Posted on 03/30/2011 8:46:25 AM PDT by David DeGerolamo
Do you support the use of tax dollars to rebuild churches in our country? How about mosques in Muslim countries?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z43q69W1Dz8
Our country was founded on religious freedom which has now been manipulated so that our dependence on faith is being transferred to the government. Which do you find more offensive: the government's support of the Islamic faith here and abroad or the attacks on our nation's Judeo-Christian religions?
David DeGerolamo
I just want to say it is NOT Separation of Church and State that is the issue, or was an issue with our forefathers.
It was the Separation of the POWERS of Church and State.
islam is not a religion. It is a political/social system.
It is based on fear opression and death.
You can not compare it to religions.
Besides that we are at war with islam or at least it is at war with us.
I Don’t want too see the Federal Goverment funding religious institutions of any kind in the U.S. or in foriegn lands.
The only time I would support the funding of religious institutions is if they are affiliated with the U.S. Military.
Religion and the Founding of the American Republic - LOC
You will find in this exhibit at the Library of Congress that Congress authorized the printing of a Bible and allotted land for the "Christinization of the Delaware Indians. You will find that there were church services every Sunday in the House of Representatives.
Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.
Obama is speaking at Georgetown today. You know who must be covered up.
As to the question asked which is more offensive?— I find both equally unacceptable and linked to the same problem. First our own government had to be turned from the faith of the Founders to accept the LIE. Then because they had accepted the LIE and have made it a matter of policy to level all religions(except secular politics) and hold all (except secular politics) in utter indifference. Our government which now sees itself as having usurped the church-now believes it has a duty to elevate Islam to a point where the church can no longer oppose Islam. The danger being Our government ignores
the human factor—and the governing idiology that motivates Islam—and I fear the government that elevates Islam today—may soon be forced to pay the poor rate-—to convert or be slain by the very people our government empowers today.
I agree with the separation of the power between the two entities as you state. The founding fathers clearly saw the problems inherent in Europe with church officials being part of the governmental structure. Our separation was to ensure that the church leaders would provide moral and virtuous leaders (and people) without any opportunity to corrupt them.
I know about the role that Judeo-Christian religious tenets played in our country and the Constitution. The three branches of government are from Isaiah. I don’t seem to recall the influence of Islam on our country’s founding but that is not the point. The Supreme Court has the ten commandments written in stone on the front of their courthouse but no other courthouse is allowed to display them. The 5000 Year Leap outlines the role of religion in our founding.
Why are we funding any religious work whether it be on churches or mosques in other countries?
I certainly disagree with America funding any church let alone a mosque. Funding them in foreign countries is NOT acceptable at all. The Founders backed Christianity in general, on moral grounds, as the backbone of our country but they did not favor any denomination. That smacked to much of “the King’s religion”.
Too bad that didn't work out all that well.
'A Wall of Separation' - FBI Helps Restore Jefferson's Obliterated Draft - Library of Congress
The separation of church and state as the founding fathers envisioned is certainly not what the left tells us that it is today. The manipulation of information and knowledge is why we are at the crossroads now.
What they made certain of was that the government would not establish a christian, government backed, denomination as rulers of other countries had. It was for the purpose of religious freedom to worship as people chose. It means nothing else. And Conservatives do not use the term as it is a misapplication and bogus.
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.