• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Christian Persecution

Status
Not open for further replies.

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
No, what you're trying to do is ruin the credibility of the principles of religious freedom I have established here. You're also accusing me of being Communist simply because the Communist party happens to mention the separation of church and state. The KKK mentions the Bible in their literature, but that doesn't mean that all Christians are racists. It means that a racist organization happens to use the Christian Bible to prove their assertions.

Your attempt to make these principles look bad isn't going to work.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

CardinalBaseball

Cardinals > Cubs
Sep 22, 2005
915
15
St. Louis, MO
Visit site
✟1,208.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
It is up to you to determine what you believe, because no matter what anyone tells you or shows you, you won't believe it anyway.

It is also up to you to determine what you believe. And you don't seem to be willing to believe us either. Prayer and the Bible were never banned. Mandatory prayer was banned. I can bring in my Bible to school to read during our downtime and I cannot get in trouble for it. I can pray during school and, again, I will not be sent to the principle for breaking a school rule.
 
Upvote 0

CardinalBaseball

Cardinals > Cubs
Sep 22, 2005
915
15
St. Louis, MO
Visit site
✟1,208.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
I just found out myself that this is all part of the communist manifesto! Very interesting!

http://www.uhuh.com/nwo/communism/comgoals.htm
You're right. Also, just incase you didn't know, there is liberal conspiracy to control the media. I just thought I'd let you in on a little secret the liberals don't want you to know. Tell your friends.

But seriously. . .come on.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ringo84
Upvote 0

carrymeaway06

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2006
670
46
Around here
Visit site
✟23,545.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Unfortunately something was missed within seperation.... the whole "seperation of church and state" basically means there can be no control of religion by the government and likewise reversed; no control of the government by religion. However, this country WAS founded on principles and morals of the Christian life. Example... does anyone REALLY see anything wrong with the ten commandments in a federal building??? Seriously, it's a list of ten good laws. Big deal if they were aking out of the Bible. Do YOU see anything wrong with "Thou Shalt no kill - thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife - " and so on???? I don't. C'mon.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Unfortunately something was missed within seperation.... the whole "seperation of church and state" basically means there can be no control of religion by the government and likewise reversed; no control of the government by religion. However, this country WAS founded on principles and morals of the Christian life. Example... does anyone REALLY see anything wrong with the ten commandments in a federal building??? Seriously, it's a list of ten good laws. Big deal if they were aking out of the Bible. Do YOU see anything wrong with "Thou Shalt no kill - thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife - " and so on???? I don't. C'mon.
the whole "seperation of church and state" basically means there can be no control of religion by the government and likewise reversed; no control of the government by religion.

YES! Thank you, CarryMeAway!

Example... does anyone REALLY see anything wrong with the ten commandments in a federal building??? Seriously, it's a list of ten good laws. Big deal if they were aking out of the Bible. Do YOU see anything wrong with "Thou Shalt no kill - thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife - " and so on???? I don't. C'mon.

The problem stems from the fact that the Ten Commandments is a religious monument. And one of the laws does say, "Thou shalt have no gods before me". The govermment can't enforce that. And it shouldn't.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

carrymeaway06

Well-Known Member
Sep 14, 2006
670
46
Around here
Visit site
✟23,545.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
YES! Thank you, CarryMeAway!

:D
The problem stems from the fact that the Ten Commandments is a religious monument. And one of the laws does say, "Thou shalt have no gods before me". The govermment can't enforce that. And it shouldn't.
Ringo

America has become too tolerant... for example, if you didn't believe in God, you could voluntarily omit "one nation under God" from the pledge. No one made a big deal of it.

And, technically, anyone can bend that specific commandment to fit one's own beliefs. "no other gods before me" could essentially... mean anything. From a secular stand point. No one complains about the sistine chapel. Right? Why on earth now start complaining about monuments that have stood 200 years? Why is everyone so concerned about the motto on our money??? Yet they ALL spend the money and WANT the money???.
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
:D


America has become too tolerant... for example, if you didn't believe in God, you could voluntarily omit "one nation under God" from the pledge. No one made a big deal of it.

And, technically, anyone can bend that specific commandment to fit one's own beliefs. "no other gods before me" could essentially... mean anything. From a secular stand point. No one complains about the sistine chapel. Right? Why on earth now start complaining about monuments that have stood 200 years? Why is everyone so concerned about the motto on our money??? Yet they ALL spend the money and WANT the money???.
And, technically, anyone can bend that specific commandment to fit one's own beliefs. "no other gods before me" could essentially... mean anything. From a secular stand point. No one complains about the sistine chapel. Right? Why on earth now start complaining about monuments that have stood 200 years? Why is everyone so concerned about the motto on our money??? Yet they ALL spend the money and WANT the money???.

Mm... yeah, but that's hard to do when you consider the fact that the Ten Commandments are from the Bible.

I understand what you're saying, though. It's just that erecting that monument seemed like endorsement of a particular religious view.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Voegelin

Reactionary
Aug 18, 2003
20,145
1,430
Connecticut
✟26,726.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Republican
Unfortunately something was missed within seperation.... the whole "seperation of church and state" basically means there can be no control of religion by the government and likewise reversed; no control of the government by religion. .

Most of the states had established religions. The first Speaker of the House of Representatives was a minister. For over 6 decades, Sunday services were held in House. Supreme Court had services too. So did Jefferson's Treasury Department.

The history is fascinating and quite convoluted. The ACLU/Leo Pfeffer absolutist stance on separation did not exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. There were conflicts, one denomination trying to shut up the other but they stayed in the political arena. Only after WWII did the courts start issuing a stream of diktats regarding who could do or say what when and where.

In the early Republic, the Federalists in New England were for established churches and had them. Baptists in Connecticut paid taxes to support Congregational and Unitarian churches. Jefferson's Republicans (who included Baptists) hated the Federalists and vice versa.

Federalist ministers called Jefferson, an admitted Unitarian, an atheist and a deist. Some Baptists (many of whom probably thought he was a deist and worse) defended him--often by admitting Jefferson was a heretic, but a Christian heretic, not a reprobate.

A strange alliance. One designed to break the political power of the old churches in New England.

One curious event happened in 1803 regarding other Jefferson supporters. The Presbyterian minister David Austin was asked to leave his NJ congregation because they thought, due to his millennial dreams, he was mentally off. He thought if Jews could be lured to lived in Washington DC, Christ would return. Jefferson must have liked Austin as he funded his ministry. Anyways, in 1803, Austin and his Republicans went to the heart of Congregational Connecticut--New Haven--and held a huge rally for Jefferson. Fireworks at East Rock (which overlooks then Neo-Calvinist Yale University under the great Timothy Dwight) and speeches on how Jefferson's re-election would mean a "New Jerusalem" would arise in America.

All the while they were doing that, they were proclaiming that the old line Federalist clergy in Connecticut stay out of politics.

What is difference today are the courts. The Federalists the Jeffersonian Republican-Democrats and the Whigs worked things out. Massachussetts ended its tax to support churches in the 1830s. The Federalists ceased to exist (but not without almost pulling New England out of the Union in 1814). Nativist parties emerged which saw Catholics, not Federalist clergy as the threat and tried to shut them up. Pluralism, in a sense, worked. No one got all they wanted but everyone had their say.

What we see today is different. It is judicial tyranny.

See Library of Congress: THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
Most of the states had established religions. The first Speaker of the House of Representatives was a minister. For over 6 decades, Sunday services were held in House. Supreme Court had services too. So did Jefferson's Treasury Department.

The history is fascinating and quite convoluted. The ACLU/Leo Pfeffer absolutist stance on separation did not exist in the 18th and 19th centuries. There were conflicts, one denomination trying to shut up the other but they stayed in the political arena. Only after WWII did the courts start issuing a stream of diktats regarding who could do or say what when and where.

In the early Republic, the Federalists in New England were for established churches and had them. Baptists in Connecticut paid taxes to support Congregational and Unitarian churches. Jefferson's Republicans (who included Baptists) hated the Federalists and vice versa.

Federalist ministers called Jefferson, an admitted Unitarian, an atheist and a deist. Some Baptists (many of whom probably thought he was a deist and worse) defended him--often by admitting Jefferson was a heretic, but a Christian heretic, not a reprobate.

A strange alliance. One designed to break the political power of the old churches in New England.

One curious event happened in 1803 regarding other Jefferson supporters. The Presbyterian minister David Austin was asked to leave his NJ congregation because they thought, due to his millennial dreams, he was mentally off. He thought if Jews could be lured to lived in Washington DC, Christ would return. Jefferson must have liked Austin as he funded his ministry. Anyways, in 1803, Austin and his Republicans went to the heart of Congregational Connecticut--New Haven--and held a huge rally for Jefferson. Fireworks at East Rock (which overlooks then Neo-Calvinist Yale University under the great Timothy Dwight) and speeches on how Jefferson's re-election would mean a "New Jerusalem" would arise in America.

All the while they were doing that, they were proclaiming that the old line Federalist clergy in Connecticut stay out of politics.

What is difference today are the courts. The Federalists the Jeffersonian Republican-Democrats and the Whigs worked things out. Massachussetts ended its tax to support churches in the 1830s. The Federalists ceased to exist (but not without almost pulling New England out of the Union in 1814). Nativist parties emerged which saw Catholics, not Federalist clergy as the threat and tried to shut them up. Pluralism, in a sense, worked. No one got all they wanted but everyone had their say.

What we see today is different. It is judicial tyranny.

See Library of Congress: THE STATE BECOMES THE CHURCH:
JEFFERSON AND MADISON
Most of the states had established religions. The first Speaker of the House of Representatives was a minister. For over 6 decades, Sunday services were held in House. Supreme Court had services too. So did Jefferson's Treasury Department.

In the early Republic, the Federalists in New England were for established churches and had them. Baptists in Connecticut paid taxes to support Congregational and Unitarian churches. Jefferson's Republicans (who included Baptists) hated the Federalists and vice versa.


Just because it's historical doesn't make it right.

Only after WWII did the courts start issuing a stream of diktats regarding who could do or say what when and where.


There are limits to religious freedom just as there are limits to every other kind of freedom.

What we see today is different. It is judicial tyranny.


No, what's tyranny is one religion dominating all the others in government. Or one doctrinal opinion or set of opinions being officially "sanctioned" by the government. The 1962 court decision wasn't tyranny - it was common sense. The decision to remove the Ten Commandments in 2003 (?) wasn't either.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Maynard Keenan

Well-Known Member
Aug 21, 2004
8,470
789
38
Louisville, KY
✟27,585.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Democrat
The complete text of the first amendment:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

Is it judicial tyrrany that all of these protections were entended to the states? Is it tyrrany that the state of Kentucky can't lock me up for expressing my political views? If I attend a protest, should the state be able to lock me up? Should the state be able to BAN my religion (Catholicism)? Because either the first amendment applies to the states or it does not. A collection of later amendments and judicial decisions set the precedent that all protections afforded by the constitution apply to the states as well as the federal government. I quite like it that my state can't lock me up for my speech or my religion.
 
Upvote 0

Sennaria

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
1,495
198
63
Hill Country, Texas
✟25,122.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It is also up to you to determine what you believe. And you don't seem to be willing to believe us either. Prayer and the Bible were never banned. Mandatory prayer was banned. I can bring in my Bible to school to read during our downtime and I cannot get in trouble for it. I can pray during school and, again, I will not be sent to the principle for breaking a school rule.

What I am saying is yes they officially have not been banned. What I am saying is that yes, I know of kids who have tried to have prayer who have taken their Bibles to school and have been told to leave them at home.

Tell them.

Sennaria
 
Upvote 0

Sennaria

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
1,495
198
63
Hill Country, Texas
✟25,122.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
It's interesting that now "Separation of church and state" is to protect the state from the church, when initially it was to protect the church from the state.

The Fallacy of Separation Of Church And State

For too many years the politicians and courts of this country have been able to perpetrate the false idea of "separation of church and state". They claim that they founding fathers of this nation designed this to be a basis for our form of government. Nothing could be further from the truth. They did intend to keep government out of the religious arena by disallowing a national religion such as existed in England with the Church of England; however the intent was never to keep the church out of government. Please consider my statement in light of these quotations from a few people you may have heard of:


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Benjamin Franklin at the Constitutional Convention June 28, 1787:

"I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proof I see of the truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that 'except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it.' I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without this concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages. And what is worse, mankind may hereafter from this unfortunate instance, despair of establishing Government by human wisdom and leave it to chance, war and conquest. I therefore beg leave to move - that henceforth prayers imploring the audience of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service."

Thomas Jefferson:

"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated but with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just, that His justice cannot sleep forever."

Alexis de Tocqueville:

"Religion in America ... must nevertheless be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country ... I do not know whether all the Americans have a sincere faith in their religion, for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This position is not peculiar to a class of citizens or to a party, but it belongs to the whole nation, and to every rank of society ... Christianity, therefore, reigns without any obstacle, by universal consent."

"Upon my arrival in the United States, th religious aspects of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more did I perceive the great political consequences resulting from this state of things, to which I was unaccustomed. In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom pursuing courses diametrically opposed to each other; but in America I found that they were truly united, and that they reigned in common over the same country."

US Supreme Court - Church of the Holy Trinity vs US 1892:

"This is a religious people. This is historically true. From the discovery of this continent to the present hour, there is a single voice making this affirmation ..... These are not individual sayings, declarations of private persons: they are organic utterances, they speak the voice of the entire people .... These, and many other matters which might be noticed, add a volume of unofficial declarations to the mass of organic utterances that this is a Christian nation."

North Carolina Constitution 1876

"No person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust in the civil department within this State."

John Jay - First Chief Justice US Supreme Court:

"Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty as well as the privilege of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers."

George Washington - Inaugural Speech to Congress April 30, 1789:

"No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency ... We ought to be no less persuaded that the propitious smiles of Heaven can never be expected on a Nation that disregards the eternal rules of order and right which Heaven itself has ordained."

Abraham Lincoln:

"It is the duty of nations as well as men to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions in humble sorrow yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon, and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history: that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord."

"All the good from the Saviour of the World is communicated through this Book; but for the Book we could not know right from wrong. All the things desirable to man are contained in it."

Woodrow Wilson:

"The Bible ... is the one supreme source of revelation of the meaning of life, the nature of God and spiritual nature and need of men. It is the only guide of life which really leads the spirit in the way of peace and salvation ... America was born a Christian nation. America was born to exemplify that devotion to the elements of righteousness which are derived from the revelations of the Holy Scripture."

John Adams:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion ... Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."

Judge Joseph Story - 19th Century Supreme Court Justice:

"The real object of the First Amendment was not to countenance, much less to advance, Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity, but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment which would give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government."

"We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment [in the First Amendment] to an indifference to religion in general, and especially to Christianity, which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution .... Probably, at the time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the Amendments to it ... the general, if not the universal, sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State."

House Judiciary Report in 1854:

"Christianity must be considered as the foundation upon which the whole structure rests. Laws will not have not permanence or power without the sanction of religious sentiment, without a firm belief that there is a Power above us that will reward our virtues and punish our vices. In this age there will be no substitute for Christianity: that, in its general principles, is the great conservative element on which we must rely for the purity and permanence of free institutions. That was the religion of the founders of the Republic, and they expected it to remain the religion of their descendants. There is a great and very prevalent error on this subject in the opinion that those who organized this Government did not legislate on religion."

"The great vital and conservative element in our system is the belief of our people in the pure doctrines and divine truths of the gospel of Jesus Christ."

Patrick Henry:

"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason people of other faiths have been afforded asylums, prosperity and freedom of worship here."

Supreme Court of Pennsylvania - Updegraph vs The Commonwealth 1824:

"No free government now exists in the world unless where Christianity is acknowledged and is the religion of the country ... Its foundations are broad and strong, and deep .... It is the purest system of morality, the firmest auxiliary, and the only stable support of all human laws."

"Christianity, general Christianity, is and always has been a part of the common law ... Thus this wise legislature framed this great body of laws, for a Christian country and Christian people ... No society can tolerate a willful and despiteful attempt to subvert its religion, no more than it would to break down it laws - a general, malicious and deliberate attempt to overthrow Christianity, general Christianity."

Calvin Coolidge:

"The foundations of our society and our government rest so much on the teachings of the Bible that it would be difficult to support them if the faith in their teachings would cease to be practically universal in our country."

Continental Congress - May 16, 1776:

"The Congress ... desirous ... to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God's superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely ... on His aid and direction ... Do earnestly recommend ... a day of humiliation, fasting and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and ammendment of life ... and through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain His pardon and forgiveness."

Noah Webster:

"When you become entitled to exercise the right of voting for public officers' let it be impressed upon your mind that God commands you to choose for rulers just men who will rule in the fear of God. The preservation of a republican government depends upon the faithful discharge of this duty; if the citizens neglect their duty and place unprincipled men in office, the government will soon be corrupted ... If a republican government fails ... it must be because the citizens neglect the divine commands, and elect bad men to make and administer the laws."

Charles Finney - 19th Century Minister and Lawyer:

"The Church must take right ground in regard to politics ... The time has come that Christians must vote for honest men, and take consistent ground in politics or the Lord will curse them ... God cannot sustain this free and blessed country, which we love and pray for, unless the Church will take the right ground. Politics are a part of religion, in such a country as this, and Christians must do their duty to their country as a part of their duty to God."



The Fallacy of Separation of Church and State
Separation of Church and state is a modern invention by liberals that has no basis in constitutional law. The constitution guarantees rather “Freedom of Religion” in the First Amendment. The purpose of it was to protect religion from the state, not the other way around. There are many historical and current quotes that verify this. Even current Supreme Court Chief Justice William Rehnquist in an official opinion wrote this: “The ‘wall of separation between church and State’ is a metaphor based on bad history, a metaphor which has proved useless as a guide to judging. It should be frankly and explicitly abandoned.”(Wallace v. Jaffree, 472 U.S. 38, 106). It is impossible to separate the realities that religion addresses from life because these determine what our laws and cultural morals will be.

Bill of Rights

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Every Christmas the cries of 'you're pushing your religion on me!' seem to get louder and louder. People cite something called the separation of church and state as if that was an absolute legal term. This always gets me peeved.

It's clear to me from the language of the 1st Amendment to the Bill of Rights that our Founding Fathers were concerned with the establishment of a state religion, such as the one England had. Remember only 200 years prior, Henry VIII broke from Rome and established the Church of England. Collected money goes to supporting the Church of England, and it certainly doesn't necessarily lend itself to being the bastion of freedom that Jefferson and others were trying to establish here in America, as by the very nature of having a 'state religion' you are exclusionary. Hence, the 1st Amendment warned against this, lest good people be somehow excluded from the American dream.

The fact of the matter is, regardless of how religious the FF's were, (and this was to varying degrees), they recognized the importance of religion and how our rights and freedoms are granted not based on the capricious whims of man but by divine will of *a* God. They didn't specify whether that God took on the form of a specific religion, realizing that all major religions share a core set of values and that religion played a huge part in setting our social mores. Having a set of moral standards is important to society, as a society that is devoid of such things would rapidly play to our more base instincts and devolve to chaos.

Our FF's started our country, created the Constitution and like it or not, they recognized these things. These upstarts who now try to amend the Bill of Rights by interpretation have no leg to stand on. It's absurd to reread the 1st Amendment and claim it extends to any religion (but especially Christianity), and that it encompasses anything said, done or displayed that is reminiscent of that religion. There is no threat to a freedom here, that these thing should be shoved aside when they played such an important role in our struggle for freedom and the establishment of America! If our FF's didn't believe that it was a God that gave us the right to be free of oppression and be self-deterministic we would never have rebelled against the Crown. To demote any expression of religion to being a second class citizen is disrespectful and smacks of ignorance.

Just some food for thought

Off to work!
Discuss on.

Sennaria
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
It's interesting that now "Separation of church and state" is to protect the state from the church, when initially it was to protect the church from the state.


It's supposed to be both for protecting the state from the church and the church from the state.

The Fallacy of Separation Of Church And State

For too many years the politicians and courts of this country have been able to perpetrate the false idea of "separation of church and state".


It's not a fallacy. It's the way our country works. The church as a whole (not individual Christians but the institution) is not supposed to interfere with the government and the state is not supposed to interfere with the church. That's a fact.

They did intend to keep government out of the religious arena by disallowing a national religion such as existed in England with the Church of England; however the intent was never to keep the church out of government.


Ah, so here's the major sticking point. To you, taking down Ten Commandments monuments and banning mandatory school prayer is keeping religion out of government.

Religious people have a right to their beliefs under the Constitution. They also have the right to vote, to run for office and to affect change in the government through legislation. Monuments of the Ten Commandments, however, do not fall in that category.

Religion should be kept out of government so long as a national religion is established. In other words, the government isn't supposed to endorse one religion and/or set(s) of religious beliefs/doctrines over another. In our melting-pot of a country, it's just too problematic. But neither is the government supposed to be used to deny people the right to their beliefs or free exercise of religion.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Sennaria

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
1,495
198
63
Hill Country, Texas
✟25,122.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[/size][/color][/font]

It's supposed to be both for protecting the state from the church and the church from the state.

[/size][/color][/font]

No you are wrong, and if you would study the founding fathers and the founding of the country, that is not how the country was to be run nor was it how it was set up. They say so themselves, I don't need to speak for them. The quotes from them speak for themselves. It was only to be to keep the government out of religion.

I am not speaking of now, my whole point in this is that this is how the country has changed. It may be how in is being run now, but it is not the intent of the country. Now, people have so twisted the separation that it means both ways, this is not what it was initially meant to do. Thus, proving more how legislation and rulings that are meant to do one thing, down the road can get twisted and turned to do way other than their ORIGINAL intent.



Ah, so here's the major sticking point. To you, taking down Ten Commandments monuments and banning mandatory school prayer is keeping religion out of government.

See the following


Religious people have a right to their beliefs under the Constitution. They also have the right to vote, to run for office and to affect change in the government through legislation. Monuments of the Ten Commandments, however, do not fall in that category.

In regards to Ten Commandments : They did when this country was founded. THAT is my point. The country has fallen away from its roots. Is it a good or bad thing? I think its a bad thing, but that is my personal opinion. I am just stating fact.

Religion should be kept out of government so long as a national religion is established.
I disagree, based on the fact of how our country was founded.
In other words, the government isn't supposed to endorse one religion and/or set(s) of religious beliefs/doctrines over another. In our melting-pot of a country, it's just too problematic. But neither is the government supposed to be used to deny people the right to their beliefs or free exercise of religion.

Agreed, too bad it doesn't always happen.

Sennaria
 
Upvote 0

Sennaria

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
1,495
198
63
Hill Country, Texas
✟25,122.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, if that happened, then the school system or the teacher was wrong. But these few-and-far-between examples don't prove religious persecution by half.
Ringo

As we have already made clear to each other and others reading, I am not saying it is persecution persay-it is contrary to what the country used to stand for though.

I am saying that it does happen, more often than you and others want to admit. Yet humanism can be taught all day long. It's not hard to find, hopefully more and more people are working to make sure it doesn't continue, kids are standing up for themselves, what is sad is that they are not always standing up for themselves in a positive manner.

Is it really hard to figure out why are kids are so messed up these days? Its been a continual decline in this countries morals and standards, even to the education.....but I suppose this is better addressed in a different thread. Even the "separation of church and state" should be a different thread.

I apologize if I unintentionally did a derail, but someone else mentioned the "s of c and s" and so I had to jump on it.

So I shall close with....persecution? Nope, not yet anyway, disregard and a huge degradation in morals and values due to God being pushed out of the Government which was never intended? Yup and its affecting everything that goes on in this country.

Sennaria
 
Upvote 0

Ringo84

Separation of Church and State expert
Jul 31, 2006
19,228
5,252
A Cylon Basestar
Visit site
✟121,289.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Single
Politics
US-Others
[/size][/color][/font]

It's supposed to be both for protecting the state from the church and the church from the state.

[/size][/color][/font]

No you are wrong, and if you would study the founding fathers and the founding of the country, that is not how the country was to be run nor was it how it was set up. They say so themselves, I don't need to speak for them. The quotes from them speak for themselves. It was only to be to keep the government out of religion.

I am not speaking of now, my whole point in this is that this is how the country has changed. It may be how in is being run now, but it is not the intent of the country. Now, people have so twisted the separation that it means both ways, this is not what it was initially meant to do. Thus, proving more how legislation and rulings that are meant to do one thing, down the road can get twisted and turned to do way other than their ORIGINAL intent.



Ah, so here's the major sticking point. To you, taking down Ten Commandments monuments and banning mandatory school prayer is keeping religion out of government.

See the following


Religious people have a right to their beliefs under the Constitution. They also have the right to vote, to run for office and to affect change in the government through legislation. Monuments of the Ten Commandments, however, do not fall in that category.

In regards to Ten Commandments : They did when this country was founded. THAT is my point. The country has fallen away from its roots. Is it a good or bad thing? I think its a bad thing, but that is my personal opinion. I am just stating fact.

Religion should be kept out of government so long as a national religion is established.
I disagree, based on the fact of how our country was founded.
In other words, the government isn't supposed to endorse one religion and/or set(s) of religious beliefs/doctrines over another. In our melting-pot of a country, it's just too problematic. But neither is the government supposed to be used to deny people the right to their beliefs or free exercise of religion.

Agreed, too bad it doesn't always happen.

Sennaria


No you are wrong, and if you would study the founding fathers and the founding of the country, that is not how the country was to be run nor was it how it was set up. They say so themselves, I don't need to speak for them. The quotes from them speak for themselves. It was only to be to keep the government out of religion.

I am not speaking of now, my whole point in this is that this is how the country has changed. It may be how in is being run now, but it is not the intent of the country. Now, people have so twisted the separation that it means both ways, this is not what it was initially meant to do. Thus, proving more how legislation and rulings that are meant to do one thing, down the road can get twisted and turned to do way other than their ORIGINAL intent.


Sorry, but none of that is true. Our country has always been about separating church and state. The concept is not simply to protect the church. If history has told us anything, it is that the church can be as tyrannous and oppressive as the state.

The church institution in this country was never meant to control the government or have power on the same level as the state. In other words, neither the Baptist church nor the Presbyterian church nor the Islamic church is supposed to run the government.

We do this because there are lots of people in this country with diverse cultural backgrounds. No matter the personal faith of the founders, they would not have wanted to see the institution of the church having the same amount of power as the government.

So yes, the separation of church and state is a reality and it most certainly applies both ways.

They did when this country was founded. THAT is my point. The country has fallen away from its roots. Is it a good or bad thing? I think its a bad thing, but that is my personal opinion. I am just stating fact.


Our country was not founded as a Christian nation "under the Baptist church" or "Catholic church" or any church! Regardless of the personal beliefs of either the founders or the people currently in government, it violates our laws to legislate religious belief!

Agreed, too bad it doesn't always happen.


But you see: the separation of church and state isn't meant to take away religious liberty but to protect it. It has been unfairly characterized and attacked by people who have absolutely no clue what church/state separation is about. It's good policy that should be protected and respected.
Ringo
 
Upvote 0

Sennaria

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
1,495
198
63
Hill Country, Texas
✟25,122.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
[/color][/size][/size][/color][/font]

Our country was not founded as a Christian nation "under the Baptist church" or "Catholic church" or any church! Regardless of the personal beliefs of either the founders or the people currently in government, it violates our laws to legislate religious belief!

[/color][/size][/size][/color][/font]

Oh come on Ringo, you know I didn't say that! It was founded Under God, not any church. I wouldn't want a denomination to run it, if my life depended on it! The rest I stand on what the founding fathers say and said, they can say it better than I.

Sennaria
 
Upvote 0

CardinalBaseball

Cardinals > Cubs
Sep 22, 2005
915
15
St. Louis, MO
Visit site
✟1,208.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Single
No you are wrong, and if you would study the founding fathers and the founding of the country, that is not how the country was to be run nor was it how it was set up. They say so themselves, I don't need to speak for them. The quotes from them speak for themselves. It was only to be to keep the government out of religion.



Well, I'm done here.
 
Upvote 0

Sennaria

Veteran
Sep 26, 2006
1,495
198
63
Hill Country, Texas
✟25,122.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
Well, I'm done here.

I have only one clarification I'm going to make myself and I am done also.

In anything I have said stated above, I do not ever mean to infer "religion" as in denominations, as I am not a denominational person and shy away from denominations.

In anything that I say or infer is "Under God", as a Christian belief. Not any Under Baptist, or Under Episcopal or Under Lutheran etc.

And I really feel sorry, no not sorry. But it makes me saddened I think, if we have moved so far away from the founding of our country that people truly have lost sight of the fact that this country was founded so that people could worship God in the way that they chose to, free from government interference, but they were and did rely on God to give them wisdom and guidance with the decisions they made when it came to our country, our founding fathers did. They did not found this country to keep God (not denominations, GOD) out of the government, but to keep the government from interfering with our right to a relationship with GOD, however we chose to.

Night all
Sennaria
 
Upvote 0
Status
Not open for further replies.