Separation of Church and State and Hiring

Beautifull design
Thanks, webmaster.

IF YOU SAY THAT THERE IS NO POLITICS UNDER YOUR RELIGION IT MEANS DEFICIENT GOD. GOD HAS TO PROVIDE COMPLETE SOLUTION THEN ONLY YOU WILL BE CALLING HIM AS ALMIGHTY.

TO KNOW MORE ABOUT ISLAM VISIT WEB:irf.net

Christian Priest bound to think of separation of Church and state, because, Christianity does not provide complete solution to the Humanity, and they have to be depend upon man made laws. And man made laws always sucummbed to the demand of the society. Human Society is divided in to the various cultural also again it did not suffice the requirement, it means different rules for different societies, culture. But, in Islam nothing like that, Islam respect culture, society, nation and practice, but it should not be contradict to the teachings. Islam provide complete solution for the humanity. In order to know more about Islam log on to web:www.irf.int.net

There is a big difference between spirituality and religion. Spirituality doesn’t have any dogma, fiction, or perversion. Spirituality is simply based on everything being connected and part of one body, with One Being behind it all. This is what Jesus A Christ was trying to communicate. It is that simple.

Politics being how various needs and wants are expressed and met or obtained how combined efforts are implemented and what joint ventures are formed and funded. Politics should include the view that we are all one; part of the same body. Religion should not be involved in Politics because it has become perverse in the eyes of the Lord it has become the house of hypocrisy not the House of God.

"separation of church and state does not require a separation of faith and politics"

It certainly does require separation when your faith runs counter to the government of the state. In a Democracy we emphasize the evolution of our beliefs based on changes in adminstration, legislation, science, etc. A faith that does not accept such changes will very quickly come into conflict with the government. In these cases of conflict, the government must tolerate the faith, but it need not defer, and it certainly need not accept illegal behavior.

" Kelly Carter:

"Brent, Aren't you similarly guilty in your use of words?"

No, he's not, actually.

"You say, "If a church wants to promote religion in its social service programs, it should use its own money." Isn't that biased toward a view that a faith-based organization is using its programs to "promote religion" as opposed to, say, provide a social service: providing food, clothing, counseling, emergency housing, etc.? Do some organizations "promote religion?" I'm sure some do. Does every faith-based program offering services to the public attempt to "promote religion?" I think not."

That's not really the issue: Bush's program, and McCain's apparent extension of it, actually *goes out of its way to *allow* faith-based groups to use federal money in part for the purpose of proselytizing and self-promotion.* If that's not the intention, why go out of your way to 'allow' it?

Frankly, if these groups had been willing to be subject to some standards on how they spend that federal money, they could have been applying for it all along.

Obama's plan involves in fact being more open to religious-based groups, but not giving them carte-blanche to use federal money to promote their religion.

Brent Walker is right on target with this point. We genuinely appreciated Rick Warren conducting these interviews, but it is unfortunate that while professing a belief in the separation of church and state, he indicates the desire to take federal funds and discriminate in how they are used. I suspect that is going on regularly in thousands of evangelical churches but that doesn't make it right, ethical, moral, or constitutional!

Brent,
Aren't you similarly guilty in your use of words? You say, "If a church wants to promote religion in its social service programs, it should use its own money." Isn't that biased toward a view that a faith-based organization is using its programs to "promote religion" as opposed to, say, provide a social service: providing food, clothing, counseling, emergency housing, etc.? Do some organizations "promote religion?" I'm sure some do. Does every faith-based program offering services to the public attempt to "promote religion?" I think not.

And regardless of the wording, Barack Obama had no difficulty responding in a manner that was very much in line with your expressed opinion. If Rick Warren's wording had constrained his answer in any way, I think Obama would have challenged him on that.

The Saddleback Church's forum was a refreshing way for the public to learn about our choices in Presidential candidates. Simply wonderful! And it was so nice to have a forum framed in language that Christians can appreciate. I thought it worked well on all levels.