Our Lord and Savior - Page 2 - PeachParts Mercedes-Benz Forum

Idle · #16 11-27-2012, 09:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

To understand the Church & State issue, you have to understand what was on the minds of the Founding Fathers. The Church of England was one of the things they were leaving behind when they came to America. They did not want to see a rerun of that one.

Governments running churches is not a good thing. Of course MANY of us understand that government running almost ANYTHING is a route to eventual disaster.

BTW, Churches praying for the leaders of the country and the community is NOT limited to the Episcopalians. It also is NOT a violation of the separation of Church & State. The separation of Church & State was intended to protect the Church from the State, not to protect the State from the Church.

I fully agree with you on all of this.

But the fact remains that the Episcopal Church was investigated by the IRS for this very thing and no other denomination was or has been.

elchivito · #17 11-27-2012, 09:08 AM

I'm an Ecopalian.
Religion scared the pis out of me.

Idle · #18 11-27-2012, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

I believe you have the "wall" concept backwards. The separation between church and State was originally intended to prevent the State from establishing an official Church, and the prevent the State from interfering in church matters.
Christians from all denominations pray daily and weekly for their political leaders as they are instructed to do in the Bible--that they might live peaceable lives.

I am quite clear on this matter, and I see no reason to restate my reasons for this as they are the same as you have already done.

The ones that seem to have this backwards would appear to be the IRS for they are the ones that started the investigation. They never released a reason why, and when they terminated the investigation they never released any findings. They just sent a letter saying they were no longer interested in the matter.

t walgamuth · #19 11-27-2012, 09:09 AM

If you go back a hundred years or so in Ireland it was illegal for catholics to own land and a whole host of other things that we consider basic rights here, so having the church interfere in government is just as bad as the other way around.

The Clk Man · #20 11-27-2012, 09:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

If you go back a hundred years or so in Ireland it was illegal for catholics to own land and a whole host of other things that we consider basic rights here, so having the church interfere in government is just as bad as the other way around.

Agreed.

Air&Road · #21 11-27-2012, 10:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

If you go back a hundred years or so in Ireland it was illegal for catholics to own land and a whole host of other things that we consider basic rights here, so having the church interfere in government is just as bad as the other way around.

So do you have any evidence of churches interfering in government in the US?

2dieseljohn · #22 11-28-2012, 10:59 AM

"So do you have any evidence of churches interfering in government in the US?"
How about a woman's right to choice and unfettered access to birth control. The "christian values" that guild so many elected officials policy toward health and science. The Texas school book "intelligent design" farce. On and On...

MS Fowler · #23 11-28-2012, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dieseljohn

"So do you have any evidence of churches interfering in government in the US?"
How about a woman's right to choice and unfettered access to birth control. The "christian values" that guild so many elected officials policy toward health and science. The Texas school book "intelligent design" farce. On and On...

There is a difference between the actions of church members, and actions of Churches.

Air&Road · #24 11-28-2012, 11:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dieseljohn

"So do you have any evidence of churches interfering in government in the US?"
How about a woman's right to choice and unfettered access to birth control. The "christian values" that guild so many elected officials policy toward health and science. The Texas school book "intelligent design" farce. On and On...

And just exactly how is this interference? They are promoting their beliefs within the democratic system. HOW is this interference with the government?

If you were to follow that line of thought, you could say that gay people promoting gay marriage is interfering in the government as opposed to promoting their cause within the democratic process. Is that what you want?

2dieseljohn · #25 11-28-2012, 11:14 AM

While some whack jobs are doing this on their own. Many are supported buy their "church" . Lots churches support and actively turn out members for school board meetings. You can see this influence in our lack of understanding of evolution, warming earth etc... That influence has over 50% of our pop. failing to understand simple science.

2dieseljohn · #26 11-28-2012, 11:22 AM

Gay people only want rights that we all enjoy. The churches have kept up the fight against them. Interference comes from the church. Churches don't have to let gay people but they should not dictate to a 21st. century person their bronze age belief system. It's the churches (think catholic) who oppose birth control (world wide) Remember they think it is a bigger sin to prevent birth with a condom than prevent AIDS.

Air&Road · #27 11-28-2012, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 2dieseljohn

While some whack jobs are doing this on their own. Many are supported buy their "church" . Lots churches support and actively turn out members for school board meetings. You can see this influence in our lack of understanding of evolution, warming earth etc... That influence has over 50% of our pop. failing to understand simple science.

So they are not within their rights to promote a particular agenda and encourage people to turn out to support that agenda?

Continuing the same example, would a gay organization not be within their rights to promote their agenda and encourage their members to attend functions where they could show their strength and support their cause?

aklim · #28 11-28-2012, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MS Fowler

There is a difference between the actions of church members, and actions of Churches.

I see. So your contention is that the church had no part of instigating the members and thus is not responsible?

Air&Road · #29 11-28-2012, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aklim

I see. So your contention is that the church had no part of instigating the members and thus is not responsible?

Churches are not capable of voting, but they, like any other organization, have the right to encourage their members to promote their beliefs, NO?

aklim · #30 11-28-2012, 11:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Air&Road

Churches are not capable of voting, but they, like any other organization, have the right to encourage their members to promote their beliefs, NO?

But does that make them able to say that they have no interference?

Say a muslim gives money to the recently deceased OBL. Is he responsible for the carnage that the group creates? Had OBL been proved to simply "encourage" his members to crash planes into 911 and had no operational hand in it, would you hold him blameless?