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.
Christians. Happens all the time, some school or other establishment try to deny a student or someone elses religous freedom in the name of the false idea of seperation of church and state. If you do not know this you must not watch the news. But of course the lefty main stream media doesn't report things like that, it might make their heros, socialists, look bad.I think you missed this part:
"nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess"
Politicians were not excluded. As you can tell from this: "the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
I am curious as to who you think, politician or otherwise, is not free to profess in this country.
Wrong!Don't really care what they thought on this issue, The religious landscape of the 18th century bears little resemblance to today. The wall of separation should be a wall, not a ramp where the government is powerless to fight back against a growing theocracy movement.
Apparently, atheism is the only acceptable belief system allowable.... and this isn't extremism at it's worst?
Christians. Happens all the time, some school or other establishment try to deny a student or someone elses religous freedom in the name of the false idea of seperation of church and state. If you do not know this you must not watch the news. But of course the lefty main stream media doesn't report things like that, it might make their heros, socialists, look bad.I think you missed this part:
"nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess"
Politicians were not excluded. As you can tell from this: "the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities."
I am curious as to who you think, politician or otherwise, is not free to profess in this country.
Apparently, atheism is the only acceptable belief system allowable.... and this isn't extremism at it's worst?
Ah, the Poor Christians are Persecuted Victims Card.
Forgot to put what in the Constitution?
Incidentally, Jefferson foresaw the potential infringement of religious freedom as well:
"And though we well know that this assembly elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the act of succeeding assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act to be irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present, or to narrow its operation, such as would be an infringement of natural right."
Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (annotated transcript) - Becoming Americans***|***The Story of Virginia, An American Experience
"...secularism forbade the federal government from establishing a national church or interfering with church affairs in the states. However, it did not create a policy of official indifference, much less hostility toward organized religion."
Deism and the Founding of the United States, Divining America, TeacherServe®, National Humanities Center
The supreme court did that over the course of two centuries because they left it vague, you cannot discuss the constitutional questions of separation without discussing the decisions made by the SCOTUS, they more than the founders have defined our policies. They are the last word on this and they have consistently upheld our current policies.
Thank you for that vague, un supported, and yet completely nonsensical post.
Wrong!Don't really care what they thought on this issue, The religious landscape of the 18th century bears little resemblance to today. The wall of separation should be a wall, not a ramp where the government is powerless to fight back against a growing theocracy movement.
Too bad for you....your wished for theocracy isn't going to happen anytime soon here.
Apparently, atheism is the only acceptable belief system allowable.... and this isn't extremism at it's worst?
Oh, I see.
You're just trolling.
BTW, intelligent people actually will post a quote and if it isn't clear what point they are making, they will add a couple of words.
I don't click on the links posted by idiots who can't be bothered to say anything about it. It's just a diversionary tactic.
The supreme court did that over the course of two centuries because they left it vague, you cannot discuss the constitutional questions of separation without discussing the decisions made by the SCOTUS, they more than the founders have defined our policies. They are the last word on this and they have consistently upheld our current policies.
Thank you for that vague, un supported, and yet completely nonsensical post.
My post is none of that, it is the opposing argument to allowing the government to act preferentially to Christianity just because it happens to the majority religion. Do you want a discussion or just a bunch of agreement?
Oh, I see.
You're just trolling.
BTW, intelligent people actually will post a quote and if it isn't clear what point they are making, they will add a couple of words.
I don't click on the links posted by idiots who can't be bothered to say anything about it. It's just a diversionary tactic.
It wasn't for you.
The United States, contrary to popular belief, was not founded upon a desire for religious freedom. Our original European inhabitants came here to escape religious persecution, but when our founding fathers determined to rebel against the crown more than a hundred years later, it was not for religious purposes they did so. They acted against tyranny, rather. Specifically they chafed under strenuous taxation and continued rape of American resources, natural and monetary, by the Crown.
Once they embarked upon this path, they began to take into consideration the role that religion would play in their newly established government. Moved by the persecution of Baptists, Jefferson ultimately wrote no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. (Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, 1786.)
Jefferson made it clear that while the government has no right to establish religion or force men to worship, neither does it have the right to silence or penalize men for their faith. Tyranny, according to Jefferson, is when the government forces men to support an ideology they do not agree with, or prevents them from advancing civilly based upon their faith.
This is the proper relationship of church and state.
Reference:
Virginia Historical Society. Virginia Statue for Religious Freedom (Jan. 16, 1786) From Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom (annotated transcript) - Becoming Americans***|***The Story of Virginia, An American Experience on February
Apparently, atheism is the only acceptable belief system allowable.... and this isn't extremism at it's worst?
Ah, the Poor Christians are Persecuted Victims Card.
See what I mean?
Bode brings up Christian Persecution, then pretends someone else brought it up when they respond to her bait.
Ah, the Poor Christians are Persecuted Victims Card.
See what I mean?
Bode brings up Christian Persecution, then pretends someone else brought it up when they respond to her bait.
But Soggy was fishing with "atheism is the only acceptable......"
Thank you for that vague, un supported, and yet completely nonsensical post.
My post is none of that, it is the opposing argument to allowing the government to act preferentially to Christianity just because it happens to the majority religion. Do you want a discussion or just a bunch of agreement?
No, it isn't. You aren't discussing. You're posting inane silliness, with zero specificity, zero supporting information, zero historical (or even current) fact...and pretending it means something or "proves" something.
It doesn't. Take a class to learn how to debate but don't post garbage and expect to pass it off as a valid (or even comprehensible) "argument".
