The End of the Christian Right

[koshergrl]

No, they didn't want government interfering in the realm of religion.

BTW, you were asked to support your idiotic view, voiced above, some time ago. You never did. Please provide your supporting evidence.

 

[Uncensored2008]

The UncensoredFascist civics test:

Who wrote the constitution of the United States:

1.) Ebenezer Scrooge
2.) Ebenezer Scrooge
3.) Ebenezer Scrooge

Who is the most important historical figure in American government:

1.) Voltemort
2.) Voltemort
3.) Voltemort

Upon who does the economic success of America depend?

1.) Ebenezer Scrooge
2.) Ebenezer Scrooge
3.) Ebenezer Scrooge

Who is considered the most important leader in American history?

1.) Voltemort
2.) Voltemort
3.) Voltemort

UncensoredFascist, unfortunately, does not understand the difference between fiction and factual individuals.

Another cheap imitation by the intellectually challenged....

 

[Newby]

The founders did not want government and institutional religion interfering in the realm of the other's responsibility. The result has become that the USA is the freest nation in the world concerning religion and that organized religion cannot dictate by government force what those who believe differently must do.

What a wonderful blessing the Constitution is to the religious freedom of all Americans.

Go look in the Library of Congress on what the early bodies of Congress did during the creation of the country and beyond. Much of it would not be accepted today by people like you, you can't change history to make your so called 'facts'. Read their words, study the actions they did and the legislation they passed, that's where the truth is, not your interpretation of select quotes spoken here or there. You've mentioned a hand full of founders out of 70 plus, depending on what you define as a 'founding father'. Thomas Jefferson wasn't even a delegate out of the 55 that participated in the Constitutional Convention.

 

[Newby]

The founders did not want government and institutional religion interfering in the realm of the other's responsibility. The result has become that the USA is the freest nation in the world concerning religion and that organized religion cannot dictate by government force what those who believe differently must do.

What a wonderful blessing the Constitution is to the religious freedom of all Americans.

You are wrong... from the Library of Congress... this is from the Congress of the Confederation.. if your opinion is true, why did they do any of this?

Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians.

 

[Katzndogz]

Their new strategy is to misrepresent the founders by misquoting them or taking quotes out of context to intentionally distort their original meaning. A good example is this oft cited quote by John Adams:

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!"





But this quote fragment distorts the main point Adams was making. Quoting from Adam's letter (shown below) he actually said:
Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as (Parson) Bryant or (Pedagogue) Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell. (emphasis added)

The founders did not want an established national religion. That's it. They allowed for state established religions. They encouraged the expression of religious faith. And they almost universally sought to encourage religious belief as essential for good governance and citizenship.

 

[Newby]

Their new strategy is to misrepresent the founders by misquoting them or taking quotes out of context to intentionally distort their original meaning. A good example is this oft cited quote by John Adams:

Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!"





But this quote fragment distorts the main point Adams was making. Quoting from Adam's letter (shown below) he actually said:
Twenty times, in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!!!" But in this exclamatic I should have been as fanatical as (Parson) Bryant or (Pedagogue) Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell. (emphasis added)

The founders did not want an established national religion. That's it. They allowed for state established religions. They encouraged the expression of religious faith. And they almost universally sought to encourage religious belief as essential for good governance and citizenship.

Yet a lot of the letters and correspondance is in the national archives and found on the Library of Congress website for anyone who is interested enough to educate themselves.

 

[Dragon]

Let's take a little test here. This is for posters like Newby and Katzndogs.

The First Amendment has two clauses relating to religion; these are the first clauses in the amendment, before it goes into free speech and other rights to be guaranteed.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion" is the first clause.

"[O]r prohibiting the free exercise thereof" is the second.

Now here's the test question. Should these two clauses be regarded as opposing, so that we make the two together a neither-nor? That is, the meaning of the religion clauses would then be, "On the one hand, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion; but on the other hand, neither shall Congress make any law prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Is this correct, or is there another interpretation that is more accurate? In significance, can we go so far towards forbidding an establishment of religion that the "free exercise thereof" is compromised? (Or vice-versa?) Or is that impossible?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Santa Fe ISD (twice) is the clearest example that organized religion and state sponsorship cannot be mixed.

When the Mormon and Catholic wanted to pray over the PA like the evangelical kids, the school officials said no, at the insistence of the evangelical parents and their churches.

Guess what happened, far right evangelical knot heads?

 

[koshergrl]

Nobody asked for an example of why the two shouldn't be mixed, you disingenuous liar.

I have asked, over a series of days, for evidence that the founding fathers wanted religion controlled, as you have stated.

 

[The Irish Ram]

Nobody asked for an example of why the two shouldn't be mixed, you disengenuous liar.

I have asked, over a series of day, for evidence that the founding fathers wanted religion controlled, as you have stated.

The pilgrims left their own country because of a non separation of the King and their religion. Our founding fathers, in wanting to keep government out of our daily lives proclaimed that Gov. has no power to intervene in our religious beliefs. That has been skewed in our time, to mean religion has no power to intervene in the policies of our gov. That is not what our founding fathers intended. To the contrary, our founding fathers used their religion and religious morality to set the rules of our liberties.
They were quite comfortable putting pen to paper concerning just what our CREATOR has endowed us with, and prayed on the floor of the Continental Congress for that Creator to guide them in setting up a new country.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The founding fathers did not want religion controlled by the government.

Nothing indicates they desired institutional religion to control or influence government.

Any who are knotheads over this issue need to read and ponder the 6th Article and 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

 

[newpolitics]

Give it another 20 years, and they'll be as ineffectual in American politics as they are at controlling morality in the U.S.

Michael Kazin: The End Of The Christian Right | The New Republic

Key points...

the Christian Right is fighting a losing battle with the rest of the country—above all, when it comes to abortion and same-sex marriage, the issues they care most about. A strong majority of Americans backs abortion in the early months of a pregnancy.

Meanwhile, support for gay rights is rising, quite swiftly. Same-sex marriage tops fifty percent in some recent polls, and the remarkably placid response to New York’s recent legalization of the practice will make it easier for other states to follow suit. With over two-thirds of Americans now endorsing the end of Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell, the debate on that once controversial issue is now a matter for historians to analyze.

Put simply, the Christian Right is getting old. According to the largest and most recent study we have of American religion and politics, by Robert D. Putnam and David E. Campbell, almost twice as many people 18 to 29 confess to no faith at all as adhere to evangelical Protestantism. Young people who have attended college, a growing percentage of the population, are more secular still.

Last gasps of a dying subculture...

I hope you are right. They are killing this democracy, and are responsible for nearly everything that is wrong with America right now.

 

[koshergrl]

The founding fathers did not want religion controlled by the government.

Nothing indicates they desired institutional religion to control or influence government.

Any who are knotheads over this issue need to read and ponder the 6th Article and 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Uh...nobody said they did?

 

[nitroz]

boo hoo.

 

[JakeStarkey]

The founding fathers did not want religion controlled by the government.

Nothing indicates they desired institutional religion to control or influence government.

Any who are knotheads over this issue need to read and ponder the 6th Article and 1st Amendment of the Constitution.

Uh...nobody said they did?

Glad you finally came around.

 

[koshergrl]

Are you pretending that someone said it now?

You have an active imagination. I imagine you need it to justify your extremism.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Where did you ever get the idea that the conservative religio-fascisim in which you believe was ever mainstream?

You are among the most extreme in America concerning religion and law, right there with those who believe in shari'a..

 

[koshergrl]

Tsk, tsk, lying about my views isn't going to make you appear more average, JS. Your stated desire to shut down religion and kill babies identifies you as the extremist weirdo you are.

 

[JakeStarkey]

You stating you are mainstream does not make so.

Simply makes everyone laugh at you.

You are a religious extremist.

 

[koshergrl]

Not at all. Mainstream Baptist. Not even conservative.