there are a number of states with an official state religion (which there are debates as to whether that really makes it a theocracy).

Saudi Arabia would not be a theocracy in the narrow sense as they are a monarchy. If we were to say that their inclusion of Sharia into their laws made them a theocracy than we would have to say that any attempts to inject Mosaic laws/influence into our laws would make us one.

[Vlad]

(04-01-2016, 12:30 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The Vatican and the Tibetan Government (which is in exile). The two remaining theocracies. Iran is a hybrid. Then there are a number of states with an official state religion (which there are debates as to whether that really makes it a theocracy).

Saudi Arabia would not be a theocracy in the narrow sense as they are a monarchy. If we were to say that their inclusion of Sharia into their laws made them a theocracy than we would have to say that any attempts to inject Mosaic laws/influence into our laws would make us one.

If? Right now Saudi Arabia is making homosexuality punishable by death because the Koran says so. Any attempt to inject a couple of Mosaic laws into our laws would hardly make us a theocracy lol.  Its all or nothing that makes a theocracy.

I wasn't trying to debate the forms of government. I understand Saudi is a monarchy living in the Kingdom and working at King Fahd hospital for over a year.

Whether a monarchy, democracy, aristocracy ..my point with theocracy is that this monarchy rules according to the laws of Islam...I suppose you can call it a theocratic monarchy.
A Theocracy is not included here as a form of government anyway.
http://depts.alverno.edu/dgp/GEC/Types%20of%20Government.html
 

[Belsnickel]

(04-01-2016, 01:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: If? Right now Saudi Arabia is making homosexuality punishable by death because the Koran says so. Any attempt to inject a couple of Mosaic laws into our laws would hardly make us a theocracy lol.  Its all or nothing that makes a theocracy.

I'm not understanding this response. I think your questioning of my use of "if" is based on an incorrect inference. Furthermore, if it is all or nothing that makes a theocracy then Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy. They don't follow Sharia to its fullest and Sharia laws are not their only laws.

(04-01-2016, 01:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: I wasn't trying to debate the forms of government. I understand Saudi is a monarchy living in the Kingdom and working at King Fahd hospital for over a year.

Then why try to call it a theocracy?

(04-01-2016, 01:40 PM)Vlad Wrote: Whether a monarchy, democracy, aristocracy ..my point with theocracy is that this monarchy rules according to the laws of Islam...I suppose you can call it a theocratic monarchy.
A Theocracy is not included here as a form of government anyway.
http://depts.alverno.edu/dgp/GEC/Types%20of%20Government.html
 

It is an absolute monarchy, though I could see it being considered a hybrid like Iran, to an extent. The difference being that in Saudi Arabia, the royal family has the final say on anything, and nor the Ulema.

As for your list, that list is lacking quite a few forms of government.

[*bfine32*]

(03-30-2016, 09:32 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: It was first coined by Jefferson, but the idea of SOCAS is something that really got a kick start with Martin Luther in his two kingdoms doctrine. The idea became a large part of the Enlightenment thanks to John Locke. The Enlightenment, more than anything else, is what influenced the Bill of Rights. Jefferson used the term to describe a concept that was a large part of the Enlightenment and was designed to protect primarily the church from corruption by the state.

Now, I've never seen a judge refer to a SOCAS clause, but they have interpreted the establishment clause to mean that, essentially, an all or none approach should be taken to religions. In order for a government to give favor to one religion, they must give favor to all. If they are not willing, then they cannot give favor to any.

The country may have been founded on Christian beliefs because the country always has been predominantly Christian and therefore the people in power have always had an influence of their faith. But, this is not a Christian nation. We do not have a state church. There is no official status within any religion for our elected officials and clergy are afforded no positions in the government due to their status simply as clergy. The state is secular, and that is as it should be.

There are a number of theories to the term Seperation of Church and State and folks will gravitate to the one that suits them most. I have read the term came from the fact that in early days Government meeting were held in churches, because they were places big enough to hold the meetings. A seperation of church and state was used to distinguish that although we are in church we are talking about the state.

[Belsnickel]

(04-01-2016, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are a number of theories to the term Seperation of Church and State and folks will gravitate to the one that suits them most. I have read the term came from the fact that in early days Government meeting were held in churches, because they were places big enough to hold the meetings. A seperation of church and state was used to distinguish that although we are in church we are talking about the state.

I was speaking more towards the concept of SOCAS in contemporary usage and less about the actual phrase. I know the phrase's use in reference to our laws is most commonly credited to Jefferson, but I have no doubt the phrase in reference to any number of things existed before that.

[fredtoast]

(04-01-2016, 03:35 PM)bfine32 Wrote: There are a number of theories to the term Seperation of Church and State and folks will gravitate to the one that suits them most.

And sometimes the same person will move back and forth.

For example, lets discuss making churches pay taxes.

[*bfine32*]

(04-01-2016, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And sometimes the same person will move back and forth.

For example, lets discuss making churches pay taxes.

Sure they will no one is immune.

[NATI BENGALS]

(04-01-2016, 04:02 PM)fredtoast Wrote: And sometimes the same person will move back and forth.

For example, lets discuss making churches pay taxes.

Just how in the feck do you expect Creflo Dollar to get his private jet if he has to pay taxes?

[fredtoast]

(04-01-2016, 04:08 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Sure they will no one is immune.

I don't mind people choosing a side.

I have a problem with people switching sides to fit their argument.

[Vlad]

(04-01-2016, 01:55 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: I'm not understanding this response. I think your questioning of my use of "if" is based on an incorrect inference. Furthermore, if it is all or nothing that makes a theocracy then Saudi Arabia is not a theocracy. They don't follow Sharia to its fullest and Sharia laws are not their only laws.


Then why try to call it a theocracy?


It is an absolute monarchy, though I could see it being considered a hybrid like Iran, to an extent. The difference being that in Saudi Arabia, the royal family has the final say on anything, and nor the Ulema.

As for your list, that list is lacking quite a few forms of government.

 


  Just forget it dude.