The United States is not a Theocracy

 

 

“We have abundant reason to rejoice that in this Land the light of truth and reason has triumphed over the power of bigotry and superstition and that every person may here worship God according to the dictates of his own heart. In this enlightened Age and in this Land of equal liberty it is our boast, that a man’s religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States.”

– George Washington, letter to the Members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793

The Constitution is supposed to be a shield against Bible-based laws and discrimination against the citizens of the United States.

The United States is not supposed to be ruled by religious laws, we are not a theocracy. We are the Democratic Republic which means that everyone no matter how rich or poor if you own land or not has the right to vote for the people to represent us, not their religious beliefs or special interest. The decision of the US Supreme Court Today is the wrong decision, in that they are voting with their religious beliefs and their party line. Judges should be held to a higher standard in that they should not have a political party, or a public religious stance and see all the aspects of a law before making a decision that will affect all citizens no matter who they are. Religious people talk about that they are the only patriots, but true patriots know that everyone’s voice must be heard and that religion doesn’t control the United State. Religion must remain and be separate from State for everyone to be free. Today the United States lost a lot of freedom from the prejudicial and closed-minded Supreme Court

Wherever you search in our principal architects' message about religion in this new country they shaped, while they had a faith in God, they didn't have Christianity as the religion of noticeable quality. They realize that any time you consolidate government and religion it prompts "fanaticism and odd notion." All one needs to do is take a gander at any country that has combined the two and what you will see is bigotry and lost opportunities. Then take a gander at nations where they are, by regulation, isolated and you will see opportunity.

This nation was not established as a Christian country. It was established on faith in God. That god is a similar god for Jews, Muslims, Hindus, Christians, Buddhists, and some other god you need to "love as per the directs of his own heart." So says George Washington. And you should simply find it to confirm it. The Constitution is a common record without any references at all to God, the Bible, or Christianity. For sure, there is no notice of religion by any stretch of the imagination, besides in cases restricting the foundation of a state religion. The First Amendment to the Constitution starts with the accompanying words: "Congress will make no regulation regarding a foundation of religion or forbidding the free activity thereof . . . " Religious supporters underscore the last option - the opportunity of religion - while minimizing or disregarding through and through the previous - the disallowance of state-supported strict movement.

The division of chapel and state is among the most getting through standards of our arrangement of government. It is the basic contrast between a majority rules system, which allows a majority of perspectives, from a religious government, which implements the prevailing religion. One need just gander at the prejudice and mistreatment in nations where state religions are forced to see the malicious impacts of intermixing government and religion. Having as of late escaped strict oppression themselves, the creators of the U.S. Constitution took incredible measures to isolate matters of the public authority from individual strict convictions. While large numbers of the Founding Fathers themselves pronounced faith in God, they understood that laying out a compelling and enduring majority rules government was a higher priority than advancing a specific strict perspective.

It is one thing for strict backers to uninhibitedly express their perspectives; it is their naturally safeguarded right to do as such. It is something else to utilize the Constitution to help state-supported strict exercises (e.g., school petition, public posting of the Ten Commandments, and so forth.). This is a bending of the First Amendment and the more extensive standards of resilience and correspondence on which it is based.

God Is So Not Pro-Life - • A pregnant woman who is injured and aborts the fetus warrants financial compensation only (to her husband), suggesting that the fetus is property, not a person (Exodus 21:22-25).  The gruesome priestly purity test to which a wife accused of adultery must submit will cause her to abort the fetus if she is guilty, indicating that the fetus does not possess a right to life (Numbers 5:11-31). God enumerated his punishments for disobedience, including "cursed shall be the fruit of your womb" and "you will eat the fruit of your womb," directly contradicting sanctity-of-life claims (Deuteronomy 28:18.