Where's the Separation of Religion and State?

[Faithofchristian]

If the pope were to address congress, would he have to remove his hat?

The Congress rule/law does not apply to an outside people.
The Congress rule/law only pertains to those in Congress.

This rule/law in Congress has been in effect since 1837 and no one's complained about it

until now, Here comes a Muslim woman who seeks to have the rule/law over truned, changed, In Congress, to accommodate her Religious belief's.

Wonder how many people would just stand by and say nothing if it was, Christians, Mormon's, Catholics, JWs, Seventh Day Adventist. That wanted the rule/law changed in Congress because of their Religious belief's ????

 

[Faithofchristian]

Doing my best not to laugh at or ridicule the ignorant. If a woman is Jewish, she can wear her "religious headgear" because certain sects of Judaism have the option of wearing a wig... Um so you'd likely never know.

If you are Christian and know your Bible, women are supposed to cover their hair.

I'd say that forbidding a woman from wearing Hijab is petty and mean spirited. It might be likely that some Muslims would then want Muslim prayer there, and then they'd begin stumping about Halal food in the Cafeteria.

I only came here to contribute to the chaos.

If you knew and understood what it means for women to cover their heads, Which you just showed that you haven't a clue or idea, why Jewish/Christian women are to cover their heads.

So you actually believe that it's an actual headscarf that is to be covered over their heads.

Whether it's a Jewish Christian woman or a Christian woman, the covering of the head, Represents who?
that is to be over the heads of the
Jewish Christian woman snd the Christian woman.

Who does the covering of the head Represents?

 

[Altfish]

The Congress rule/law does not apply to an outside people.
The Congress rule/law only pertains to those in Congress.

This rule/law in Congress has been in effect since 1837 and no one's complained about it

until now, Here comes a Muslim woman who seeks to have the rule/law over truned, changed, In Congress, to accommodate her Religious belief's.

Wonder how many people would just stand by and say nothing if it was, Christians, Mormon's, Catholics, JWs, Seventh Day Adventist. That wanted the rule/law changed in Congress because of their Religious belief's ????

Can Jews wear the Kippah?
Has a nun ever entered Congress?

 

[Faithofchristian]

Can Jews wear the Kippah?
Has a nun ever entered Congress?

The answer to your question, What does the Congress rule/law specify.
There in lays the answer to your question.

You do know, that there has been a Catholic, may not have been a Catholic woman, but a Catholic man. As a Senator.
So even for a Catholic man could not wear a hat that would be of Religious belief.

Do you have any idea or clue who that Catholic man was, here's a clue, He became President and he served in the Navy as a lieutenant and.The boat he was in command of number was PT 109.
Well don't that beat all, Catholic President JFK.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy back in 1960 was elected President of the United States.


So there was a Catholic . But whether it's a woman or man Catholic, The rule/law of Congress stood as is. With no changes.
Until now, just because she's a Muslim, does not mean the rule/law in Congress has to be changed just to accommodate her Religious belief's.
When it wasn't changed to accommodate anyone else.

 

[Altfish]

The answer to your question, What does the Congress rule/law specify.
There in lays the answer to your question.

You do know, that there has been a Catholic, may not have been a Catholic woman, but a Catholic man. As a Senator.
So even for a Catholic man could not wear a hat that would be of Religious belief.

Do you have any idea or clue who that Catholic man was, here's a clue, He became President and he served in the Navy as a lieutenant and.The boat he was in command of number was PT 109.
Well don't that beat all, Catholic President JFK.
John Fitzgerald Kennedy back in 1960 was elected President of the United States.


So there was a Catholic . But whether it's a woman or man Catholic, The rule/law of Congress stood as is. With no changes.
Until now, just because she's a Muslim, does not mean the rule/law in Congress has to be changed just to accommodate her Religious belief's.
When it wasn't changed to accommodate anyone else.

I was fully aware of Kennedy's religion because at the time it was a huge break through, a bit like with Obama.

You ignored my question about the kippah.

 

[Faithofchristian]

I was fully aware of Kennedy's religion because at the time it was a huge break through, a bit like with Obama.

You ignored my question about the kippah.

There are Jewish Christians in Congress, but never went about trying to change the rule/law of Congress.

That now comes a Muslim thinking everything should be changed just to accommodate their Religious belief's. But no one hears gays complaining about Muslims bakery not bakeing cakes for gays. What's up with all that.


So what about that Christian bakery, that didn't want to bake a cake for gays, because it went against their Religious belief's. So what's up with all that.

Take for instance, I'm a Jewish Christian.
So there are Jewish Christians. Why does people think that a Jew can not be a Christian or a Christian can not be Jewish.


Yeah but however Obama was the worse President ever, heck just how worse Obama actually was, he couldn't even help Hillary to get elected, because people and black folks started to see thru his lieing.

That even the black communitys are now seeing how corrupted Democrats are. Always saying their going to do this or that but never done nothing, just talk,talk but does not walk the walk that they talk.

Thats why black folks are walking away from the Democrats Plantation. And many Whites and many other people are walking away from Democrats Plantation. Are doing the same thing.
I myself after 45 years of being a Democrat supporter walk away 15 years ago. No longer could take the Democrats lying, just to get votes.

 

[HonestJoe]

A Christian wants a minor exemption from law to accommodate his religious beliefs. SJWs respond "Follow the law or get out of the business".

A Muslim wants a minor exemption from law to accommodate her religious beliefs. SJWs respond "It's unreasonable to expect her to take off her scarf. We should accommodate her religious beliefs".

The Christian bakers didn’t argue for a minor exemption to a specific law, they argued that they already have a Constitutional exemption from the law, and therefore effectively any law anyone feel forces them to go against their religious beliefs. Ironically, if they’d won their case the Muslim Congresswoman could have used that a precedent.

The Congresswoman isn’t arguing for an exemption at all, she is proposing a change in the law, open for discussion and debate before being correctly assessed by your elected representatives. That is the correct way to approach such questions, even if you disagree with the change being proposed. If the bakers had campaigned for a change in the anti-discrimination laws before they ever faced the challenge for breaking them, I’d have a much more favourable opinion of them (though I’d still disagree with their position).

 

[Altfish]

There are Jewish Christians in Congress, but never went about trying to change the rule/law of Congress.

That now comes a Muslim thinking everything should be changed just to accommodate their Religious belief's. But no one hears gays complaining about Muslims bakery not bakeing cakes for gays. What's up with all that.


So what about that Christian bakery, that didn't want to bake a cake for gays, because it went against their Religious belief's. So what's up with all that.

Take for instance, I'm a Jewish Christian.
So there are Jewish Christians. Why does people think that a Jew can not be a Christian or a Christian can not be Jewish.


Yeah but however Obama was the worse President ever, heck just how worse Obama actually was, he couldn't even help Hillary to get elected, because people and black folks started to see thru his lieing.

That even the black communitys are now seeing how corrupted Democrats are. Always saying their going to do this or that but never done nothing, just talk,talk but does not walk the walk that they talk.

Thats why black folks are walking away from the Democrats Plantation. And many Whites and many other people are walking away from Democrats Plantation. Are doing the same thing.
I myself after 45 years of being a Democrat supporter walk away 15 years ago. No longer could take the Democrats lying, just to get votes.

BUT can Jews wear the kippah - whether there is a rule change or not, if Jews can wear the kippah, then surely it is hardly a leap for a Muslim to wear the headscarf.

I don't think calling the Democrats corrupt when you have the corrupter in chief in power. He is bringing new levels of corruption and decadence to the US. I still find it amazing that religious people support him.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Excellent point. But why don't atheists also recognize that having a Christmas tree on public property also does not mean support, only accommodation?

In what way is a Christmas tree about religious accommodation? Is there a Christian denomination whose members feel, as a point of conscience, that during Advent, they can't enter a building that doesn't have a Christmas tree?

Please tell me more about how a lack of Christmas trees in public buildings would prevent Christians from engaging with their government without violating their consciences.

 

[Faithofchristian]

BUT can Jews wear the kippah - whether there is a rule change or not, if Jews can wear the kippah, then surely it is hardly a leap for a Muslim to wear the headscarf.

I don't think calling the Democrats corrupt when you have the corrupter in chief in power. He is bringing new levels of corruption and decadence to the US. I still find it amazing that religious people support him.

Nope not at all, when there's a rule/law in place in Congress that prohibiting wearing anything of Religious belief's.

At lease Trump has kept every promise that he has made.
Made it's because everything that Democrats supports God is against. Maybe that's why Christians do not support Democrats agend's.

Republicans up hold those things of God's, all the while Democrats stands against the things of God.

What has Trump said or done, that any other human being has said or done.

Before Trump entered the political area, What Trump did as a private citizen was his business and no one else's. But now whatever Trump does now as President, now it becomes the American Patriots right to know.
It seems people think what people does in their personal like is everyone's business.

Let's for say the Government wants to know what you do in your every day life,
So you believe the Government has a right to spy on you. Like listing in on your phone calls, put things in your home, while your not there, to use to spy on you and that's ok with you.
No it's not Ok, the same what Trump did back in his personal life is no one's business but Trump's business.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are Jewish Christians in Congress, but never went about trying to change the rule/law of Congress.

That now comes a Muslim thinking everything should be changed just to accommodate their Religious belief's. But no one hears gays complaining about Muslims bakery not bakeing cakes for gays. What's up with all that.

I thought that Christians considered it a sin to bear false witness.

The old rule (not law) was that wearing headwear needed special permission, which in practice was always granted for religious headwear. The new rule formalizes this practice and gives a blanket exemption for religious headwear.

Why do you insist on misrepresenting this?

 

[Woberts]

At lease Trump has kept every promise that he has made.

Has the Johnson amendment been repealed?

 

[wellwisher]

BUT can Jews wear the kippah - whether there is a rule change or not, if Jews can wear the kippah, then surely it is hardly a leap for a Muslim to wear the headscarf.

I don't think calling the Democrats corrupt when you have the corrupter in chief in power. He is bringing new levels of corruption and decadence to the US. I still find it amazing that religious people support him.

Separation of church and state is easy to understand. All you need to do is too look at Church and State as two teams competing in sports. The State has all the money and all the power. The State has armies and it can make laws, that it can enforce using police and jails. The Church can collect money and make its own rules but it cannot enforce these using armies, police and jails. It has to use an honor system without legal binding contracts. The Church has much weaker hand and is playing the game at a severe disadvantage, relative to the State.

Separation is not about giving the powerful and rich State even more power and money. It is about limiting the power of government, when it play with the Churches, so it is a fair competition. The Church cannot have an army or make laws so it can compete at the level of the State. The other way is the only logical option; make the State play by the rules it gives the churches. For example, tax exemptions for churches is one way to limit the power of the government; IRS cannot be used as weapon, since the Church can't do this back to the State.

The State also needs to be restricted in terms of making laws against Churches since only it has police and jails. The Church cannot do this back to the State. How about having the Churches make laws against lying politicians that can be enforced with jail? A church can grow, but it can't do this with force, with armies or with laws, as can the State. It has to appeal to people in a civilized way without using power, money or force. These rules should also apply to the State when dealing with the Church to make it fair.

The Democrats believe in big Government that interferes in all aspects of life. The Church is off limits, due to the State not being allowed to cheat. However, since the Democrats want to expand big Government, they will cheat and use even dual dress standards, to get extra power from the Churches.

The real problem is many of the people who have power in the State understand they do not need talent to make people do things. Power can be used to implement and force moron things. If you have no power, like the Church, relative to the State, you need extra talents since you can't force anything. The Democrats think they need to cheat to win, since they have so many hacks in positions of power. They cannot play by the harder rules of the Church and win; public appeal without force. When Trump removes regulations is moving the bar to where the Churches are, which is limited control over people using force. This is why the religious like him.

 

[Milton Platt]

The Congress rule/law does not apply to an outside people.
The Congress rule/law only pertains to those in Congress.

This rule/law in Congress has been in effect since 1837 and no one's complained about it

until now, Here comes a Muslim woman who seeks to have the rule/law over truned, changed, In Congress, to accommodate her Religious belief's.

Wonder how many people would just stand by and say nothing if it was, Christians, Mormon's, Catholics, JWs, Seventh Day Adventist. That wanted the rule/law changed in Congress because of their Religious belief's ????

Personally, I think it is silly to have a law about hats. The head covering is not a religious symbol in this instsnce anyway. It does not have any religious symbols on it. On the otherhand, I would disapprove of a law requiring everyone to wear a hat.

 

[Milton Platt]

Separation of church and state is easy to understand. All you need to do is too look at Church and State as two teams competing in sports. The State has all the money and all the power. The State has armies and it can make laws, that it can enforce using police and jails. The Church can collect money and make its own rules but it cannot enforce these using armies, police and jails. It has to use an honor system without legal binding contracts. The Church has much weaker hand and is playing the game at a severe disadvantage, relative to the State.

Separation is not about giving the powerful and rich State even more power and money. It is about limiting the power of government, when it play with the Churches, so it is a fair competition. The Church cannot have an army or make laws so it can compete at the level of the State. The other way is the only logical option; make the State play by the rules it gives the churches. For example, tax exemptions for churches is one way to limit the power of the government; IRS cannot be used as weapon, since the Church can't do this back to the State.

The State also needs to be restricted in terms of making laws against Churches since only it has police and jails. The Church cannot do this back to the State. How about having the Churches make laws against lying politicians that can be enforced with jail? A church can grow, but it can't do this with force, with armies or with laws, as can the State. It has to appeal to people in a civilized way without using power, money or force. These rules should also apply to the State when dealing with the Church to make it fair.

The Democrats believe in big Government that interferes in all aspects of life. The Church is off limits, due to the State not being allowed to cheat. However, since the Democrats want to expand big Government, they will cheat and use even dual dress standards, to get extra power from the Churches.

The real problem is many of the people who have power in the State understand they do not need talent to make people do things. Power can be used to implement and force moron things. If you have no power, like the Church, relative to the State, you need extra talents since you can't force anything. The Democrats think they need to cheat to win, since they have so many hacks in positions of power. They cannot play by the harder rules of the Church and win; public appeal without force. When Trump removes regulations is moving the bar to where the Churches are, which is limited control over people using force. This is why the religious like him.

Separation is not about limiting the power of the government. It is about limiting the power of religions to force those who do not share their beliefs to participate in them.

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

In what way is a Christmas tree about religious accommodation? Is there a Christian denomination whose members feel, as a point of conscience, that during Advent, they can't enter a building that doesn't have a Christmas tree?

Please tell me more about how a lack of Christmas trees in public buildings would prevent Christians from engaging with their government without violating their consciences.

I would prefer that you tell me how having a Christmas tree is not simply accomodating the beliefs of those who believe. No one said anyone would refuse to enter a building that does not have a tree.

 

[Jainarayan]

Wonder how many people would just stand by and say nothing if it was, Christians, Mormon's, Catholics, JWs, Seventh Day Adventist. That wanted the rule/law changed in Congress because of their Religious belief's ????

What do you think those changes would be?

 

[lostwanderingsoul]

Separation of church and state is easy to understand. All you need to do is too look at Church and State as two teams competing in sports. The State has all the money and all the power. The State has armies and it can make laws, that it can enforce using police and jails. The Church can collect money and make its own rules but it cannot enforce these using armies, police and jails. It has to use an honor system without legal binding contracts. The Church has much weaker hand and is playing the game at a severe disadvantage, relative to the State.

Separation is not about giving the powerful and rich State even more power and money. It is about limiting the power of government, when it play with the Churches, so it is a fair competition. The Church cannot have an army or make laws so it can compete at the level of the State. The other way is the only logical option; make the State play by the rules it gives the churches. For example, tax exemptions for churches is one way to limit the power of the government; IRS cannot be used as weapon, since the Church can't do this back to the State.

The State also needs to be restricted in terms of making laws against Churches since only it has police and jails. The Church cannot do this back to the State. How about having the Churches make laws against lying politicians that can be enforced with jail? A church can grow, but it can't do this with force, with armies or with laws, as can the State. It has to appeal to people in a civilized way without using power, money or force. These rules should also apply to the State when dealing with the Church to make it fair.

The Democrats believe in big Government that interferes in all aspects of life. The Church is off limits, due to the State not being allowed to cheat. However, since the Democrats want to expand big Government, they will cheat and use even dual dress standards, to get extra power from the Churches.

The real problem is many of the people who have power in the State understand they do not need talent to make people do things. Power can be used to implement and force moron things. If you have no power, like the Church, relative to the State, you need extra talents since you can't force anything. The Democrats think they need to cheat to win, since they have so many hacks in positions of power. They cannot play by the harder rules of the Church and win; public appeal without force. When Trump removes regulations is moving the bar to where the Churches are, which is limited control over people using force. This is why the religious like him.

It is much simpler than this. Sepataion of church means that there is no official religion for the country. In England the official state religion is the Church of England. The U.S. does not have a state religion. It does not mean that the state cannot pray at meetings or have religious decorations or post the ten commandments on the wall of a court house. All religions are welcome and have the same rights. Atheists want no religious references at all but that is not the purpose of separation of church and state. Only that the state does not force the acceptance of any one religion and gives everyone the right to their own beliefs.

 

[Curious George]

At lease Trump has kept every promise that he has made.

SMH

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I would prefer that you tell me how having a Christmas tree is not simply accomodating the beliefs of those who believe. No one said anyone would refuse to enter a building that does not have a tree.

But that's what accommodation is about: providing the things that allow a person to participate: if a Muslim woman's beliefs require a hijab in public, then if you ban hijabs, you're blocking her from participation.

Accommodation can also be about making participation easier: for instance, if someone's religion requires them to pray at certain times throughout the day, providing a quiet room at these times can help the person balance their participation with the obligations of their religion.

If a Christian doesn't need a Christmas tree in a building to participate in what goes on in the building, then providing a tree has nothing to do with accommodation.

It would be a different story if, for instance, you were required to pray before a Christmas tree at an appointed time every day. If that was the case, then sure: providing a Christmas tree in your workplace or government office would mean you didn't have to go through the time and effort of going to your home or a local church to pray before the tree... but that's not the situation.

The reality is that Christmas trees on government property have nothing to do with accommodating Christians and everything to do with slapping Christian branding on institutions that represent Christians and non-Christians alike.