There are no doubts that there are theocrats in this country who would like to get rid of or substantially modify the 1st amendment. I think they understand it, they just don't don't like the "freedom from" part.

a particular religion's rule over another, so why do they see that as an attack instead of protection and why do they use the term for their position?

and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, right?

This bill has had huge unintended consequences and is now spreading at the state level.

It has provided for a degree of "religious freedom" that goes far beyond what our constitution intended and needs to be overturned, imo.

One interesting thing to watch is how some states and cities pass laws about "religious freedoms" without ever seeming to recognize that those laws will not just apply to christians. When they do realize it, it is often pretty hilarious.

The neocons led them to believe that because their causes were "righteous", they would easily be implemented as law. They promised them the overturn of Roe v. Wade and that that gay marriage would be banned on the national level.

They used them and continue to try and use them.

No wonder they don't understand the concept.

a vote, no matter how dishonest or greedy, has now become a mainstay of US politicians and parties

which, boiled down, is all about taking concepts like "freedom" and "liberty" and "rights" and applying them largely, if not exclusively, to powerful people, groups, and businesses.

this turns the concept on its head, as in the extreme, they might argue that the 13th amendment is an unreasonable restriction on the freedom of slave-owners and their right to conduct business as they choose.

rather less extreme, they view such things as not being able to express themselves by putting a cross on public land or the ten commandments on the property of a court of law as a restriction on their freedom. or, more recently, they see being able to intervene into the decisions between their employees and their doctors as their protected religious freedom. to hell with the religious freedom of their employees, of course.


if you think about it, a dictatorship is really just about maximizing the freedom of the one dictator. so who could argue against that, right?

Or by US standards?
It's seems to me that most here in the US get it, but a percentage of those that get it, don't care. They want what they want.

We see the same phenomenon here at DU, too. Beliefs are special, they can't be criticized like other ideas, etc. With that privileged status constantly reinforced, it's no wonder lots of people think they should be excepted from rules like that.

I really can't. The idea of all religions can be practiced but not in charge of a society is not a threat to theirs except, in some regard, they must not really be confident in theirs.

I think that the people who see threats are too confident in their particular brand of religion. They want their religion to be the winner, to be the one that IS in charge.

The only reason that they do not understand religious liberty and separation of church and state is because they do not want to understand it. It is a visceral thing, not a thought process.

So naturally, you want to live under your religion's rules but not someone else's.

As I'm sure we all know, should Muslims or another religious group ever become a majority, the Christians in the USA fighting to keep their religion in government would suddenly become the biggest cheerleaders for separation of church and state!

...

2 memes right there

1. Where are Muslim minorities "obsessed" with their rights? Especially when compared to other minorities like LGBT, atheists, Jews, people of color. Not too many stories in the US media about the rights of Muslims.

2. Check out Morocco, Turkey, Egypt, Palestine and Pakistan for starters. Then the rest of Islam. You might find a handful of countries like Iran and other Islamic States, where non-Muslims cannot take part in government. But even there, minorities have lots of rights.

same for Turkey and the others too.

What do you mean by "better keep your head down"?
None of the countries with Muslim majorities have stellar records on civil rights for minorities, but that is not the same as saying that minorities have no rights.

...correct.

I'm sure they all have the "right" to convert to islam at their earliest convenience, if not sooner.

Attitudes like yours are what contribute to the intolerance and bigotry of all who think they are right, be they fundamentalist believers or non-believers.

"We" would like to see that phenomenon. Where is it?

...non-Christians can live and worship in our country, but Christians run the country.

The vast majority of the fundamentalists I know (including family members) are convinced the Founding Fathers intended the U.S. to be a Christian nation. They believe religious freedom means that while Christians should make all the laws, etc., people of other religions should be allowed to live here and worship here, but must accept that Christianity and the Christian Bible is the basis for our laws and our social norms.

I've tried but there is no shaking their conviction that this is true.

the founders?

They believe they are taken out of context (probably because that is what they often do).

...to grasp the difference between:

Last edited Mon Jan 5, 2015, 03:49 PM - Edit history (1)

of the Enlightment. But why do they fear freedom so much when it doesn't say they can't exist or believe?

... your "theys".

I've since corrected.

If they pick one, tell them to move to the Middle Eastern country of their desire.

Didn't know I asked that since there is more than one religion or people without one.

Then yes, they need to get the hell out of this country because we aren't a theocracy.

where does that leave you?

But you and yours keep trying to propose that this it what believers want so we'll play what if here.

The next topic we'll visit is the difference between "many" and "all." Since you also seem a little confused about that as well.

Just try sticking with the topic of discussion without you typical efforts to divert and cloud.

understand?

Please do alert I'm thru with your slide and shuffle. Some people change some are just stuck in hide and hope.

You claimed people can just "vote" to discard our Constitution.

You also claimed you know how the amendment process works.

One (or both) of those things is false. I'm just trying to understand why you think there is nothing contradictory in what you've said. But if all you can do is personally attack me, fine.

and is no longer free

in time most are corrected. But I'm talking about thru legal constitutional means.

I would hope the courts, via the constitution tells those "people" to pound salt. Sorry, this is not a theocracy, nor a democracy. (I have a "divine authority" in my pants. Maybe it should be the "power&quot .

a Christian you cannot be involved in anyway whatsoever, or at any level of politics and cant even express an opinion about it at least not on a church wide basis.

This is based on a friend of mine who is a Witness and who has told me many times that this is the case.

It is why I get such a kick out of Huckabee , Robertson and the like, Falwell, and so on...

Now we all know they are despicable and disgusting people, but evidently they are also world class hypocrites.

...when it comes to the religion of others. Notice how their heads exploded when Muslims in Louisiana tried to take advantage of the state's voucher program to send kids to Muslim schools.

The problem is privilege. They are the majority, and because few people are likely to be offended by the things they do, they think it is perfectly fine to do them, regardless of what the law says. The moment someone steps up to confront them, they feel that this privilege they have enjoyed their entire lives is being taken away, and react like a spoiled child forced to share their toy with a younger sibling.

I think many people of faith, especially from the more progressive factions, do understand it.

Of those that don't: Firstly, remember that about a fifth of the populace are dumb as dirt. Then remember that those in the conservative/fundie bubble have been living in an alternate universe for years. In that universe, they have their own versions of history, the constitution, jurisprudence, psychology and everything else. They have David Barton telling them lies about the constitution and what it was meant to do and because they've been told that Barton is one of the good guys, they believe him. It's an entirely self-contained system that not only rejects correction but resents you for trying to correct them and holds the incorrect beliefs even more stringly because of it.

Evangelicals and other conservative religious factions have indicated they don't support the separation of church and state as we know it. Given surveys on these topics, we could be looking more 100 million people in this country who think religious displays on public land are ok, for instance.

http://www.pewforum.org/2014/12/15/most-say-religious-holiday-displays-should-be-allowed-on-public-property/

...how many say there should be Anti-Religious symbols displayed on government property?

I'm confident that the percentages and actual count of such persons are small, but not zero.

My point being that the one-in-five (20%) group represent the middle road, and completely neutral position, of possibilities, and not the opposite of those who wish to set up or allow religious displays.

Add the 28% who say it's OK as long as other symbols are included. Other RELIGIOUS symbols, that is. In other words, it's still a violation, but somehow the addition of a menorah will make it OK.

Albeit I wasn't aware the number was that high. What I was trying to say is that roughly 80% of the US are some form of Christian but only a quarter of the populace are Biblical literalists (which I use as a simple definition of "fundie&quot . That leaves around 55% who are Christian but aren't fundies.

The subject of this thread was believers (Christians in the US) who don't support the separation of church and state. I have provided the figured proving that the OP's phrasing "so many" is accurate and not a broad brush, as you accused.

Now you're attempting to shift the discussion to biblical literalists (whom, it should be noted, at 25% of the population is still a very large number of people, ~75-80 million, and thus would also qualify as "so many&quot .

You should probably take back your accusation.

However, yes, I will retract the "so many" comment.

In order to change your beliefs you must have courageous self-honesty. It is a difficult thing to examine the lies we have been taught. We are emotionally attached to them. It is what gives us a sense if community, similarity. We are afraid to think outside the group, for fear of ostracization.

So it then is much easier to force beliefs on others than honestly examine beliefs.

The powerful knowingly use these lies to maintain control over people. They are not going to allow a full scale change of beliefs so they are going to do everything in their power to maintain their lies.

Separation of church and state has been a facade since the early days of the constitution. We have been subsidizing churches since before we became a nation. And has grown to epic proportions. Churches are not going to give up the gravy train we have been providing them.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2013/08/22/you-give-religions-more-than-82-5-billion-a-year/

http://www.theocracywatch.org/faith_base.htm

"The vast majority of Christians read this text and conclude that God has appointed them stewards and caretakers of Earth. As Sara Diamond explains, however, some Christian read the text and believe, "that Christians alone are Biblically mandated to occupy all secular institutions until Christ returns." That, in a nutshell, is the idea of "dominionism."

...

food stamps and without shelter because churches would no longer be providing the safety net services that so many rely on.

Do you think that the tax exemption for 501.c.3's should be removed for all non-profits or just religious groups? Careful, this is a tricky question.

by religious groups to the neediest among us. The number 1,000 is so far off the mark as to be completely dismissed. There are likely 1,000 in relatively small towns all over the country. You also have to take into account recovery programs, halfway houses, medical services, vaccination programs, battered women's shelters, sanctuaries for kids who are trying to escape abusive homes, single mothers, day care, etc. The goods and services aren't just soup kitchens, food banks and homeless shelters.

As to #2, be careful what you wish for. Almost all of the tax exempt status granted to religious groups is because of their 501.c.3 status, which applies to all non-profits organizations. You may run into a very serious 1st amendment problem should you proposed that religious groups should lose this exemption solely based on their being religious.

Before advocating for churches to be taxed, it might be a good idea to find out what this really means. It's a common meme that is a very, very bad idea.

You are confident enough to declare someone else has "grossly underestimate(d)" something, so how about provide some facts?

because that's supporting genocide

The fact that religious groups buying hospitals means the elimination of reproductive services, prescribed medication, and legal end-of-life care (amongst so many other things) is nothing. She doesn't care about that. That's not an issue to her.

If there are some churches that have become businesses and no longer meet the criteria for 501.c.3, they should lose their tax status. The IRS needs to enforce their rules.

However, this applies to a very small minority of churches. IIRC, it's somewhere around ½% of all religious organizations in the country (mega-churches).

Let's leave the faith based beliefs to the religious people.

stopgap to fill in the final holes of the most needy, the homeless, mentally ill.

If the government had created laws which provided a living wage to every eligible worker, there would be little need for food stamps and other assistance.

The biggest grey area would be for the disabled and those who are not able to work. If every employable person was getting a living wage, the wealthy and corporations were paying adequate taxes then church based assistance programs would be moot. The govt would have the funding to expand the SSDI program for the disabled and create other programs to assist the unemployable.

be non-existent.

I fully support paying a living wage, but that is not the issue here.

When secular organizations and the government step up to the plate and start providing what the most marginalized need, we can talk about changing tax status. Until then, it's a non-issue.

In fact, in many cases they might not be able to do what they do if government HADN'T "stepped up to the plate," your tired and worn and oh-so-lame expression.

Until you display knowledge of the facts here, what you say is definitely a non-issue.

Removing tax exempt status would give the government more money to enhance existing programs and create new ones, providing the gops are removed from the action.

religious ones?

If you think this congress or any congress would use the tax revenue to help the poor, I have a bridge I'd like to sell you.

In this case, the chicken needs to come before the egg or the most at risk are likely to be the most harmed. Let's see secular groups and the government start beefing up these programs, then talk about churches bowing out.

And not just here, all over this world.

Churches are buying legislation and politicians, buying broadway shows, building apartment complexes and shopping centers, running nfp healthcare at a profit, buying gold mins in Africa. This is ridiculous and not what tithing is about. Tithing was initially to cover the basic costs of building the church, supporting it's upkeep, feeding and housing the pastor, these kinds of things.

If churches or any NPO are going to use their funds for profitable purposes, they should have to pay taxes.

fit the criteria of a true 501.c.3 should have their status revoked. That includes those that make a profit and that campaign for individuals from the pulpit. This is a massive IRS problem, not a legal problem, and the IRS needs to take responsibility.

But what you describe is a tiny minority of churches and other religious groups in this world.

Tithing was about the things you describe but has also always been about taking care of the less fortunate as well. That's why religious groups are entitled to this tax status, just like any other non-profit.

So we agree. The pressure needs to be put on the IRS. Proposing that the exemption be removed for everyone because there are some who are flagrantly abusing their status is a very bad idea.

That said, I do wonder how strictly it's even possible to adhere to church-state separation,given that a large majority of the populace are believers of some stripe and, presumably, take those beliefs into office with them.

While it can be tricky, I don't think church-state separation is that difficult. The important part is maintaining both freedom of and freedom from.