Posted on 09/04/2006 2:06:50 PM PDT by Jay777
I have heard the over exaggerated claims from liberals that they fear the Religious Right turning America into a Christian theocracy. They are devout disciples of the concept of “separation of church and state”. They are thankful for the ACLU keeping America from sliding down a slippery slope into the dreaded state of a Christian theocracy. Of course these fears are not based in reality.
While most Christians want to share their faith with others and hope to convert people, the modern practice of Christianity does not seek to force their religion on anyone. Inviting someone to church, or expressing the love of their religion in a public forum is a far cry from the fastest growing religion of Islam that does not condemn and has been seen forcing people to convert at gun point.
I don’t believe it is the actual religion of Christianity that theophobes fear being forced on them, but the morals and principles that stem from it influencing and incorporating itself into our laws. It seems to me that the term, theocracy, is being misused and has been redefined to mean imposing religious principles into the legal system. However, it seems that most of the time the accusations of this are targeting the Religious Right when it happens just as frequently from the other side of the political spectrum.
(Excerpt) Read more at stoptheaclu.com ...
"The modern practice of Christianity does not seek to force their religion on anyone."
Oh, good. I assume that means not using money taken from me to promote it.
Um . . . why do so many people automatically assume that "theocracy" means chr*stianity? The only real theocracy in the history of the world pre-existed chr*stianity, but liberals (and some chr*stians) seem to have made it slip into an Orwellian memory hole.
As Ann Coulter said, liberals worship at the foot of the altar of Godlessness with its supreme sacrament being abortion. Everything flows from their cult of death whose real agenda is to turn America into a moral cesspoll so that they no longer have to hear anyone crticize them -- or perhaps someone else whose life is degenerate.
Click the Pic J
Oh, good. I assume that means not using money taken from me to promote it.
Of course! However, it's okay to withhold your union dues and give it to the Dems, isn't it?
Never joined a union. Had a chance to at the Lockheed F-16 Fighter Factory in Fort Worth, though. You?
The ACLU has NEVER applied this "separation of church and state" test to Islam. There, the religion and the law practice are one and the same. Shar'ia law, as it is applied, is administered by the clerics of the church, and not by a secular judge.
If ACLU was even a little bit consistent about the application of "separation", the loudspeakers on the mosques that blast out prayers in Arabic at intervals during the day would be silenced. This sound travels out over government-owned land, and because the sound of this religious observation may be heard while standing on government property, that is an endorsement of one particular religion over another, not unlike the playing of Christian gospel music in the town square.
But the only two religions the ACLU would suppress are the Jewish observations and the Christian displays. Wicca, Druidism, animism, voodoo, and perhaps even Secular Humanism are all acceptable religions which do not require stern regulation, in their view.
"This sound travels out over government-owned land, and because the sound of this religious observation may be heard while standing on government property, that is an endorsement of one particular religion over another, not unlike the playing of Christian gospel music in the town square."
I can stand out in the street in front of some churches and hear the congregational singing and music. Same thing. Church bells ringing to announce services. Same thing.
Which specific Christian ethic are you opposed to?
Freedom of religion has also come to mean there is freedom NOT to practice religion. The ACLU is actully basing their entire case against the public practice of religion on some mysterious interpretation of the Constitution, which implies a wall between church and state.
The Federal government is prohibited from establishing a church, of any kind. This was in reaction to the Church of England, and the King of England, who was both head of state, and head of the Anglican Church. There was a history of sharp suppression of any church that did not subordinate itself to the state church, and the state church is in turn supported in part by taxation. No such taxation exists at any level within the US, not at the Federal level, not at State level, not at local level (though counties are called "parishes" in Louisiana, and the organization of Wards and Precincts defines Mormon Church authority in Utah).
The most studied of scholars cannot point to anything that specifically states anywhere in the Constitution, or any amendment to the Constitution, that there is a wall of separation between ANY church and government authority.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
No matter how many times I read and re-read that entire amendment, I do not see "Separation of church and state".
Tell me, if you are able, what I am missing.
bump
Nope! I've had 2 brothers work in UAW shops and saw for myself why unior labor will never be competitive in the world economy unless some drastic changes are made and maintained.
They worship Satan.
Ethics are fine. Using tax money to promote religious morality is, as the man said, no better than unions taking your dues to run Democrats.
What you are missing is that my microattention span is no longer willing to read great gobs of selectively bolded stuff.
This would be interesting if it were what the article was actually about. I suggest you read the entire thing and then try commenting again on topic.
I guess we have no conversation then.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
