The Founders on Religion

[SassyIrishLass]

Given that state supported persecution by the Catholic Church was the reason the Pilgrims left Europe, it is easy to see why the Founders wanted church doctrine kept out of government.

The pilgrams were separatists from the Church of England, not the Catholic church

 

[P@triot]

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

None of your quotes even remotely imply that the founders wanted an atheist government. Take the one I left here in the reply. All Washington is saying is how religion creates disputes in society. He doesn't even mention the word government.

 

[P@triot]

I don't think the intent of the founders on the subject of religion was that we should forever treat the founders as gods.

Of course not - because if we do then we respect the U.S. Constitution which limits power. And we can't have that, right? You facists can't accept a limitation on power.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't think the intent of the founders on the subject of religion was that we should forever treat the founders as gods.

Of course not - because if we do then we respect the U.S. Constitution which limits power. And we can't have that, right? You facists can't accept a limitation on power.

Yes, the Constitution limits the power of religions to have power.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Given that state supported persecution by the Catholic Church was the reason the Pilgrims left Europe, it is easy to see why the Founders wanted church doctrine kept out of government.

The pilgrams were separatists from the Church of England, not the Catholic church

The Church of England was the government church.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If you oppose separation of church and state then you should support the state of Utah making polygamy legal again.

 

[Seawytch]

“Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by a difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society.”
~Founding Father George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Baptists of Danbury, Connecticut, 1802

None of your quotes even remotely imply that the founders wanted an atheist government. Take the one I left here in the reply. All Washington is saying is how religion creates disputes in society. He doesn't even mention the word government.

The people don't need to be athiests, just the government.

Seriously, what is it that you people want, your own version of Sharia Law?

 

[P@triot]

On the subject of revering the beliefs, opinions, and intents of the Founders...

Should white Americans give them full reverence, but maybe 3/5ths reverence would be sufficient for black Americans?

The funny thing is - you don't have the slightest clue what the 3/5ths clause was actually about. I know this for a fact - because if you did - you wouldn't have dared to cite it.

You hatriots should try doing your own homework just once.

 

[P@triot]

Seriously, what is it that you people want, your own version of Sharia Law?

Oh hell no. You do realize that christianity doesn't have it's own version of Sharia Law, don't you? You do realize that christians treat women as equals instead of like animals as muslims do, don't you?

 

[P@triot]

If you oppose separation of church and state then you should support the state of Utah making polygamy legal again.

Legally - you couldn't stop them now. You people illegally redefined marriage (through the courts creating law from the bench). Since you proclaimed that marriage is not one man and one woman, it can be anything. Including one man and ten women. Nice job, nitwits. As usual, you couldn't see the forest for the trees. You couldn't think beyond the tips of your nose. You continue to believe that every action occurs in a vacuum instead of comprehending that every action has a ripple effect that results in many more actions.

 

[P@triot]

I don't think the intent of the founders on the subject of religion was that we should forever treat the founders as gods.

Of course not - because if we do then we respect the U.S. Constitution which limits power. And we can't have that, right? You facists can't accept a limitation on power.

Yes, the Constitution limits the power of religions to have power.

Interesting. You support it limiting power on religion but nothing else. Gee....I wonder why that is.

 

[Seawytch]

Seriously, what is it that you people want, your own version of Sharia Law?

Oh hell no. You do realize that christianity doesn't have it's own version of Sharia Law, don't you? You do realize that christians treat women as equals instead of like animals as muslims do, don't you?

No Christians don't treat women as equal. I've actually read the bible. You should try it.

You didn't answer question. What is it you believe our current separation of Church and State (the kind that FF Jefferson wanted) is keeping you from doing? What influence by a religion into our government do you want?

 

[P@triot]

No Christians don't treat women as equal. I've actually read the bible. You should try it.

Sweetie...it is not 1000 B.C.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Given that state supported persecution by the Catholic Church was the reason the Pilgrims left Europe, it is easy to see why the Founders wanted church doctrine kept out of government.

Oh yeah, the Pilgrims were ALL about a secular society because they feared religion.

 

[P@triot]

You didn't answer question. What is it you believe our current separation of Church and State (the kind that FF Jefferson wanted) is keeping you from doing? What influence by a religion into our government do you want?

I did answer the question. You asked if I wanted "Sharia Law". I said hell no. Now - to answer your new question: the current (and perverted) "separation of church and state" is destroying the 1st Amendment. Government wouldn't place a gun to the head of people and force them to bake a cake for a gay wedding if church was in government. The Supreme Court would not have illegally made law from the bench if the church were in the government. And we would have a hell of a lot less corrupt, pathological liars like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

 

[Seawytch]

You didn't answer question. What is it you believe our current separation of Church and State (the kind that FF Jefferson wanted) is keeping you from doing? What influence by a religion into our government do you want?

I did answer the question. You asked if I wanted "Sharia Law". I said hell no. Now - to answer your new question: the current (and perverted) "separation of church and state" is destroying the 1st Amendment. Government wouldn't place a gun to the head of people and force them to bake a cake for a gay wedding if church was in government. The Supreme Court would not have illegally made law from the bench if the church were in the government. And we would have a hell of a lot less corrupt, pathological liars like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama.

Ah...so this is really just about Public Accommodation* laws. Why didn't you say so? Why so coy? Didn't have the balls to just start another whiney "wah, it's bad enough to have to bake cakes for blacks, why do we have to bake for gays too?" threads?

*Jump to State Laws...the ones that make you bake for gays (the one for blacks is Federal) are states laws.

States' Rights

 

[Seawytch]

No Christians don't treat women as equal. I've actually read the bible. You should try it.

Sweetie...it is not 1000 B.C.

And it's not universally the 21st century either. Culturally there are some places where Christians don't treat women equal, just as there are some Muslims, culturally, that don't. Do you know where the most Muslims in the world live?

 

[P@triot]

[*Jump to State Laws...the ones that make you bake for gays (the one for blacks is Federal) are states laws.

States' Rights

I'm sorry - when we say "church in government" to you interpret that to mean FEDERAL only?

And no - this is not about "Public Accommodation Laws". This is about ALL of it, my dear. Everything. Those were just some examples. I also mentioned corrupt maniacs like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. Convenient how you missed that, uh?

 

[Seawytch]

[*Jump to State Laws...the ones that make you bake for gays (the one for blacks is Federal) are states laws.

States' Rights

I'm sorry - when we say "church in government" to you interpret that to mean FEDERAL only?

I'm sorry, when you say "church in government" I have no idea what you're saying. What does "church in government" mean to you? How much religion do you want to see in our government? Whose religion?

Do you support the Federal PA laws or don't you? You, a "states' rights" guy, only seem to attack and snivel about the state laws in half the states that require the baking of a cake for a gay couple and never about Federal law in all 50 that requires the baking of a cake for, say, an interracial couple.

And no - this is not about "Public Accommodation Laws". This is about ALL of it, my dear. Everything. Those were just some examples. I also mentioned corrupt maniacs like Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, and Barack Obama. Convenient how you missed that, uh?

Yes, I was doing you a favor by ignoring the completely insane parts of your post. That's getting harder to do.

 

[P@triot]

You, a "states' rights" guy, only seem to attack and snivel about the state laws in half the states that require the baking of a cake for a gay couple and never about Federal law in all 50 that requires the baking of a cake for, say, an interracial couple.

I'm a devout constitutional conservative. That means a real commitment to the entire document - including the 10th Amendment.

The problem - however - is that you interpret "state's rights" to mean unmitigated power (as you always do when it comes to government - at any level). The 10th Amendment does not empower states to violate the rest of the constitution. It doesn't mean a state can take away my freedom of speech. I'm not more satisfied if a state strips me of my 2nd Amendment rights than if the federal government does.

The government (federal, state, county, or city) simply has no authority to force private citizens on private property to engage in commerce. Period. End of story. And nobody can make a rational case otherwise. What was done was illegal. We cannot have a government - which is tasked with enforcing laws - engaged in violating laws.