North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by windword

 

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion is one of the pillars of American society.

i don't want this to degrade into a battle of beliefs, but merely point a few things out.

firstly i want to make clear that the phrase "separation of church and state" DOES NOT appear anywhere in the constitution, nor does the concept. church and state shouldn't be the same entity, but saying that they must be separated has far reaching consequences beyond the original intent.

You are correct. The concept of freedom of religion is in the Bill of Rights.

secondly, this would never have come up if someone didn't file a lawsuit to prevent meetings being opened by prayer. it seems like the person who brought the lawsuit doesn't know that separation of church and state isn't in the constitution.

Thanks for your input.

However, I agree with the lawsuit. The legislators who insisted on praying to Jesus before meetings were imposing their religious beliefs on other members, and therefore their constituents, as if to influence their legislative decisions on their brand of religious interpretation. The United States were never meant to be a theocracy.

reply to post by windword

i don't see how praying before meetings is wrong. you may not believe in god, but it is their right to practice as they see fit, provided it doesn't violate the rights of others.

if you and others disagree with the prayer, that is your right, but taking someone to court for practicing their religion is a slippery slope.

you may argue that the beginning of a meeting is hardly the place, but what does it honestly cost? nothing. if they feel that a prayer before the meeting helps them, would you deny them that simply because you believe something else?

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by windword

reply to post by erwalker

 

I find very interesting the difference in religious viewpoints between the US and Canada.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

We're a little more open minded in Canada, a little more aware, a little more educated, and therefore a little less fanatical and narrow minded and by that I'm referring to both sides of the argument that's raging in the US.

There's a lot of black and white biased ignorance in the US even by supposedly well educated adult people. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The thing is that this type of thing is really only found in the southern states and the states referred to as the "Bible belt," a large voting block of the Republican party. A lot of these people, and other republicans, splintered off to create the "Tea Party, but that spiraled into chaos when the evangelical religious right took over and now all Republicans are paying the price them.

Slight inaccuracy here. Many of the south who are evangelists are black and Democrats. There is just a lack of drawing the connection lines when it comes to black evangelists...apparently they are either off-limits or irrelevant in the grand liberal scheme of things.

White evangelists, even though a small majority, are gist for the media mill. Southern Blacks, who are predominantly religious, are not featured when any political discussion related to evangelism is concerned.

Apparently only conservative religious people are of interest.....

Can you say: spin?

You make an interesting point. I always wondered why Hispanic voters who are typically religious vote democrat and why the democrats try so hard to pander to that demographic. That said both parties like to festoon themselves with whatever rhetoric will get votes and religion is one of those issues that can be used to persuade and when we really judge a tree by its fruit we see that neither party measures up.

I also want to comment on what some mentioned previously about atheist politicians. I think there are many atheist politicians that disguise themselves as religious. I also think that for the time being in this country the majority of people will align themselves politically with someone that they can identify with in a religious sense because on a tribal level you feel that person shares the same morals and standards that you do.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical
reply to post by bbracken677

 

Have you seen an arithmetic book from the 1700's? People of that day were far more educated at a young age than people today. Society has been greatly dumbed down. And didn't I make the statement first in this thread that America's pilgrims came here for religious freedom, leaving behind a theocratic monarchy??

I have!! And right between the chapter on electronics and rocket propulsion is the chapter on demonology......I think you missed the point entirely.

Society has been greatly dumbed down eh? I suppose that is what you call it when you start teaching women to read...when did that happen? What percentage of the pilgrims had the opportunity for a college education? Oh, wait, most couldnt read past a 6th grade level because there were crops to bring in and couldn't make it to the University of Plymouth Rock.

Basically society was just coming out of the dark ages and we are dumbed down compared to them. hmmm

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by windword

 

i don't see how praying before meetings is wrong. you may not believe in god, but it is their right to practice as they see fit, provided it doesn't violate the rights of others.

if you and others disagree with the prayer, that is your right, but taking someone to court for practicing their religion is a slippery slope.

you may argue that the beginning of a meeting is hardly the place, but what does it honestly cost? nothing. if they feel that a prayer before the meeting helps them, would you deny them that simply because you believe something else?

What do you do about non-Christians at the meeting? Do you take a vote to see who gets prayed to?

I remember when they changed school prayer to a moment of silence. I mean are people who are not religious so easily offended over something like a moment of silence?

Atheist should protest prayer at funerals. At least this way people can see what you are really about and that is attempting to prevent people from practicing ANY religion.

reply to post by NihilistSanta


A moment of silence is not a prayer, and I don't know of a moment of silence being controversial to atheists or anyone else.

I've been to plenty a funeral, memorial, wake where there was no Christian prayer.

Opening a legislative session or meeting with a Christian prayer is intended to influence votes, or justify a vote based on religious motives, basically allowing the legislator to claim that they were led by GOD to vote on an issue a certain way, and therefore their vote or the creation of certain laws, should be above reproach. They are not accountable for their vote personally, GOD is.

No one is saying that a religious person shouldn't vote based on their conscience, but it's a cop out to say "GOD" told me to vote this way. And opening a session with a Christian prayer asking GOD to guide the process is doing just that, allowing legislators to claim that a voice inside their head told them to vote a certain way.

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by Bob Sholtz
reply to post by windword

 

i don't see how praying before meetings is wrong. you may not believe in god, but it is their right to practice as they see fit, provided it doesn't violate the rights of others.

if you and others disagree with the prayer, that is your right, but taking someone to court for practicing their religion is a slippery slope.

you may argue that the beginning of a meeting is hardly the place, but what does it honestly cost? nothing. if they feel that a prayer before the meeting helps them, would you deny them that simply because you believe something else?

What do you do about non-Christians at the meeting? Do you take a vote to see who gets prayed to?

Prayed to? I do not understand that concept...

And it has been my experience that atheists feel very threatened by any act of public expression of religion....to a degree that, I suspect, speaks of their own doubts.

I remember when the guys with the robes and shaved heads used to "collect" money at airports...I never felt threatened by their faith and never really thought much about it. I do not consider myself a religious person (seeing as how I never go to church), however I do believe in God and Jesus (in my mind, believing in God is very different than believing in Man's church). I never feel threatened by someone else's faith...

As such, it sort of weirds me out when people take such exception to other people's expression of faith.

reply to post by windword


I find this hilariously excellent!

People want to complain about opening meetings with a prayer,

So lawmakers want to create state religion?

Genius!

Maybe those pesky atheists will stop whining so much now!

reply to post by godlover25

People want to complain about opening meetings with a prayer,

So lawmakers want to create state religion?

Genius!

What is 'genius' about this, please?

I think this is more hilarious than anything. Much like a state flower or a state bird.

Declaring a state religion doesn't bring you one step closer to hassling other people with religious idiocy In a government building or any place of business. What it does do is tell the rest of the world that there is such a high population of gullible idiots that they want everyone to know it.

Wonder what a Christian version of sharia law would look like. Pat Robertsons episode of fantasy island.

reply to post by windword
Although I disagree with the notion of any state thinking it can supersede The U.S. Constitution, I DO recommend we as a people take a long hard look at those countries which, once upon a time, adopted Atheism as their "official" religion, and where they are now.

That said, I need to add, I believe in a God who can spot a phony a mile away. A Muslim who kills in the name of Islam carries no more a weight in Heaven than a Nazi who kills a Jew in the name of Lutheranism.

Likewise, a state which imposes a religion on its citizenry is no more worthy in His eyes as the next state over, which might well stifle that same faith. Churches are just weird that way. They aren't strengthened by the whip of a pen across paper. The Prophets already covered that. It's called a Bible...a Torah...a Koran...

Just as a parting shot, I might add, having an "Official" religion means if the church coffers run low, the state can kick in to make sure THEY don't go broke. Such is the case in England, where a portion of tax revenue is actually meant to support the Church Of England.

Originally posted by micmerci
I agree with the post above. Please do not judge all Christians and Republicans by this measure. I am both and I in no way support this bill.

Okay, you don't support it. Let me ask you this: If this dumba$$ed bill passed and a Muslim, a Catholic, and an atheist were running for governor, would you vote for the one with the best ideas, or would you vote for the Catholic? I am 99% certain which candidate a Muslim would vote for. As an atheist, I would vote for the best candidate.

Originally posted by micmerci
I agree with the post above. Please do not judge all Christians and Republicans by this measure. I am both and I in no way support this bill.

really? you couldn't have seen this coming?...look at what the republicans have done in other states where they hold all the state offices, and this is what your concerned about?...it's about time Obama sent in the national guard and force these states to obey federal law, because they are not doing it now, and they seem to not give a damn.

Originally posted by Wertdagf
I think this is more hilarious than anything. Much like a state flower or a state bird.

Declaring a state religion doesn't bring you one step closer to hassling other people with religious idiocy In a government building or any place of business. What it does do is tell the rest of the world that there is such a high population of gullible idiots that they want everyone to know it.

Wonder what a Christian version of sharia law would look like. Pat Robertsons episode of fantasy island.

edit on 8-4-2013 by Wertdagf because: (no reason given)

to hell it doesn't bring it closer to hassling people. I don't want ANY RELIGION in my personal life, business, or government...not one stinking part. it's a bunch of immoral made-up crap for people that believe in mythical beings. this country left the dark ages centuries ago, and good riddance.

I respect spirituality. I believe that there is a Creator/Ground of Being. What I would say, however, is that those forms of religion that impose political claims are the ones that I would impose the highest burden of proof upon. Call it is personal bias, but those religious claims that call for the subjugation of women, the death of homosexuals, or wars against unbelievers are those that I ask to prove themselves beyond the shadow of a doubt.