Where's the Separation of Religion and State?

[Faithofchristian]

Not sure if you've noticed or not, but all kinds of members of Congress where jewelry around their necks in the shape of a crucifix. And this has been happening for years.
I'm sure you are outraged, right? Crucifixes don't belong in Congress, right?

Hate to tell you, but the rule/law of Congress strongly prohibiting, no hat's or anything covering the head and face.
But nothing said about wearing jewelry or Crucifixes around the neck, which do not cover the head or face.

 

[Faithofchristian]

Are you sure you've read the Bible?

Bible Gateway passage: 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 - King James Version

Have you any idea or clue what 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 is talking about.

This is not about a woman covering her head with a scarf or a hat.

Have you any idea or clue what
1 Corinthians 11:10, is talking about

1 Corinthians 11:10---"10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels"

What does this mean, the woman to have power on her head, who is that power?

Who are the angels that the woman is to have power on her head because of the angels. Who's the angels ?

 

[Faithofchristian]

You didn't ask for opinions, at all. You asked for Bible versus. Why, I cannot imagine.


It's written in that article. The one you did not read.

That's because I didn't ask you, for an article. I ask you can you give the book and chapter and verses where it is written in the bible, to what your saying.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Hate to tell you, but the rule/law of Congress strongly prohibiting, no hat's or anything covering the head and face.

It's been pointed out several times now that your description of what's happening is wrong. Why do you insist on misrepresenting the truth?

 

[Faithofchristian]

It's been pointed out several times now that your description of what's happening is wrong. Why do you insist on misrepresenting the truth?

Because what people say is wrong.

The rule/law of Congress, strictly points out no hat's to be worn in the house of Congress.
That's why I keep insisting.

Nothing said about jewelry or Crucifixes around the necks. Only hats.

 

[wandering peacefully]

Very true. Why are Christians allowed to wear crosses? That is a very religious symbol. Why not ban them and Jewish stars of David, etc.? The reason is that by allowing them the government is not pronoting any one religion. And that is the true purpose of separation of church and state. No one is required to accept an official government religion. Just allowing religious symbols does not promote one religion over another. Just like seeing a Christmas tree does not force anyone to accept any religious belief.

I agree. I wonder how people would feel about having a Muslim prayer added to the Chistian prayer at the opening of congressional sessions? And a Jewish prayer, and every other religion' represented by the members having a prayer. To me that is not separation and sure appears to promote and endorse and favor Christians over all other religions.

 

[HonestJoe]

The rule/law of Congress, strictly points out no hat's to be worn in the house of Congress.
That's why I keep insisting.

Nobody has claim that it isn’t. The Congresswoman has calmly and properly proposed that rule be changed. That proposal is open for discussion and would presumably go to a vote in Congress for any change to be implemented. Why are you objecting to the correct democratic process?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Nobody has claim that it isn’t. The Congresswoman has calmly and properly proposed that rule be changed. That proposal is open for discussion and would presumably go to a vote in Congress for any change to be implemented. Why are you objecting to the correct democratic process?

Seeing how you came in on the conversation a little late of not knowing what's been said.

Why are people objecting maybe it's because no one else has object to the rule/law of Congress and the rule/law has been in effect since 1837 and no one's complained about it, Until now,
And there's been many people of other Religious belief's that hasn't said a thing about it.
Seeing how muslims have said death to America and destroyed New York City twin towers, Taken Americans as hostages and saying how their Sharia law over rides the Constitution of the United States. With all of this makes people in America wonder what Muslims are really up to.
So why should Americans trust Muslims, When Muslims have given every reason not to trust them.

 

[HonestJoe]

Why are people objecting maybe it's because no one else has object to the rule/law of Congress and the rule/law has been in effect since 1837 and no one's complained about it, Until now,

So you’re arguing that any long established rule or law that you’re not aware of anyone objecting to should never be changed under any circumstances? Isn’t Christianity based on exactly that?

So why should Americans trust Muslims, When Muslims have given every reason not to trust them

I already asked you this; Are you saying that every single Muslim in the entire world thinks in the same way? That we should therefore treat them all the same and exclusively based on the worst extremes? Should we treat Christians on the same basis?

 

[Faithofchristian]

So you’re arguing that any long established rule or law that you’re not aware of anyone objecting to should never be changed under any circumstances? Isn’t Christianity based on exactly that?

I already asked you this; Are you saying that every single Muslim in the entire world thinks in the same way? That we should therefore treat them all the same and exclusively based on the worst extremes? Should we treat Christians on the same basis?

When Muslims comes into a country and thinks that everything should be changed just to accommodate them, Then yes.
Even if it's Christians who think everything should changed just to accommodate them.
But seeing how America was already established on Christian values.

 

[HonestJoe]

When Muslims comes into a country and thinks that everything should be changed just to accommodate them, Then yes.

That isn’t what you said. You referenced acts of Islamist terrorism and extremism as a direct reason not to consider this Congresswoman’s proposal because she is Muslim. If you object is to someone coming in and proposing a changing an established rule, the fact she is Muslim should be irrelevant and the terrorist acts of other Muslims are certainly irrelevant.

 

[Faithofchristian]

That isn’t what you said. You referenced acts of Islamist terrorism and extremism as a direct reason not to consider this Congresswoman’s proposal because she is Muslim. If you object is to someone coming in and proposing a changing an established rule, the fact she is Muslim should be irrelevant and the terrorist acts of other Muslims are certainly irrelevant.

That's right, she's a muslim, that now wants to changed things just to accommodate her Religious belief's.

When no one else did.

If had the rule/law of Congress had been changed, then it would read as it does.

Therefore the rule/law of Congress stands as is, since it first was established in 1837.
Without any changes or additions to it over the years.

 

[HonestJoe]

That's right, she's a muslim, that now wants to changed things just to accommodate her Religious belief's.

She’d like one minor thing changed to accommodate her (and other people’s) beliefs.

When no one else did.

Rubbish. Loads of people propose (or demand) changes to accommodate their beliefs all the time in all sorts of different contexts. Formal and informal accommodations and exemptions are given to religious people all the time. You can’t object to her proposal on that basis without objecting to every other proposal, demand or expectation, including all the ones from Christians.

My personal preference is to address each request on its individual merits, regardless of who is asking. That’s how things work in rational and practical secular environments.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

America was already established on Christian values.

The US constitution was not based on Christian values, but on secular humanist values such as democracy, limited / divided / transparent government, guaranteed personal rights, and church-state separation - none of which are Christian values, but all of which are secular humanist values.

 

[Faithofchristian]

The US constitution was not based on Christian values, but on secular humanist values such as democracy, limited / divided / transparent government, guaranteed personal rights, and church-state separation - none of which are Christian values, but all of which are secular humanist values.

I didn't say anything about the Constitution in my post #190 ---> ( When Muslims comes into a country and thinks that everything should be changed just to accommodate them, Then yes.
Even if it's Christians who think everything should be changed just to accommodate them.
But seeing how America was already established on Christian values)

So in all of that, I never made any mentioning of the Constitution.

Only that the United States was founded on Christian values.
That's why the laws of the United States are base on Gods laws.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Because what people say is wrong.

The rule/law of Congress, strictly points out no hat's to be worn in the house of Congress.
That's why I keep insisting.

Nothing said about jewelry or Crucifixes around the necks. Only hats.

And you think a hijab is a hat?

And you think that the Procedures of the House don't allow for their own amendment?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Have you any idea or clue what 1 Corinthians 11:4-13 is talking about.

This is not about a woman covering her head with a scarf or a hat.

Have you any idea or clue what
1 Corinthians 11:10, is talking about

1 Corinthians 11:10---"10 For this cause ought the woman to have power on her head because of the angels"

What does this mean, the woman to have power on her head, who is that power?

Who are the angels that the woman is to have power on her head because of the angels. Who's the angels ?

Yeah I do. It's talking about how a woman should cover her head while praying or prophecying.
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

 

[Faithofchristian]

And you think a hijab is a hat?

And you think that the Procedures of the House don't allow for their own amendment?

Then maybe you should explain that to the Congress Muslim woman, who seeks to change the rule/law in Congress.

Seems shes the one that can not tell the difference between a hat and the hijab

 

[SkepticThinker]

I didn't say anything about the Constitution in my post #190 ---> ( When Muslims comes into a country and thinks that everything should be changed just to accommodate them, Then yes.
Even if it's Christians who think everything should be changed just to accommodate them.
But seeing how America was already established on Christian values)

So in all of that, I never made any mentioning of the Constitution.

Only that the United States was founded on Christian values.
That's why the laws of the United States are base on Gods laws.

What? Which laws do you think are based on "Gods laws?"

 

[Faithofchristian]

Yeah I do. It's talking about how a woman should cover her head while praying or prophecying.
"Judge in yourselves: is it comely that a woman pray unto God uncovered?"

What is that, that a woman is to cover their head with?