Sentences with phrase «church and state if»

Athiests would not have to donate to orginizarions that protect the separation of church and state if Christians took your advice and «shut up about their belief system».

Not exact matches

«If he's walking out in a wrinkled suit, hasn't eaten... and he didn't have a good night's sleep, then he's not going to be able to rally everyone in church the next day which means they don't come,» she told Massaschusetts» Bay State Banner.

If the Government was serious about separating church and state they would adopt and endorse another motto!

I think it is very important that we remember that what Christians think should really not matter — what happened to separation of church and state — if anything, this is a state issue and not a federal govt issue... but since it has been brought up, i'll chime in on something — I bet when the Reverend was young and he was told to sit in the back of the bus, he didn't like it and did nt» think it was fair... neither do I...

You are dishonest to yourself if you do not acknowledge that this is possible: You where by your own acount in a stressfull state and you had been raised in a christian family, associated with a fundamentalist church, attended bible college, proffesing christianity for years and looking for answers in your church and faith.

If you want to see a more equitable distribution of income in the United States — tax the churches like the private companies they are organized like and see what happens.

When the U.S. Muslim community sounds out LOUD and CLEAR, without equivocation, and immediately against all forms of terrorism, including all aggressive religious intolerance for human rights, women's right, children, equal protection under the law, the respect for other religions to coexist, the right to free speech, and the ability to separate church from state, IF THEY FINALLY DO THAT AND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold deand CLEAR, without equivocation, and immediately against all forms of terrorism, including all aggressive religious intolerance for human rights, women's right, children, equal protection under the law, the respect for other religions to coexist, the right to free speech, and the ability to separate church from state, IF THEY FINALLY DO THAT AND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold deand immediately against all forms of terrorism, including all aggressive religious intolerance for human rights, women's right, children, equal protection under the law, the respect for other religions to coexist, the right to free speech, and the ability to separate church from state, IF THEY FINALLY DO THAT AND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold deand the ability to separate church from state, IF THEY FINALLY DO THAT AND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold deAND LOUDLY, then we will begin to feel comfortable that they are truly embracing American ideals and here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold deand here to join us, not to oppose, defy, or undermine what we hold dear.

If Romney was willing to condemn the church's racist history and state that it was wrong, I would feel better.

If people knew half of the truth about the Mormon church, not only would they not vote for Romney, they would demand the United States invade Utah and restore some sanity.

If The Christian Right kept there beliefs at home, in the church and up kept separation of church and state, no one would have a problem or care.

If there is a separation with the church and state and they are getting tax breaks, they shouldn't be involved with pushing their own agendas on their congregations.

As the head of Americans United for the Separation of Church and State, he now talks as if the churches do not have any conceivable role in American public life.

If you'll be eating lunch at your desk today, you might enjoy watching one of these videos: A «Dan Rather Reports» feature on» Church and State: Separation Anxieties» includes an hour - long panel discussion with Judge Michael McConnell, Holly Hollman, Prof. Richard....

A candidate isn't going to get anywhere with most conservative evangelicals if they support a woman's right to chose, or if the candidate supports strict separation of church and state, and maybe even opposition to teaching Creationism is going to lose their vote.

When I would teach / preach on «tithing» as a New Testament practice, I would ask the listener (read: giver - to - be) the following question: «If in the New Testament we find no reference to «tithing» let alone a stated percentage to give to the «church», and if it is our understanding (perhaps even our practiceIf in the New Testament we find no reference to «tithing» let alone a stated percentage to give to the «church», and if it is our understanding (perhaps even our practiceif it is our understanding (perhaps even our practice!)

Government action violates the Constitution if it: (1) has no «secular purpose»; (2) has a «primary effect» that «advances religion»; or (3) entails an «excessive entanglement between church and state.»

Moreover, in keeping with the Church's teachings on subsidiarity, free will and real love, it seems most if not all the issues raised in the letter questioning Speaker Boehner's faith would be more efficient, effective, just and respectful of human dignity if they were left to the individual, family, community or state level.

But — as one court recently held — if a student hands another student a piece of paper stating that «if any man is in Christ he is a new creature,» that act violates the principle of separation of church and state.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I thought we had a separation of church and state.

If you ever need statistics and facts on churches, church attendance, megachurches, and numbers of people who attend church in the United States, I posted some demographic sites here.

If he were Prime Minister footballer Joey Barton would call on religion to be «privatised» and for churches to lose state support.

Mitri Raheb, the Palestinian pastor of Bethlehem's Christmas Lutheran Church, fears that if the pro-Israel voices prevail, the «road map» will turn into a «road trap» for Palestinians and for those Israelis committed to a two - state solution.

The concept of once saved always saved takes a bit to get your head around but Gods grace is greater than our sin and greater than our good works it just takes faith in Jesus Christ to recieve Gods grace.In saying that to continue to sin as a christian is like playing with fire you will be burnt.Paul talks of the sexual immorality in corinthian church of the son and father that were sleeping with the same wife they were excommunicated from the church the members were not allowed to even eat with them until they repented.There are consequences for our actions.The other side to this is that if you continue to sin as a christian you are not walking by faith but walking by the flesh and are really backsliding.In the backslidden state you also become powerless and open to attack by satan as long as we walk in the flesh he can influence us to get worse not better.If we are walking in Christ satan may still try to tempt us but we are empowered by the holy spirit and overcome him and our faith increases.Both are saved by grace but one is powerless because of sin versus saved but an overcomer having been set free from sin i think this is what Paul was trying to explain.It is better to be an overcomer than overcome by sin.brentnz

The issue of the Separation of church and State is that the consti «tution, if I am reading it correctly just says that the state can not create a reliState is that the consti «tution, if I am reading it correctly just says that the state can not create a relistate can not create a religion.

If ethics is allowed to be controlled by the laws of any individual state there is a danger of returning to legal positivism, where the laws of a single state are allowed to contradict universal human rights, allowing residents of that state «legally» to carry out actions that are totally unacceptable to the international community and the Catholic Church.

If the churches are to be outspoken in their call for non-violence and an international order, they may expect opposition, especially from those who want to hold on to the full sovereignty of the nation state.

If we can't get you into the Church before you pass, we can after Again thank you for a prosperous America and may I bless these great United States of America.

Not that we should be blaming anybody, but I have said it before, and I will say it again, if anyone is to blame for the state of our country, it is church people not gay people.

due to some crazy religious beliefs out there in the world i.e. marrying off young children and marrying genetic kin, the government can't ever allow religion to dictate marriage policy, so have your ceremonies and deny same - gender couples to marry in your church but bluntly stated your crying and foot - stomping will accomplish nothing, marriage isn't a religious thing it is a civil rights and equality thing, thus if the religious win by denying same gender cuples their civil rights to equal treatment under the law, then don't be surprised when others use those same grounds to deny you your rights under the law.

If you and everyone else truly believed this there would actually be a separation of church and state.

Thus we are faithful only if we use the freedom resulting from institutional separation of church and state in order to develop, preach and teach an integrated, theologically rooted perspective concerned at each point about «truth.»

This question concerns what the Church should do or not do if society or groups are in a state which, on the individual plane, would be considered as invincible and inculpable error.

Portraying religious dissenters as favoring separation was an effective, if disingenuous, rhetorical tactic because it was so widely accepted by Americans that church and state occupied cooperative relationships.

If the church is going to resist violence, it has to emerge from its privatization and have a political voice, one that seeks not to regain state power but to speak truthfully about it.

Of course, we will not gain the rights and benefits (or suffer the losses — I have been part of «religious» weddings conducted by churches for elderly couples who did not want to lose retirement benefits if they had a marriage recognized by the state) of a civil marriage.

If we believe marriage is a sacrament, then all marriages performed outside the church are civil marriages, and however the state defines marriage can have absolutely no bearing on its sanctity as far as the church is concerned

And if you are on youtube, check out the great JFK's words while he was a candidate about church and stateAnd if you are on youtube, check out the great JFK's words while he was a candidate about church and stateand state...

At the risk of violating the separation of church and state, one may hope that the gaze of the EPA will extend beyond the lead in the windows in question, and thus a measure of sanity, if not sanctity, might yet deter our misguided protectors.

If xtians didn't constantly try and chip away at the wall between church and state, there would be no need for the man above to do what he does.

Even my very conservative Roman Catholic brother gave me kudos when I said that if nothing else, as a Baptist, my two cherished beliefs were in soul liberty and seperation of church and state... so, if god was there and I was completly wrong not to believe in him, then at least he knew every step of my journey, and in the end my salvation, or lack of it, was between me and god.

If a law was passed stating that all Catholics were to be imprisoned or executed and churches closed and / or burned down... THEN I would find my religious liberty threatened.

The Gospel is the sword of the Church within its God - given domain, and if the Church is doing its job faithfully, it will be exalted as a prophetic advisor to the State, which will result in the State wielding a just sword within its God - given domain.

If you're going to look at religion (oddly enough there is that separation of church and state that most people keep forgetting) then look at the cult that Romney belongs too.

They suggested three ways in which RFRA might conceivably be interpreted (misinterpreted, really) to create bad consequences: (1) to give a church's opponents legal «standing» (a technical term meaning the right to sue) to challenge the church's tax - exempt status; (2) to allow taxpayers to claim their free exercise rights would be violated if a religiously affiliated organization receives government assistance under a secular program; and, most importantly, (3) to allow pro-abortion plaintiffs to claim a free exercise right to abortion if Roe v. Wade is overruled and states enact anti-abortion laws.

Our forefathers knew the problems that would come if you didn't seperate the two and wisely deemed «seperation of church and state».

If you live in the U.S., Frums, it's always important to keep track of what religious people are claiming, what they are expressing, in a country where we have separation of church and state.

The «absolutists» separationizing of «church and state» may well be but a state proclamation and if so then our nation's Federalistic Republicanism might just supercede our wantonness to mix Christendom with Federalist Policies.

For the 100th time Tarver — if he's supporting separation of church and state — how is that trying to overturn the 1st Amendment?

The «absolutists» separationizing of «church and state» may well be but a state proclamation and if so then our nation's Federalistic Republicanism might just supercede our wantonness to (NOT) mix Christendom with Federalist (REPUBLIC) Policies.

The «absolutists» separationizing of «church and state» may well be but a state proclamation and if so then our nation's Federalistic Republicanism might just supercede our wantonness to (NOT) mix Christendom with Federalist Policies.