- Aug 10, 2009
- 168,037
- 16,519
- 2,165
- Banned
- #21
Food for thought here.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
As we can see from the Chick Fil A controversy allowing a Christian a business license violates separation of church and state.
Should government employees who give to their church be fired for using public funds to support religious activities?
Out_of_Sense, you rarely demonstrate context. So I will take your comment above for what it is worth. I expect you to recognize a higher standard but apparently you don't. Your issue, not mine.
Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe: And if a member of Civil Society, do it with a saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign. We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance. True it is, that no other rule exists, by which any question which may divide a Society, can be ultimately determined, but the will of the majority; but it is also true that the majority may trespass on the rights of the minority. -James Madison
Religious Freedom Page: Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, James Madison (1785)
One of the most stirring passages for Separation ever, and a strong counter argument to Mr. Barton's claims..especially in part 3and in part 4Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?The Bartons of this country would have us believe that we do not have to grant equal freedom to all religions and that Christianity should have precedence. Madison was very clear against that idea.Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
One of the most stirring passages for Separation ever, and a strong counter argument to Mr. Barton's claims..especially in part 3 and in part 4The Bartons of this country would have us believe that we do not have to grant equal freedom to all religions and that Christianity should have precedence. Madison was very clear against that idea.Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
We have a lot of agreement here. At a Personal Level, We Each have a Right to Our Own Faith, as We see it. That should be evident. When we live life through our own eyes, accountable to God, through Conscience, putting God first in all things, You would think we would trust that God will handle things, on his terms, according to his expectations, not ours, right? Either Matters of Conscience are our own business or they are not. So what is our obligation? Be Fruitful, Multiply, Replenish the Earth. Bear Witness, Testify, tell the truth about what you see, from your unique perspective. Give unto Caesar what is Caesar, and God, what is Gods. I'm not seeing any oppression there. Live by example, learn from whatever life has to offer you. To me, my perspective has precedence over another, in how it relates to me. I'm the one responsible and accountable for my reasoning, action, and inaction. To me as an Individual, it is my Right to choose the Religion of my choice, which is Christianity. Do I have Tolerance for Other Religions? Of course I do.
I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.'Christianity' is such and integral part of western civilization, culture, art, philosophy and thinking that totally extricating it is impossible.
As we can see from the Chick Fil A controversy allowing a Christian a business license violates separation of church and state.
Should government employees who give to their church be fired for using public funds to support religious activities?
I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.'Christianity' is such and integral part of western civilization, culture, art, philosophy and thinking that totally extricating it is impossible.
I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.'Christianity' is such and integral part of western civilization, culture, art, philosophy and thinking that totally extricating it is impossible.
Then you aren't very aware in general.
I'm not aware of anyone trying to extricate Christianity from Western Culture.
Then you aren't very aware in general.
Your complete lack of examples doesn't really help your point.
Then you aren't very aware in general.
Your complete lack of examples doesn't really help your point.
If you're that oblivious that you NEED a list of examples, you're not worth the time and effort that list would take.
You've mistaken yourself for someone I need to prove something to.
Then you aren't very aware in general.
Your complete lack of examples doesn't really help your point.
If you're that oblivious that you NEED a list of examples, you're not worth the time and effort that list would take..
From David Barton's American Heritage Series (2011)
Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Rush, correspondence
This is one subject that we as Americans need to come to terms with. I ask that you research a bit yourself before posting a reply. This is who were are as Americans. Also, I would ask whether you'd allow anyone to misquote a statement from your personal communications.
Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush, both signers of the Declaration of Independence wrote to each other concerning the phrasing and implications of the First Amendment. During their correspondence, Jefferson wrote Rush a response which included, "... I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State." The letter goes on to calm Rush and others. This phrase was taken out of context and continues to the present.
This private correspondence clarifies to Rush and other that the intent of the First Amendment was that government will generate no legislation affecting the establishment of a national religion, or prohibit religious pursuit of the individual. Neither attempts to affect the operation of the other, simply put.
Our elected officials are protecting every other religion, but do nothing to protect basic Christian principles that most will agree is the basis of our separation from England. However, if a major incident occurs (ie, the incident in Colorado), our elected officials are amongst the first to use Christian religion to make themselves look good.
First, look up "context". Barton is out of context, using only texts with which he agrees and ignoring material that disagrees with him. Simply because he uses some historical materials does not mean he is in context. It is your duty to go to every footnote then to every source, and then read even more.
Second, anybody can pray in public school anytime he or she wishes, but cannot disrupt the educational process or be coercive of his neighbor while doing so.
Third, no prayer has been regulated as to wordage by government.