Separation of Church and State has gone too far

What bothers me greatly about militant atheists is that they only attack Christianity. They allow high level freemasons/illuminati to put their occult symbols all over the place and on government property. They don’t say anything about the Bush family and the other presidents that go to burn stuff at the grove.

Atheists only like easy targets that don’t fight back. They’ll never go after the hidden hand.

originally posted by: JustACoincidence
What bothers me greatly about militant atheists is that they only attack Christianity. They allow high level freemasons/illuminati to put their occult symbols all over the place and on government property. They don’t say anything about the Bush family and the other presidents that go to burn stuff at the grove.

Atheists only like easy targets that don’t fight back. They’ll never go after the hidden hand.

Unfortunately, your claim is merely an extension of another superstitious belief system (I'm going to assume Christianity).

To an atheist who doesn't believe in the supernatural, claims of "occult" fall on deaf ears. Atheists don't "believe" in the occult, so their symbols mean nothing. What you see as "occult" symbolism will signify something totally different to a person of another ideology. Pick up a dictionary of Symbols/Symbolism some time and read for yourself . . . for every design, number, letter, animal, natural object there are multiple meanings, depending on the ideology derived from.

You are also assuming a "hidden hand" based on your view that there is actually an "occult" movement. Do groups of important people get together and plan in secret to push their agendas? Sure . . . that's what people do. Christian groups also do this at churches everyday in America, just on a smaller scale. Church groups congregate to come up with action plans to push their message . . . whether that is through community outreach or political actions. Of course this happens, like minded people or peer groups always get together to collaborate. As far as Bush, he was a Christian . . . so, what is the difference between a group meeting at the Grove and a group meeting at church? They are both based on the same mythology . . . church focusing on the "good" or "light" side of the mythology and the "occult" being the opposite "bad" or "dark" side of the mythology. It's all the same and based on superstition and imaginary forces. And yes, at least for this Atheist, any world leader who believes in imaginary/invisible mystical beings is an area of concern.

And the biggest and most important difference . . . Christians (at least people claiming Christian) make up the majority of the U.S. There are no movements to praise "occult" gods or goddesses before government or school activities. There are no active "occult" groups using subterfuge to influence school boards to include "occult" beliefs in science or history books. There are no "occult" groups financing politicians who then get on camera and profess their "occult" beliefs. There are no "occult" followers going out and bombing abortion clinics, killing doctors, protesting lifestyles they don't support, running billion dollar super PAC's, demonizing other cultures who "aren't occult", etc etc etc . . .

Atheists usually criticize Christians, not because it's an "easy target", but because it is the biggest and most influential target in the Western world. If America was under the influence of Islam . . . Most on here would probably be focused on Islam.

There is no such thing as Christian exceptionalism . . . Christians feel "persecuted" because it is one of the main tenets of the religion. It's written in throughout the NT. Christians are programmed to see "persecution" at every sign of criticism or doubt. It's a death cult that sees dying for your faith as the highest honor . . . just like Islam.

What a bunch of nonsense. Nice AV BTW

originally posted by: Variable

They were not like the right wing Christians we have today. Nothing like them at all.

Very true.

So your simply wrong.

As other posters have pointed out the weakness in my choice of words, I have since acknowledged that I used a poor choice of words. However, what modern-atheists are calling for is a complete elimination of God and religion in ANYTHING that has to do with government.

Did you see President Obama's re-enactment of the Gettysburg Address? He didn't use the phrase "under God." And the point I was trying to make is that the Founding Fathers would NEVER have wanted a politician to drop a reference to God, which is what some atheists and agnostistics are calling for.

They separate God from Government. It's kind of a big part of how we were founded. You should read more about the founding Fathers. You don't have to take my word for it, much of theirs is duly written down.

I think a better thing would be for you to look up how many times the Founding Fathers referenced God. You don't have to take my word for it, much of theirs is duly written down.

And, argh, don't quote Thomas Jefferson. He had a vested interest in abolishing God since God would condemn anyone who used slavery for personal gain, which Thomas Jefferson was guilty of, which is the same reason why separation of church and state is being renewed with a stronger vigor than ever before. Because accruing more than $10 million is uneqiovocably anti-Christ.

(Two users replied to in this post.)

originally posted by: openminded2011
What we have right now is a plutocracy. THATS a big difference from a constitutional republic.

Good. And what are we going to do about it? We can't united under God anymore thanks to the new movement of separation of church and state.

originally posted by: Tarzan the apeman.
a reply to: iosolomon When are they going to come up with separation of government and my money. Id vote for that in a heartbeat. Id be like.... thank the lord, I get to eat.

Well-said. I address this point in the post preceding this.

Just going to throw something out there... Since we think religion and politics are so separated:

In Brazil, teaching of creationism in scientific education classes is forbidden by Ministerio da Educação e Cultura - MEC - (Ministry of Education and Culture).[8] Religious education is not forbidden as such, but the federal constitution states that the union can neither impose, nor promote, nor finance any religion, because by law Brazil is a secular state. (gee what a novel idea!)

In Denmark, In interview sessions during 2002, less than 10% of the interviewed Danes declared the theory of evolution false.[37]

In IRAN: Yes IRAN!!!!!!! Iranian pupils since 5th grade of elementary school learn only about evolution, thus portraying geologists and scientists in general as an authoritative voices of scientific knowledge.[38]

In Russia: In December 2006, a schoolgirl in St. Petersburg, Russia and her father decided to take the teaching of evolution in Russian schools to court. The position of the Russian Ministry of Education supports the theory of evolution. The suit has been backed by representatives of Russian Orthodox Church.[53][54] In February, 2007, the first instance court, and in July, the second instance court have ruled in favour of the ministry.[55]

In Turkey, a mostly Islamic country, evolution is often a controversial subject. Evolution was added to the school curriculum shortly after the Turkish Revolution of the 1920s and 30s.

In the UK, In each of the countries of the United Kingdom, there is an agreed syllabus for religious education with the right of parents to withdraw their children from these lessons. The religious education syllabus does not involve teaching creationism, but rather teaching the central tenets of major world faiths.[60] At the same time, the teaching of evolution is compulsory in publicly funded schools.

In the United States: In the United States, creationists and proponents of evolution are engaged in a long-standing battle over the legal status of creation and evolution in the public school science classroom.[68]

There are states that teach the criticisms of evolution, such as Ohio. And others who teach Creationism along with evolution, including Kentucky. Colorado and New York are two states that do teach evolution, but it is up to the schools, teachers, and counties on how this subject is taught and portrayed to the students. (Boyle 2005). There are several factors that decide what is taught in public schools. Texas tends to set the standards for textbooks throughout the country

Until the late 19th century, creation was taught in nearly all schools in the United States, often from the position that the literal interpretation of the Bible is inerrant. With the widespread acceptance of the theory of evolution in the 1860s after being first introduced in 1859, and developments in other fields such as geology and astronomy, public schools began to teach science that was reconciled with Christianity by most people, but considered by a number of early fundamentalists to be directly at odds with the Bible.

In the aftermath of World War I, the Fundamentalist–Modernist Controversy brought a surge of opposition to the idea of evolution, and following the campaigning of William Jennings Bryan several states introduced legislation prohibiting the teaching of evolution

33% of American's do not accept evolution: www.huffingtonpost.com...

Evolution is a scientific theory/fact. I won't touch the issue of fact vs theory as I don't want to start that debate. That said, gravity is as much a scientific theory/fact as evolution. We teach gravity, why don't we teach evolution without question? Religion. Religion is the only reason that American children are being deprived of a basic scientific theory/fact.

Only reason to oppose gay marriage? Religion
Only reason to oppose evolution? Religion
Only reason to teach the commandments? Religion
Only reason to oppose 'safe sex'? Religion


If religion and politics are 'separate' than 'god' should not exist in politics. The word should not be used, the belief of a higher power should not exist and the belief that we are 'gods special children and therefore can do whatever the **** we want to this planet and our neighbors' should not exist.

Or hell, lets have it the way it is now. Fake this notion that politics and religion are separate even though every elected official is a clear proponent of a particular religion and denounce every non-religious person and proposed policy.

For the record: I grew up in a Christian/catholic home. (edited out part that was irrelevant)

Myself? I'm agnostic. Maybe there's a flying spaghetti monster, maybe there isn't. I don't really care. Should have NO EFFECT on how I live my life or how my country is run.

Sorry one last thing, why would we 'unite under god'. That implies that those that don't believe in god are not welcome. Why don't we unite as a NATION, as a PEOPLE, as a mixed community of people from all walks of life... you know... like the rest of the world?

originally posted by: JustACoincidence
What a bunch of nonsense. Nice AV BTW

Nonsense... Yet the unseen hand of the occult is a legitimate concern? LOL!

a reply to: iosolomon
LMAO your the ignorant dope who is putting words in the mouths of the founding fathers. Religion instills values and ethics to people. Governing a republic requires compromise and pragmatism, qualities not readily found in religion.
There are like a 1000 quotes about the virtues of separating church and state from the founding fathers alone...I'll go with a short and simple one:
"Government and Religion will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together." - James Madison

i can't believe threads like this can even be posted. you are so ignorant. we should get rid of all religion, it's a blight on humanity and it brainwashes people, and keeps them from seeking truth. FYI our founding fathers did not hold "god" close. some of them believed, some of them did NOT. but all of them agreed religion should be kept far away from politics and daily life. they believed it should only be in churches and your private residence not all out for everybody to see and know. religion is a horrible thing that has cause many problems throughout the world for thousands of years. religion has caused war, death, and other atrocities for a long time now. i think it's time we get rid of religion and start working towards technology to get us off of this planet and colonizing others. have fun being a blind sheep with your religion.

I just want to point out that the Jefferson "wall of separation" that the atheists are obsessed with, which they use to deny any sort of religious thought into government, is not what they believe it is.

You'll see many supporting quotes, but actions speak louder than words and Thomas Jefferson attended church services in the halls of congress, while he was president. Can you imagine the hissy fit the atheists would have if there were church services in congressional buildings????? And the absolute hatred they would have for any president who dared go to those services, therefore supporting not only the religion, but the practice of it within a government building!??!?

a reply to: iosolomon

You need to research Thomas Jefferson. And Washington, although believed to be a Christian, he never publicly flaunted that belief, because he did want separation of Church and state.

a reply to: Seancwolfe

"Only reason to oppose gay marriage? Religion"

Or health reasons, or the fact that deviant behavior should not be encouraged, or the fact that words have meanings and marriage has always been between man and woman. And no, paying for a wife with cows wasn't marriage, that was a dowry (another word, with another meaning). So don't bring that backwards line of thinking up, unless you want to look foolish.

"Only reason to oppose evolution? Religion"

If you mean the only reason to oppose evolution being taught in schools, then I kind of agree. Evolution has a lot of holes in it, comparing it to gravity is to insult the intelligence of those reading your post.

"Only reason to teach the commandments? Religion"

Or the fact that they are a very good general guideline for any populace. Do you really have a problem with the ten commandments?

"Only reason to oppose 'safe sex'? Religion"

Or because kids are stupid and don't practice it and end up ruining their lives by having children way too young with people they don't love. The only absolutely safe form of sex is abstinence. Now, I'm not against teaching kids that contraception is out there, but promiscuity has lead to a lot of problems in our society and will continue to do so regardless of what the schools teach our kids. Honestly I don't think schools should be teaching our kids anything about sex. That's a parents responsibility. I wouldn't want to teach it to a class room full of hormone raging teens if I were a teacher. JMO.

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: iosolomon

You need to research Thomas Jefferson. And Washington, although believed to be a Christian, he never publicly flaunted that belief, because he did want separation of Church and state.

Wouldn't publicly attending church services held in the house of representatives be considered "flaunting it" by most people today?

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: iosolomon

You need to research Thomas Jefferson. And Washington, although believed to be a Christian, he never publicly flaunted that belief, because he did want separation of Church and state.

Wouldn't publicly attending church services held in the house of representatives be considered "flaunting it" by most people today?

No. You have to do what you have to do, for your own personal beliefs. Presidents and leaders are no different. Saying a prayer or using gods name in something like "...god help our servicemen overseas..." that's not really flaunting it to me. We do have freedom of religion in the United States. However, dictating that it can only be a Christian prayer or making a law against homosexuals, or posting the ten commandment in a courthouse and then not letting the Buddhists have the same right, etc. Or worse, teaching only "Christian" Creationism in schools and leaving out the other religions creation accounts. You see the problem.

a reply to: JustACoincidence

What bothers me greatly about militant atheists

So what if there are "militant" atheists... non-believers are not organized like religious persons are, religious persons, on the other hand, have aligned themselves with associations that include militants,... and, as such, are obligated to clarify their positions since they are in the Mickey Mouse Club and are willingly wearing the ears...

Also, the anti-theists need to be reminded of context. Where did the founders come from? Britain, right? What was the religious problem they had with Britain? The church of england WAS the government, it was basically a theocracy. I don't think the founders had a problem with God being printed on money, I think they had a bigger problem with the persecution they received since they weren't members of the church of england.

I don't think any christian I know wants the government to persecute you for being an atheist. Printing the word god or saying the word god, is not persecuting you. JMO

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: iosolomon

You need to research Thomas Jefferson. And Washington, although believed to be a Christian, he never publicly flaunted that belief, because he did want separation of Church and state.

Wouldn't publicly attending church services held in the house of representatives be considered "flaunting it" by most people today?

No. You have to do what you have to do, for your own personal beliefs. Presidents and leaders are no different. Saying a prayer or using gods name in something like "...god help our servicemen overseas..." that's not really flaunting it to me. We do have freedom of religion in the United States. However, dictating that it can only be a Christian prayer or making a law against homosexuals, or posting the ten commandment in a courthouse and then not letting the Buddhists have the same right, etc. Or worse, teaching only "Christian" Creationism in schools and leaving out the other religions creation accounts. You see the problem.

So you're ok with the government using the house of representatives for church services? You know they won't be able to accommodate every religion, so who should they accommodate? I mean, they currently accommodate the church of satan on a frequent basis who else should be allowed?

I'm always a little amused by the way some Americans hold the 'founding fathers' up as if part Jesus and part God himself - quasi-mythical figures to be revered and in some weird way, worshiped.

Never mind the fact the most of them, with a few exceptions, owned human beings as chattel and at least one (Jefferson) was a rapist.

All slave holding founding fathers freed their slaves upon their passing save for one, Thomas Jefferson. He made sure in his will that his dogs were taken care of, but Jefferson's slaves remained enslaved - including the multiple children he fathered with Sally Hemming, starting when she was just 14.

Organized religions are the biggest scams ever perpetrated on human beings

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: amazing

originally posted by: Dfairlite

originally posted by: amazing
a reply to: iosolomon

You need to research Thomas Jefferson. And Washington, although believed to be a Christian, he never publicly flaunted that belief, because he did want separation of Church and state.

Wouldn't publicly attending church services held in the house of representatives be considered "flaunting it" by most people today?

No. You have to do what you have to do, for your own personal beliefs. Presidents and leaders are no different. Saying a prayer or using gods name in something like "...god help our servicemen overseas..." that's not really flaunting it to me. We do have freedom of religion in the United States. However, dictating that it can only be a Christian prayer or making a law against homosexuals, or posting the ten commandment in a courthouse and then not letting the Buddhists have the same right, etc. Or worse, teaching only "Christian" Creationism in schools and leaving out the other religions creation accounts. You see the problem.

So you're ok with the government using the house of representatives for church services? You know they won't be able to accommodate every religion, so who should they accommodate? I mean, they currently accommodate the church of satan on a frequent basis

who else should be allowed?

No. I'm saying don't be exclusionary of other religions or Atheists or in my case deists in the true sense of the world. And don't give preference to any one religion like Christianity.