Topic: Separation of church and state

[dpogs]

i agree with this. that's what's ideal unfortunately many people fear the church more.

im glad we agree on this one.



kung titingnan natin maigi at susuriin... if everyone of us including the government officials ay merong pagkatakot sa Diyos... sa palagay ko mawawalang saysay ang katagang "separation of church and state"...

everyone is in harmony... 

[alistair]

if everyone of us including the government officials ay merong pagkatakot sa Diyos... sa palagay ko mawawalang saysay ang katagang "separation of church and state"...

everyone is in harmony...  

I have to disagree on this one.

What if the next president of the Philippines was an extremely conservative, maybe even fundamentalist, God-fearing Muslim?

Do you still think "everyone will be in harmony"?

[toughthrone]

dapat talaga separate ang church and state. the catholic church should not meddle on state affairs such as the RH bill.

[av_phile1]

I find it strange that in upholding the separation of church and state, people don't want the church to meddle in state affairs, but don't mind if the state meddles on church affairs.  They don't see that the RH bill impinges heavily on personal matters heavily regulated by the church. While population is a state affair, birth control is not.  What a couple does in the privacy of their rooms is between them and God, not between them and the state.  

It is the responsibility of the state to ensure the means by which its people get the right food, decent livelihood, decent roads, shelter, etc.  It short, it is a state affair to feed its population.  If it is having problems feeding its people, it should look at ways to increase food production at prices its people can afford and concurrently create more job opportunities for more people to afford a better life.  This is where the greatest challenge lie and it's where we need PhDs and seasoned technocrats in government to lick the problem.  

But you don't need them if all they can think about is curtaining population growth.  Even a grade schooler can propose to cut back on population as a knee jerk skin-deep solution.  That's the problem. People like the easiest way out of a bind.   Instead of meeting the challenge of increasing production, the government prefer to take the easier solution - control population. I really have no problem with it from a secular perspective, but in the process, it brings them in direct confrontation with the Church.  That's because their solution runs smack into church area to make a mockery of its doctrines on the matter of reproductive discipline.

[toughthrone]

when does the state meddle in church affairs? i can think of much more examples of church meddling in state affairs rather than vice versa.

"the RH bill impinges heavily on personal matters heavily regulated by the church" - in this case, I presume you are speaking about the Catholic Church. what about other churches who have no stand against birth control? what about people without a religion? disagreeing with the RH bill per se just because it is contradicting with the doctrines (man-made in this case I will assume) of a singular church is just not right.

what a couple does in the privacy of their rooms is between them period. it is not between them and God, nor is it between them and the state.

the easiest/most obvious solution is not necessarily the worst solution - it can actually be the best one, taking into consideration all factors. looking for ways to increase food production at prices people can afford - that is much more difficult to implement given market forces and limited resources (not to mention corruption at all levels). and as you can see, controlling population sounds easier than it actually is.

[dpogs]

IMHO: it is much easier to increase food production and to provide livelihood projects than to control population... kung tama lang sana ang perspective natin...


ganito na lang... naisip ko lang...


depende siguro kung ano ang tingin natin sa kung ano ang magagawa ng population sa isang bansa...



if we consider population as power (or an asset) then we have no problem at all...pero kung ang tingin natin ay ang population ang sanhi ng problema then we have great deal of problem.


bakit ang mga nag-aalaga ng baboy gusto nila malaki ang population ng kanilang mga poultry/swine/other animals... ginagawa ng management (o ng may-ari) ang lahat para lang maging malusog, walang sakit at nasa magandang kundisyon ang kanilang mga alaga... iyong iba nakaaircon pa... para sa kanila... the more the merrier... mas marami mas malaking kita...

bakit di ito magawa ng mga nagdaang/kasalukuyang administrasyon... bakit di natin gayahin ang pag-iisip ng mga animal breeder... why not provide quality education para maging mas productive ang ating populasyon... why not provide enough food and shelter to get the best from us...

i think... AVphile is right.

It is the responsibility of the state to ensure the means by which its people get the right food, decent livelihood, decent roads, shelter, etc.  It short, it is a state affair to feed its population.  If it is having problems feeding its people, it should look at ways to increase food production at prices its people can afford and concurrently create more job opportunities for more people to afford a better life.  This is where the greatest challenge lie and it's where we need PhDs and seasoned technocrats in government to lick the problem. 

But you don't need them if all they can think about is curtaining population growth.  Even a grade schooler can propose to cut back on population as a knee jerk skin-deep solution.  That's the problem. People like the easiest way out of a bind.   Instead of meeting the challenge of increasing production, the government prefer to take the easier solution - control population. I really have no problem with it from a secular perspective, but in the process, it brings them in direct confrontation with the Church.  That's because their solution runs smack into church area to make a mockery of its doctrines on the matter of reproductive discipline.

[jerix]

This separation of church and state thing is a basic principle of the kind of government we have. obviously this is in practice as all decisions are still lodged in the government and not the church. The church is just trying to influence people in the government to follow the thinking of the church. Any group, organization or party can in fact lobby anything to pursue its own interests -even the communists have their own people working to push their principles...this is democracy at work. As long as the government still decides in the best interest of the and in the name of the people to which it represents, and not the church, then it is completely alright.

[barrister]

I find it strange that in upholding the separation of church and state, people don't want the church to meddle in state affairs, but don't mind if the state meddles on church affairs.  They don't see that the RH bill impinges heavily on personal matters heavily regulated by the church. While population is a state affair, birth control is not.  What a couple does in the privacy of their rooms is between them and God, not between them and the state.  

The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.

When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.  

But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop.  The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.

If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.

After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives.  According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred".  That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.

[toughthrone]

The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.

When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.  

But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop.  The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.

If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.

After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives.  According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred".  That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.

i 100% agree!

[jerix]

The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.

When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.  

But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop.  The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.

If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.

After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives.  According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred".  That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.

The problem is the fact that most of the lawmakers are members of the catholic religion and the church is using all its powers to influence these people. Maybe the catholic religion successfully fielded enough number of people in the Congress so that it can pursue its own agenda. In a democracy, there is what we sometimes call survival of the fittest.

[Nelson de Leon]

The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.

When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them. 

But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop.  The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.

If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.

After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives.  According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred".  That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.

Very well said.

The problem is the fact that most of the lawmakers are members of the catholic religion and the church is using all its powers to influence these people. Maybe the catholic religion successfully fielded enough number of people in the Congress so that it can pursue its own agenda. In a democracy, there is what we sometimes call survival of the fittest.

Nagkataon lang siguro talaga na madaming catholics sa government. Wala tayo sir magagawa kasi democracy nga tayo. Kung baga sila yun may pinakamadaming voters kaya sila yun elected.

[Blu-devil]

I was born and grew up in a Church Of England society that allowed complete freedom of expression. I was shocked by just how much the Roman Catholic Church sticks its nose in business that clearly does not concern them. If people are intelligent and forward thinking enough to want to use contraceptives the church should shut up and mind its own business. I as an individual have ZERO tolerance and respect for the RC Church as an institution, especially after what has been going on with their role in pedophilia and supporting of the Nazis during WWII. I know that I am probably going to get flamed for this but I seriously believe that the RCC should be disbanded. When I met my wife (who is from Cebu) in Thailand her church actually ordered her to stop seeing me as I was NOT from their church, she chose to drop them instead. The churches here are like the ones in Mexico, xenophobic, bigoted and run by zealots and crooks who wouldn't know God or Jesus if he past them in the street. We have a brand new Church/ Cathedral here in Cebu that cost hundreds of millions of US Dollars, that makes me sick. That money could have fed and housed EVERY street kid in Cebu. If Jesus could see what the Philippine church was doing in his name he would cry in shame. The Philippine church clearly needs to practice what it so much love to preach.   

[av_phile1]

The way I see it, the meddling is being done by the Catholic Church, not by the State.

When religious leaders preach against contraception, the State does not oppose them.  

But when it's the State that's promoting contraception, the opposition from the Catholic Church and CBCP is non-stop.  The Catholic Church was instrumental in successfully derailing the passage of the RH bill in the last Congress.

If the Catholic priests are free to preach against contraception all they want, the State should also be free to promote contraception.

After all, the State will not force anyone who doesn't want to use artificial contraceptives.  According to Health Secretary Ona, "the government would equally promote natural and artificial means of contraception but would leave it up to couples to choose which method they preferred".  That has been the official government stand on the matter from the beginning.

I don't know how the legal profession defines meddling in the context of church state separation, but if the church rallies its people against an unjust or oppressive government, thanks to the fact that 80% of the people are Catholics as of 2000,  that's considered as meddling though I have my own contrary opinion about that.  This time, the government is effectively rallying the people to use artificial means of contraception which is in direct contravention of the Papal Encyclical in the Humanae Vtae, and people don't want to call it meddling.  No matter, I think I used the wrong word.

When the state starts to espouse ways and means that contradict church teachings, this is the state threading on religious grounds and effectively meddling in church affairs. Actually, the word "meddling" in this context, is too weak a word for what I wanted to put across.  I should say, insulting, or mocking.  In that case, I stand corrected for using a weak word.

It hardly matters that the state also supports what the Church allows.  The fact is, the state is aiming to create a legal footing for what the Church considers an immoral act. It also matters little that the state is not enforcing its will on the people. When Cardinal Sin exhorted the people to rally against Marcos in 1986, he wasn't enforcing his will and the people were also free to follow or not.  And yet people call it meddling. But no matter, the state is not meddling, it's just mocking the religion of 80% of its people.

I am of the opinion that the Church is defending its turf from the "meddling" or more accurately, the affront that the state is doing.  The Catholic injunction against artificial contraception is quite clear in the Papal Encyclical as early as 1968.  When the state starts its population control programs espousing artificial contraception that flies in the face of Church teachings, what did you expect the Church to do, sit it out in silence?

The Church has been successful so far in preventing the passage of the RH bill by lobbying against it which anyone can do.  Is that meddling?  Yes, But that is the result of the State's own "meddling" in church doctrines on this issue.

The last time I read the constitution, the Bill of Rights emanating from the separation of the Church and State is directed at the State ("No law shall be made respecting the establishment..."), not at the Church which, in the same provision, is guaranteed the freedom of religious exercise.  Hence, the way I see it, the Church exercises its constitutional guarantee when it actively asserts itself in secular affairs that impinge on its doctrinal authority.  Situations where the state deliberately or by inaction abnegates its responsibility to protect the citizen against any form of injustice or sanctions immoral acts are all game for the Church to step in.  

The spirit and intent as well as the origins behind the separation of Church and State does not envision a Godless society. That is the contemplation of communism, not in a democracy. Certainly not in a predominantly Catholic democracy. So when this government starts to stray into Godlessness, the Church sees it its moral and rightful duty to intervene and meddle.  

[Klaus Weasley]

So are you saying non-Catholics, non-Christians, atheists and agnostics have no rights in the Philippines?

It's true that the government has no right to dictate what goes on in the bedroom between two consenting adults. But the same should go for the Church. People should be free to CHOOSE whether or not they want condoms, etc. with the CORRECT information. If they want to reject the government's offer of teaching them how to use condoms and contraceptives, they're free to do so. But at the same time the Church has NO RIGHT to try to actively prevent couples, Catholic or otherwise, from wanting to learn about contraception or wishing to access condoms, pills, etc.

This time, the government is effectively rallying the people to use artificial means of contraception in direct contravention of the Papal Encyclical in the Humanae Vtae, and people don't want to call it meddling.

It is my understanding that the RH bill is there for people who want it. More affordable and easier access to contraception and education on all methods, natural or artificial. Simple as that. If you can prove to me that government is FORCING people to use contraception and REQUIRING them to limit their children, then I'll protest the RH Bill alongside you. But as far as I know, they're not.

If the Catholic Church doesn't like this bill, then they can protest it from the pulpit and discourage people from using it. But respect them enough as human beings with brains to let them decide for themselves.

[et414]

 

I was born and grew up in a Church Of England society that allowed complete freedom of expression. I was shocked by just how much the Roman Catholic Church sticks its nose in business that clearly does not concern them. If people are intelligent and forward thinking enough to want to use contraceptives the church should shut up and mind its own business. I as an individual have ZERO tolerance and respect for the RC Church as an institution, especially after what has been going on with their role in pedophilia and supporting of the Nazis during WWII. I know that I am probably going to get flamed for this but I seriously believe that the RCC should be disbanded. When I met my wife (who is from Cebu) in Thailand her church actually ordered her to stop seeing me as I was NOT from their church, she chose to drop them instead. The churches here are like the ones in Mexico, xenophobic, bigoted and run by zealots and crooks who wouldn't know God or Jesus if he past them in the street. We have a brand new Church/ Cathedral here in Cebu that cost hundreds of millions of US Dollars, that makes me sick. That money could have fed and housed EVERY street kid in Cebu. If Jesus could see what the Philippine church was doing in his name he would cry in shame. The Philippine church clearly needs to practice what it so much love to preach.  

i agree 100%. those holier than thou old farts act as if they have moral ascendancy over the rest of us mere mortals when in fact history has recorded that the RC church has been mired in corruption and scandal from the lowliest priest up to the pope. popes have waged war in the name of god killing hundreds of thousands. they have committed incest and sired children and made their children cardinals. archbishops have and are continuing to molest children. and after all this they still have the kapalmuks to say they have moral ascendancy over the common man?

like trapos, the church prefers its followers to remain stupid and ignorant so that they will just follow whatever the church tells them.

btw that 80% catholics in the Philippines is hogwash. 80% of that 80% are probably nominal catholics. its just what people write on their resumes and application forms. there is no choice in this country. babies are baptized because the church tells parents that if something happens to the baby and its not baptized yet, it will go to hell. to me this is just a ploy to make sure that the church never runs out of victims.

[Blu-devil]

i agree 100%. those holier than thou old farts act as if they have moral ascendancy over the rest of us mere mortals when in fact history has recorded that the RC church has been mired in corruption and scandal from the lowliest priest up to the pope. popes have waged war in the name of god killing hundreds of thousands. they have committed incest and sired children and made their children cardinals. archbishops have and are continuing to molest children. and after all this they still have the kapalmuks to say they have moral ascendancy over the common man?

like trapos, the church prefers its followers to remain stupid and ignorant so that they will just follow whatever the church tells them.

btw that 80% catholics in the Philippines is hogwash. 80% of that 80% are probably nominal catholics. its just what people write on their resumes and application forms. there is no choice in this country. babies are baptized because the church tells parents that if something happens to the baby and its not baptized yet, it will go to hell. to me this is just a ploy to make sure that the church never runs out of victims.

Agreed 1000000000000000000% and well said my man

[krets pulpol]

Bishop Cruz tells ‘Pajero 7’: Confess

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/19014/bishop-cruz-tells-%e2%80%98pajero-7%e2%80%99-confess

  Tsk tsk tsk

[barrister]

Activist priest Robert Reyes says bishops got more than Pajeros
By Maricar Cinco
Inquirer Southern Luzon
7:49 pm | Tuesday, June 28th, 2011

SAN PEDRO, Laguna—Activist priest Fr. Robert Reyes on Tuesday alleged that a number of Catholic bishops not only got expensive vehicles out of public funds but also benefited in other forms during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

“Not just the Pajeros. She constructed houses (for priests), convents, cathedrals, and gave away cars,” Reyes, a staunch critic of the past administration, said in a phone interview.

Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office chair Margarita Juico earlier said they were verifying reports that Arroyo solicited the support of Catholic leaders by giving them Mitsubishi Pajeros.

This was after PCSO officials disclosed that Arroyo, now a congresswoman in the second district of Pampanga, left the PCSO some P4 billion in debt.

http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/18946/activist-priest-robert-reyes-says-bishops-got-more-than-pajeros

[sharkey360]

The Wall Between Church And State

Religion is important in the lives of most Americans. Whether they are Christians, Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, Agnostics, or Atheists, they are all welcome in this country and are able to practice their religious faiths or lack thereof freely thanks to the first amendment of the Constitution. The Founding Fathers made certain that religious freedom reigned but they also wanted the newly created government to work based on reason and intellect. To achieve this goal, they built a wall between church and state. The First Amendment states that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”

Separation of church and state has been part of the foundation of this country for over 200 years. Since the dawn of the twentieth century, however, Christian Fundamentalists have literally gone on a crusade to rewrite American history and tear down the wall of separation that has existed since America’s founding. These groups are mostly associated with the Christian Right Wing of the Republican Party. It is their belief that America should be solely a white Christian nation controlled by white Christians and that all minorities and other religions be swept away by any means necessary.

Prior to the Christian Right Wing movement, the government of the United States operated as a neutral body that did not favor any one religion over another. God was not mentioned on our money, nor was God part of the Pledge of Allegiance. There were no national day’s of prayer, and churches were NOT exempt from paying taxes. Even the Founders themselves believed in separation of church and state. For example, in an 1802 letter to the Baptists in Danbury, Connecticut, Thomas Jefferson wrote:

“I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibit the free exercise thereof, thus building a wall of separation between church and state.”

James Madison, main author of the Constitution, also made reference to the separation of church and state and stated why its necessary:

“The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe with blood for centuries.”

Still not convinced? The Founders said even more than what I have provided above. Here are even more quotes.

“Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law.”- Thomas Jefferson in an 1814 letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper.

“In no instance have the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people.”-James Madison

“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”- John Adams

I am for freedom of religion and against all maneuvers to bring about a legal ascendancy of one sect over another. -Thomas Jefferson, letter to Elbridge Gerry, January 26, 1799.

“The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power themselves…these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Crist.”
- Thomas Jefferson

And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together. -James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.
-George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792

The above quotes prove that early Americans deemed the mixture of government and religion as a dangerous combination and even though the words “separation of church and state” do not appear anywhere in the Constitution, its clear that the Founders meant for separation to exist. Many on the Christian Right Wing insist that separation of church and state means that government cannot mess with religion but that religion can mess with government. This is false logic, because when religion begins interfering with government, it ends up having a measure of control over it, and begins favoring one religion over another. This violates the Constitution and is precisely why separation of church and state was established and meant to work both ways.

The history of separation of church and state isn’t that complicated and isn’t as ambiguous as the Christian Right Wing would lead you to believe. For instance, the Christian Right claims that this nation was created under a Christian banner. This is not so. Nowhere in the Constitution will you find God, Jesus Christ, or a declaration of a national religion, quite the opposite in fact. The nation was founded on the principle of Freedom of Religion. This means that people can practice any faith or reject religion all together. Even George Washington, the father of our country, rejected Christianity as a founding principle. Washington signed the Treaty of Tripoli which stated that “The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded upon the Christian religion.” That is further concrete evidence of separation of church and state.

Separation of church and state was so important to early Americans that many states prohibited clergymen from serving as representatives and senators. Many of America’s early Presidents were also pressured to declare a national day of prayer but they resisted. Total separation of church and state was considered the best safeguard for the health of each. As President Andrew Jackson explained, in refusing to name a fast day, he feared to “disturb the security which religion now enjoys in this country, in its complete separation from the political concerns of the General Government.” Some Presidents have recommended days of thanks, but it wasn’t until 1952 that Congress passed a National Day of Prayer into law thus interfering in religion directly.
In the 1860′s coins that contained the phrase “In God We Trust” began to be circulated. Keep in mind that this was not federally mandated at the time but was a choice of the mint. The phrase was not allowed to be printed on paper currency and the phrase was removed from all currency in the 1880′s. In 1955, Congress passed a law requiring In God We Trust on all currency and adopted the phrase as the National motto in 1956. And since God is a direct reference to the Christian deity, Congress had once again declared a National religion thus violating the Constitution.

The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a Baptist minister and Christian socialist. The Pledge was written to represent all Americans of every faith. The words “under God” were only added by Congressional decree in 1954, thus misrepresenting millions of Americans who are not of the Christian faith. The current version basically forces people to declare that the United States is a nation of God even though that is a false notion.

Throughout American history, churches have not paid taxes, and in 1913, churches became exempt from paying income taxes. And that’s really a shame too, considering how rich many churches and preachers have become in recent times. Rev. John Hagee, for instance, reorganized his TV station (Global Evangelism Television) as a church (Grace Church of San Antonio Churches) to shelter those records, after the San Antonio Express-News revealed his income exceeded $1 million in 2001. All of his assets, including an 8,000-or-so acre ranch, are now sheltered in the Cornerstone Church. In the early years of this nation, churches were exempt from taxation because they didn’t make money worth taxing. Even preachers didn’t make much. The business of religion has become a multi-billion dollar industry today which if taxed, would generate billions in revenue to help erase the deficit and pay off the debt. And many preachers today, are rich and hide their assets under the church’s name. In 1971, the amount of real and personal property owned by U.S. churches was approximately $110 billion. In New York City alone, the amount was $750 million in 1969, $1 billion in 1982, and $3 billion in 1989. It is even more today. We should at least tax huge churches. Not even the Founding Fathers thought churches were that special. And the Christian Right Wing believes that it is the obligation of government to provide funds to Christian churches and only to Christian churches, which is once again, a violation of the Constitution. If churches cannot be taxed, why should the government have to give them even a cent? Even Benjamin Franklin, the Founding Father who said that “a firehouse is more useful than a church” disagrees with this. He said, “When a religion is good, I conceive it will support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not take care to support it so that its professors are obligated to call for help of the civil power, it’s a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad one.”

Prayer days, phrases on currency, and words in a pledge may violate the sanctity of the Constitution but its harmless compared to what the Christian Right Wing wants to do next. Many alleged “men of God” have made many disturbing claims and statements that would not only destroy the foundations of this nation but would also violate their own Biblical text. Christian Fundamentalists have made it their duty to infiltrate Congress, the Supreme Court, and the Presidency, in an effort to declare the United States of America a Christian nation that abides by biblical law instead of Constitutional law.

The first part of their plan is to “re-educate” Americans by rewriting history to favor their cause. That includes creating false quotes attributed to the Founding Fathers. The main perpetrator of this practice, is David Barton, President of his Wallbuilders organization and Glenn Beck pal. Barton has freely admitted to creating quotes and falsely attributing them to Founding Fathers. Here are three made up quotes by Barton.

“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ!”
– false quote attributed to Patrick Henry

“It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”
– false quote attributed to George Washington

“We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves … according to the Ten Commandments of God.”
– false quote attributes to James Madison

In addition to these fake quotes, David Barton and other Christian Right Wing organizations have created fake Supreme Court opinions and further false quotes from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson, all in an effort to prove that there is no such thing as separation of church and state. Now, if there is no such thing as separation of church and state, why do these organizations make up quotes? The way I see it, if you’re going to go to the effort of creating false quotations to destroy something that you claim doesn’t exist, that must mean it does in fact exist, and that the Christian Right Wing is just full of bald faced liars.

So let’s imagine for a moment what it would be like if this nation no longer had separation of church and state. Well, one only has to look around at what has happened recently to understand what the future could hold if the Christian Right Wing were to gain power. First of all, they would declare Christianity the official national religion, tearing up the first amendment in the process. But don’t take my word for it, here are theirs…In the words of the Family Research Council, a Right Wing Christian group:

“While it is true that the United States of America was founded on the sacred principle of religious freedom for all, that liberty was never intended to exalt other religions to the level that Christianity holds in our country’s heritage. Our Founders expected that Christianity — and no other religion — would receive support from the government as long as that support did not violate peoples’ consciences and their right to worship. They would have found utterly incredible the idea that all religions, including paganism, be treated with equal deference.”

More at http://www.addictinginfo.org/2011/07/04/the-wall-between-church-and-state/

[dpogs]

whew!!!


ang isang tunay na alagad ng Diyos ay hindi agarang humihingi ng mga bagay na materyal sa ibang tao o sa isang institusyon na hindi nasasakupan ng kanyang simbahan...

ang PCSO/LGU/NGO ay hindi sakop ng simbahang katoliko...


ang pagbibigay o offerings ay dapat ibinibigay at nagaganap sa loob ng simbahan at hindi kailangang ipangalandakan na ikaw ay nagbigay ng ganitong halaga.

[jerix]

whew!!!


ang isang tunay na alagad ng Diyos ay hindi agarang humihingi ng mga bagay na materyal sa ibang tao o sa isang institusyon na hindi nasasakupan ng kanyang simbahan...

Lalong lalo na kung para sa birthday nya.. hehehe

Sabi ng mga pulitiko na gustong sumipsip, wala daw masama dito..

[alistair]

Indonesian man sentenced to 30 months in prison for making athiest comments on Facebook

Alexander Aan was charged with posting cartoons of the prophet Mohammed to an atheist Facebook group and for making statements including, "If God exists, then why do bad things happen?" The comments Aan made wound up inciting an angry mob to seek him out and severely beat him.

Since then, Aan has been charged and convincted of "disseminating information aimed at inciting religious hatred or hostility." Amnesty International is calling for Aan's release, branding his conviction "a serious setback for freedom of expression in Indonesia, and [a violation of] Indonesia's obligations under international law."

http://mashable.com/2012/06/15/imprisoned-atheist-facebook/

[alistair]

Lawmaker wants religion out of gov't offices

A party-list lawmaker is seeking to ban religious symbols and the holding of religious ceremonies in government offices, citing the provisions on freedom of religion in the Constitution.
Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, in filing a measure titled “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act,” said his bill seeks to empower heads of offices and departments to strictly follow the constitutional provision on the freedom of religion in the exercise of their official functions, and in the use of government facilities and property.

http://ph.sports.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-religion-govt-offices-162241156.html

[barrister]

Lawmaker wants religion out of gov't offices

A party-list lawmaker is seeking to ban religious symbols and the holding of religious ceremonies in government offices, citing the provisions on freedom of religion in the Constitution.
Kabataan party-list Rep. Raymond Palatino, in filing a measure titled “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act,” said his bill seeks to empower heads of offices and departments to strictly follow the constitutional provision on the freedom of religion in the exercise of their official functions, and in the use of government facilities and property.

http://ph.sports.yahoo.com/news/lawmaker-wants-religion-govt-offices-162241156.html

There's something wrong with that news item.  Rep. Raymond Palatino wants "religious freedom," yet seeks a ban, which is the opposite of freedom.

The Bill of Rights states:  "No law shall be made respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."  (1st sentence, Sec. 5, Art. III, Constitution)

The first clause is called the "Establishment Clause," while the second is called the "Free Exercise Clause."

The only way to ensure separation between State and religion is too keep all religion out of government --- "non-establishment."  We got that concept from the Americans.  
 
In advocating a religious symbol/ceremony ban in government offices, Palatino is obviously referring to the Establishment Clause rather than the Free Exercise Clause.  But why does he call his bill the “Religious Freedom in Government Offices Act”?  That doesn't make sense.  

Maybe because it sounds nicer .  Better press and media image for the good congressman, I guess.

[Verbl Kint]

Is he a congressional neophyte?

[gunslinger]

Oo. Bata pa yan. Naabutan ko pa sa UP. I was active for a bit sa student council politics and he was one of the more prominent activist sa campus. I guess he pursued his political career after college if he was able to graduate.

[Klaus Weasley]

Here's an article about it.

[teridon]

second term in Congress.

Nice guy.

[kulapong]

"All Men are created equal" 

[alistair]

^
But some men are more equal than others.