Another Liberal myth: Separation of church and state is not in the constitution

[Intense]

Why does this debate continue? The Constitution guarantees the American citizen the right to live freely within the law. In order for any person of faith or lack thereof to live freely they must be allowed respect and consideration for their faith or lack thereof. If religion were to enter the public area or the commons as it is sometimes referred to, then that respect of the divide between personal belief and a particular religion's belief would be abolished. Believe whatever you want, practice whatever you want, but keep that whatever away from the public realm where it would constitute an infringement of the constitution and an infringement of another citizen's right.

You started out great, but lost me here.

If religion were to enter the public area or the commons as it is sometimes referred to, then that respect of the divide between personal belief and a particular religion's belief would be abolished. Believe whatever you want, practice whatever you want, but keep that whatever away from the public realm where it would constitute an infringement of the constitution and an infringement of another citizen's right.

The 1st Amendment protects Religious Freedom, both in and out of the closet, both in Public and Private.

 

[koshergrl]

Specifically to protect people from being PERSECUTED for being open about their religion. The founding fathers and subsequent generations of Americans fought very hard to tie the government's hands when it came to the individual freedoms of Americans...and that includes religion. They saw first hand what happened when the state determined that this or that religion should not be adhered to, and when the state said what one could and could not profess.

I don't understand the mindset that thinks that it's okay to force people to hide their religion. That is exactly what so many people fought and died to prevent and it breaks my heart that we have Americans who think it's okay to deny people religious freedom and freedom of speech, based upon the mistaken idea that the government can't allow any reference to religion anywhere. WRONG. The government can't tell you NOT to practice/reference your religion. It doesn't matter WHO you are. And the government can certainly host references to religion, as long as it passes no law endorsing a specific religion.

 

[Foxfyre]

Specifically to protect people from being PERSECUTED for being open about their religion. The founding fathers and subsequent generations of Americans fought very hard to tie the government's hands when it came to the individual freedoms of Americans...and that includes religion. They saw first hand what happened when the state determined that this or that religion should not be adhered to, and when the state said what one could and could not profess.

I don't understand the mindset that thinks that it's okay to force people to hide their religion. That is exactly what so many people fought and died to prevent and it breaks my heart that we have Americans who think it's okay to deny people religious freedom and freedom of speech, based upon the mistaken idea that the government can't allow any reference to religion anywhere. WRONG. The government can't tell you NOT to practice/reference your religion. It doesn't matter WHO you are. And the government can certainly host references to religion, as long as it passes no law endorsing a specific religion.

All you say here is quite accurate in the harsh light of history. And in fairness to our passionate anti-religious friends, we must also that the Founders had also experienced and were quite conscious of the problem when any religious group obtains power at the federal level. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and other powerful religious figures, when teamed with the monarchy, wielded almost total power to make anybody's life miserable who did not toe the prescribed favored religion.

The Founders made sure, with the First Amendment, that neither secular government nor any religious group or order would have any ability to dictate what any of us were required to believe, say, or manifest re religion, nor could anybody be rewarded nor punished for their beliefs.

With that protection of unalienable rights in place, the Founders then intended for people to be as religious as they wanted to be or non religious as they wanted to be anywhere, any place, any time. It is that unlimited freedom to be religious in the day in and day out fabric of our lives that we are slowly losing to anti-Christian fanatics and the courts.

 

[Gadawg73]

Specifically to protect people from being PERSECUTED for being open about their religion. The founding fathers and subsequent generations of Americans fought very hard to tie the government's hands when it came to the individual freedoms of Americans...and that includes religion. They saw first hand what happened when the state determined that this or that religion should not be adhered to, and when the state said what one could and could not profess.

I don't understand the mindset that thinks that it's okay to force people to hide their religion. That is exactly what so many people fought and died to prevent and it breaks my heart that we have Americans who think it's okay to deny people religious freedom and freedom of speech, based upon the mistaken idea that the government can't allow any reference to religion anywhere. WRONG. The government can't tell you NOT to practice/reference your religion. It doesn't matter WHO you are. And the government can certainly host references to religion, as long as it passes no law endorsing a specific religion.

All you say here is quite accurate in the harsh light of history. And in fairness to our passionate anti-religious friends, we must also that the Founders had also experienced and were quite conscious of the problem when any religious group obtains power at the federal level. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and other powerful religious figures, when teamed with the monarchy, wielded almost total power to make anybody's life miserable who did not toe the prescribed favored religion.

The Founders made sure, with the First Amendment, that neither secular government nor any religious group or order would have any ability to dictate what any of us were required to believe, say, or manifest re religion, nor could anybody be rewarded nor punished for their beliefs.

With that protection of unalienable rights in place, the Founders then intended for people to be as religious as they wanted to be or non religious as they wanted to be anywhere, any place, any time. It is that unlimited freedom to be religious in the day in and day out fabric of our lives that we are slowly losing to anti-Christian fanatics and the courts.

So I am "anti-religous" because I disagree with you on history.
Very weak.

 

[Gadawg73]

I think you need to read some history Gadawg.

As abolitionism gained popularity in the northern states, it strained relations between northern and southern churches. Northern preachers increasingly preached against slavery in the 1830s. In the 1840's,slavery began to divide denominations. This, in turn, weakened social ties between the North and South, allowing the nation to become even more divided in the 1850s.

The issue of slavery in the United States came to a conclusion with the American Civil War. Although the war began as a political struggle over the preservation of the nation, it took on religious overtones as southern preachers called for a defense of their homeland and northern abolitionists preached the good news of liberation for slaves. Gerrit Smith and William Lloyd Garrison abandoned pacifism, and Garrison changed the motto of The Liberator to Leviticus 25:10, "Proclaim Liberty throughout all the land, and to all the inhabitants thereof." The YMCA joined with other societies to found the United States Christian Commission, with the goal of supporting Union soldiers, and churches collected $6 million for their cause.

Harriet Tubman, considered by many to be a prophet due to her success as a liberator with the Underground Railroad, warned "God won't let master Lincoln beat the South till he does the right thing" by emancipating slaves. Popular songs such as John Brown's Body (later The Battle Hymn of the Republic) contained verses which painted the northern war effort as a religious struggle to end slavery. Even Abraham Lincoln appealed to religious sentiments, suggesting in various speeches that God had brought on the war as punishment for slavery, while acknowledging in his Inaugural Address that both sides "read the same Bible, and pray to the same God; and each invokes His aid against the other."

With the Union victory in the war and a constitutional ban on slavery, abolitionist Christians also declared a religious victory over their slave-holding brethren in the South. Southern religious leaders who had preached a message of divine protection were now left to reconsider their theology.

Well, the history is all there to be seen if you want to look at it.
My ancestors are from Clintondale NY and are Walkers and Terhunes. My mother is a Walker and my grandmother was a Terhune. Go look it up on the internet Clintondale NY.
My ancestors were Quaker and they were abolitionists.
And Quakers were persecuted all over the north for that for a very long time.
And guess who persecuted them?
Now you are partially correct as you state that in the late 1830s there were preachers, very few, that came out against slavery.
A little late there friend, as the abolition movement had been persecuted BY CHURCHES FOR HUNDREDS OF YEARS (started in 1540s in Europe), before that. 20 years of support from a very few churches over 200 years was great to see but the history was churches supported slavery both in the north where my ancestors fought it and in the south where it was supported universally.
Folks can learn many things about being Christlike from the Quakers.

 

[Intense]

William Wilberforce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce
by Karl Anton Hickel, ca. 1794
Member of Parliament
for Kingston upon Hull
In office
31 October 1780 – 25 March 1784
Member of Parliament
for Yorkshire
In office
29 November 1784 – 29 September 1812
Member of Parliament
for Bramber
In office
24 November 1812 – February 1825
Personal details
Born 24 August 1759
Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire
Died 29 July 1833 (aged 73)
London
Political party Independent
Spouse(s) Barbara Spooner
Children William, Barbara, Elizabeth, Robert, Samuel and Henry
Religion Evangelical Anglican

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists.[/COLOR] He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire; Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Intense]

Revelation of the horrors of slavery

It was at Cambridge in 1785 that Clarkson entered a Latin essay competition that was to set him on the course for most of the remainder of his life. The topic of the essay, set by university vice-chancellor Peter Peckard, was Anne liceat invitos in servitutem dare (Is it lawful to enslave the unconsenting?),[2] and it led Clarkson to consider the question of the slave trade. He read everything he could on the subject, including the works of Anthony Benezet, a Quaker abolitionist. Appalled and challenged by what he discovered, Clarkson changed his life. He also researched the topic by meeting and interviewing those who had personal experience of the slave trade and of slavery.

After winning the prize, Clarkson had what he called a spiritual revelation from God as he travelled on horseback between Cambridge and London. Having broken his journey at Wadesmill, near Ware, Hertfordshire, as he stopped, 'A thought came into my mind', he later wrote, 'that if the contents of the Essay were true, it was time some person should see these calamities to their end' (Clarkson, History, vol. 1). This experience and sense of calling ultimately led him to devote his life to abolishing the slave trade.

Having translated the essay into English so that it could gain a wider audience, Clarkson published it in 1786 as "An essay on the slavery and commerce of the human species, particularly the African, translated from a Latin Dissertation", which was honoured with the first prize in the University of Cambridge, for the year 1785.[3]

The publication of the essay had an immediate impact, and Clarkson was introduced to many others who were sympathetic to abolition, some of whom had already published and campaigned against slavery. These included influential men such as James Ramsay and Granville Sharp, the Quakers, and other Nonconformists. The movement had been gathering strength for some years, having been founded by Quakers both in Britain and in the United States, with support from other Nonconformists or from Puritans on both sides of the Atlantic. In 1783 three hundred Quakers, chiefly from the London area, presented the British Parliament with the first petition against the slave trade.

Following this step, a small offshoot group sought to form the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, a small non-denominational group that could lobby more successfully by incorporating Anglican and Parliamentary support (Quakers were disbarred from Parliament until the early nineteenth century, whereas the Anglican Church had the right to seats in the House of Lords). The twelve founding members included nine Quakers, and three pioneering Anglicans – Granville Sharp, Thomas Clarkson, and William Wilberforce — all evangelical Christians sympathetic to the religious revival that had predominantly nonconformist origins, but which sought wider non-denominational support for a "Great Awakening" amongst believers.

Anti-slavery campaign

Encouraged by publication of Clarkson’s essay, an informal committee was set up between small groups from the petitioning Quakers, Clarkson and others, with the aim of lobbying Members of Parliament (MPs). This was to lead, in May 1787, to the foundation of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade. The Committee included Granville Sharp as Chairman and Josiah Wedgwood as well as Clarkson himself. Clarkson also approached the young William Wilberforce, who as an (Evangelical) Anglican and an MP could offer them a link into the British Parliament. Wilberforce was one of very few parliamentarians to have had sympathy with the Quaker petition; he had already put a question about the slave trade before the House of Commons, marking himself out as one of the earliest Anglican abolitionists.

Clarkson took a leading part in the affairs of the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade, and was given the responsibility to collect evidence to support the abolition of the slave trade. He faced much opposition from supporters of the trade in some of the cities he visited. The slave traders were an influential group because the trade was a legitimate and lucrative business, generating prosperity for many of the ports. On a visit to Liverpool in 1787, the year the Committee for the Abolition of the Slave Trade was founded, Clarkson was attacked and nearly killed by a gang of sailors paid to assassinate him. He just escaped with his life. That same year, Clarkson published the pamphlet: "A Summary View of the Slave Trade and of the Probable Consequences of Its Abolition".

Thomas Clarkson - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Foxfyre]

Specifically to protect people from being PERSECUTED for being open about their religion. The founding fathers and subsequent generations of Americans fought very hard to tie the government's hands when it came to the individual freedoms of Americans...and that includes religion. They saw first hand what happened when the state determined that this or that religion should not be adhered to, and when the state said what one could and could not profess.

I don't understand the mindset that thinks that it's okay to force people to hide their religion. That is exactly what so many people fought and died to prevent and it breaks my heart that we have Americans who think it's okay to deny people religious freedom and freedom of speech, based upon the mistaken idea that the government can't allow any reference to religion anywhere. WRONG. The government can't tell you NOT to practice/reference your religion. It doesn't matter WHO you are. And the government can certainly host references to religion, as long as it passes no law endorsing a specific religion.

All you say here is quite accurate in the harsh light of history. And in fairness to our passionate anti-religious friends, we must also that the Founders had also experienced and were quite conscious of the problem when any religious group obtains power at the federal level. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and other powerful religious figures, when teamed with the monarchy, wielded almost total power to make anybody's life miserable who did not toe the prescribed favored religion.

The Founders made sure, with the First Amendment, that neither secular government nor any religious group or order would have any ability to dictate what any of us were required to believe, say, or manifest re religion, nor could anybody be rewarded nor punished for their beliefs.

With that protection of unalienable rights in place, the Founders then intended for people to be as religious as they wanted to be or non religious as they wanted to be anywhere, any place, any time. It is that unlimited freedom to be religious in the day in and day out fabric of our lives that we are slowly losing to anti-Christian fanatics and the courts.

So I am "anti-religous" because I disagree with you on history.
Very weak.

You are anti-religious when you actively oppose anything that might give the church or Christianity or our JudeoChristian heritage credit for anything. You are anti-religious when you oppose any argument that suggests that the nation was founded by people who were using Christian principles to do it. You are anti-religious when you seem so desperate to discredit any conclusion that the Founders believed the Constitution would work only for a religious and moral people who valued freedom above all else. You are anti-religious when you point to the negatives in religious history and ignore the positives.

And I think I'm on pretty solid footing with my understanding of the history and the only educated people who deny it seem to be those who are anti-religion, most especially anti-Christian.

 

[Intense]

Granville Sharp
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For the Labour Party Member of Parliament, see Granville Maynard Sharp.
Granville Sharp

Granville Sharp (10 November 1735 – 6 July 1813) was one of the first English campaigners for the abolition of the slave trade. He also involved himself in trying to correct other social injustices. Sharp formulated the plan to settle blacks in Sierra Leone, and founded the St. George's Bay Company, a forerunner of the Sierra Leone Company. His efforts led to both the founding of the Province of Freedom, and later on Freetown, Sierra Leone, and so he is considered one of the founding fathers of Sierra Leone. He was also a biblical scholar and classicist, and a talented musician.

The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade

Sharp was not completely alone at the beginning of the struggle: the Quakers, especially in America, were committed abolitionists. Sharp had a long and fruitful correspondence with Anthony Benezet, a Quaker abolitionist in Pennsylvania. However, the Quakers were a marginal group in England, and were debarred from standing for Parliament, and they had no doubt as to who should be the chairman of the new society they were founding, The Society for Effecting the Abolition of the Slave Trade. On 22 May 1787, at the inaugural meeting of the Committee—nine Quakers and three Anglicans (who strengthened the committee's likelihood of influencing Parliament) - Sharp's position was unanimously agreed. In the 20 years of the society's existence, during which Sharp was ever-present at Committee meetings, such was Sharp's modesty that he would never take the chair, always contriving to arrive just after the meeting had started to avoid any chance of having to take the meeting. While the committee felt it sensible to concentrate on the slave trade, Sharp felt strongly that the target should be slavery itself. On this he was out-voted, but he worked tirelessly for the Society nevertheless.[2]
[edit] Abolition

When Sharp heard that the Act of Abolition had at last been passed by both Houses of Parliament and given Royal Assent on 25 March 1807, he fell to his knees and offered a prayer of thanksgiving. He was now 71, and had outlived almost all of the allies and opponents of his early campaigns. He was regarded as the grand old man of the abolition struggle, and although a driving force in its early days, his place had later been taken by others such as Thomas Clarkson, William Wilberforce and the Clapham Sect. Sharp however did not see the final abolition as he died 6 July 1813.[2]

Granville Sharp - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Gadawg73]

William Wilberforce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce
by Karl Anton Hickel, ca. 1794
Member of Parliament
for Kingston upon Hull
In office
31 October 1780 – 25 March 1784
Member of Parliament
for Yorkshire
In office
29 November 1784 – 29 September 1812
Member of Parliament
for Bramber
In office
24 November 1812 – February 1825
Personal details
Born 24 August 1759
Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire
Died 29 July 1833 (aged 73)
London
Political party Independent
Spouse(s) Barbara Spooner
Children William, Barbara, Elizabeth, Robert, Samuel and Henry
Religion Evangelical Anglican

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists.[/COLOR] He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire; Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh, earth to Intense.
Those ARE BRITISH.
You know, the folks ACROSS THE POND.
Well, DUH.
Are you that dense?

 

[Intense]

William Wilberforce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce
by Karl Anton Hickel, ca. 1794
Member of Parliament
for Kingston upon Hull
In office
31 October 1780 – 25 March 1784
Member of Parliament
for Yorkshire
In office
29 November 1784 – 29 September 1812
Member of Parliament
for Bramber
In office
24 November 1812 – February 1825
Personal details
Born 24 August 1759
Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire
Died 29 July 1833 (aged 73)
London
Political party Independent
Spouse(s) Barbara Spooner
Children William, Barbara, Elizabeth, Robert, Samuel and Henry
Religion Evangelical Anglican

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists.[/COLOR] He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire; Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh, earth to Intense.
Those ARE BRITISH.
You know, the folks ACROSS THE POND.
Well, DUH.
Are you that dense?

I will excuse your ignorance and suggest you read the content of the posts and their links.

 

[Gadawg73]

All you say here is quite accurate in the harsh light of history. And in fairness to our passionate anti-religious friends, we must also that the Founders had also experienced and were quite conscious of the problem when any religious group obtains power at the federal level. The Archbishop of Canterbury, the Pope, and other powerful religious figures, when teamed with the monarchy, wielded almost total power to make anybody's life miserable who did not toe the prescribed favored religion.

The Founders made sure, with the First Amendment, that neither secular government nor any religious group or order would have any ability to dictate what any of us were required to believe, say, or manifest re religion, nor could anybody be rewarded nor punished for their beliefs.

With that protection of unalienable rights in place, the Founders then intended for people to be as religious as they wanted to be or non religious as they wanted to be anywhere, any place, any time. It is that unlimited freedom to be religious in the day in and day out fabric of our lives that we are slowly losing to anti-Christian fanatics and the courts.

So I am "anti-religous" because I disagree with you on history.
Very weak.

You are anti-religious when you actively oppose anything that might give the church or Christianity or our JudeoChristian heritage credit for anything. You are anti-religious when you oppose any argument that suggests that the nation was founded by people who were using Christian principles to do it. You are anti-religious when you seem so desperate to discredit any conclusion that the Founders believed the Constitution would work only for a religious and moral people who valued freedom above all else. You are anti-religious when you point to the negatives in religious history and ignore the positives.

And I think I'm on pretty solid footing with my understanding of the history and the only educated people who deny it seem to be those who are anti-religion, most especially anti-Christian.

Calling names to others that have the audacity to disagree with you is what you are obviously all about. Why? Because your argument is so weak you have nothing else to go with.
You are a pitiful higher than thou hypocrit of the highest order. You get called out for your ignorance and self proclaimed moral supremacy of defining what a Christian has to believe in and you sink to the gutter and call us "anti religous" when doing so.
Your claim that the "Founders believed the Constitution would work ONLY for a religous and moral people who valued freedom above all else" is laughable.
The Constitution is for ALL citizens.
The Founders feared people like you and were in solid ground in doing so.

 

[Foxfyre]

So I am "anti-religous" because I disagree with you on history.
Very weak.

You are anti-religious when you actively oppose anything that might give the church or Christianity or our JudeoChristian heritage credit for anything. You are anti-religious when you oppose any argument that suggests that the nation was founded by people who were using Christian principles to do it. You are anti-religious when you seem so desperate to discredit any conclusion that the Founders believed the Constitution would work only for a religious and moral people who valued freedom above all else. You are anti-religious when you point to the negatives in religious history and ignore the positives.

And I think I'm on pretty solid footing with my understanding of the history and the only educated people who deny it seem to be those who are anti-religion, most especially anti-Christian.

Calling names to others that have the audacity to disagree with you is what you are obviously all about. Why? Because your argument is so weak you have nothing else to go with.
You are a pitiful higher than thou hypocrit of the highest order. You get called out for your ignorance and self proclaimed moral supremacy of defining what a Christian has to believe in and you sink to the gutter and call us "anti religous" when doing so.
Your claim that the "Founders believed the Constitution would work ONLY
for a religous and moral people who were using Christian principles to do it" laughable.
The Constitution is for ALL citizens.
The Founders feared people like you and were in solid ground in doing so.

Baloney. I have not called you any names whatsoever. I used your own statement to explain to you what anti-religious is since you accused me of calling you anti-religious. Now you can agree or disagree with my definition of that or agree that you fit every definition I used for anti-religious.

But somebody who calls me 'a hypocrite of the highest order' is hardly in a position to criticize another for calling people names.

 

[Gadawg73]

William Wilberforce
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
William Wilberforce
William Wilberforce
by Karl Anton Hickel, ca. 1794
Member of Parliament
for Kingston upon Hull
In office
31 October 1780 – 25 March 1784
Member of Parliament
for Yorkshire
In office
29 November 1784 – 29 September 1812
Member of Parliament
for Bramber
In office
24 November 1812 – February 1825
Personal details
Born 24 August 1759
Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire
Died 29 July 1833 (aged 73)
London
Political party Independent
Spouse(s) Barbara Spooner
Children William, Barbara, Elizabeth, Robert, Samuel and Henry
Religion Evangelical Anglican

William Wilberforce (24 August 1759 – 29 July 1833) was a British politician, a philanthropist and a leader of the movement to abolish the slave trade. A native of Kingston upon Hull, Yorkshire, he began his political career in 1780, eventually becoming the independent Member of Parliament for Yorkshire (1784–1812). In 1785, he underwent a conversion experience and became an evangelical Christian, resulting in major changes to his lifestyle and a lifelong concern for reform. In 1787, he came into contact with Thomas Clarkson and a group of anti-slave-trade activists, including Granville Sharp, Hannah More and Charles Middleton. They persuaded Wilberforce to take on the cause of abolition, and he soon became one of the leading English abolitionists.[/COLOR] He headed the parliamentary campaign against the British slave trade for twenty-six years until the passage of the Slave Trade Act 1807.

Wilberforce was convinced of the importance of religion, morality and education. He championed causes and campaigns such as the Society for Suppression of Vice, British missionary work in India, the creation of a free colony in Sierra Leone, the foundation of the Church Mission Society and the Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals. His underlying conservatism led him to support politically and socially repressive legislation, and resulted in criticism that he was ignoring injustices at home while campaigning for the enslaved abroad.

In later years, Wilberforce supported the campaign for the complete abolition of slavery, and continued his involvement after 1826, when he resigned from Parliament because of his failing health. That campaign led to the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, which abolished slavery in most of the British Empire; Wilberforce died just three days after hearing that the passage of the Act through Parliament was assured. He was buried in Westminster Abbey, close to his friend William Pitt.

William Wilberforce - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Uh, earth to Intense.
Those ARE BRITISH.
You know, the folks ACROSS THE POND.
Well, DUH.
Are you that dense?

I will excuse your ignorance and suggest you read the content of the posts and their links.

My ignorance?
DUMBASS, he NEVER stepped foot on this continent in his life.
Born and died IN ENGLAND.
WOW, a church here was named after him in 1856. Such great influence he had here as an abolitionist.
WTF did this dude have to do with the churches IN AMERICA supporting slavery for HUNDREDS OF YEARS?

Wham it zero on set. EP team on ready. KO team on squares. 3rd team D to group.

 

[Intense]

Uh, earth to Intense.
Those ARE BRITISH.
You know, the folks ACROSS THE POND.
Well, DUH.
Are you that dense?

I will excuse your ignorance and suggest you read the content of the posts and their links.

My ignorance?
DUMBASS, he NEVER stepped foot on this continent in his life.
Born and died IN ENGLAND.
WOW, a church here was named after him in 1856. Such great influence he had here as an abolitionist.
WTF did this dude have to do with the churches IN AMERICA supporting slavery for HUNDREDS OF YEARS?

Wham it zero on set. EP team on ready. KO team on squares. 3rd team D to group.

What does the significance of the relationship between Christianity and Abolition have to with where Wilberforce was born or lived? Where do you think England delivered it's Slave cargo to, mostly? I'm not trying to insult you here, though that may change shortly.

 

[Intense]

Abolitionism is a movement to end slavery.

In western Europe and the Americas abolitionism was a movement to end the slave trade and set slaves free. At the behest of Dominican priest Bartolomé de las Casas who was shocked at the treatment of natives in the New World, Spain enacted the first European law abolishing colonial slavery in 1542, although it was not to last (to 1545). In the 17th century, Quaker and evangelical religious groups condemned it as un-Christian; in the 18th century, rationalist thinkers of the Enlightenment criticized it for violating the rights of man. Though anti-slavery sentiments were widespread by the late 18th century, they had little immediate effect on the centers of slavery: the West Indies, South America, and the Southern United States. The Somersett's case in 1772 that emancipated slaves in England, helped launch the movement to abolish slavery. Pennsylvania passed An Act for the Gradual Abolition of Slavery in 1780. Britain banned the importation of African slaves in its colonies in 1807, and the United States followed in 1808. Britain abolished slavery throughout the British Empire with the Slavery Abolition Act 1833, the French colonies abolished it 15 years later, while slavery in the United States was abolished in 1865 with the 13th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

Abolitionism in the West was preceded by the New Laws of the Indies in 1542, in which Emperor Charles V declared free all Native American slaves, abolishing slavery of these races, and declaring them citizens of the Empire with full rights. The move was inspired by writings of the Spanish monk Bartolomé de las Casas and the School of Salamanca. Spanish settlers replaced the Native American slaves with enslaved laborers brought from Africa and thus did not abolish slavery.

In Eastern Europe, abolitionism has played out in movements to end the enslavement of the Roma in Wallachia and Moldavia and to emancipate the serfs in Russia ( Emancipation reform of 1861 ).

In East Asia, abolitionism was evidenced in, for instance, the writings of Yu Hyongwon, a 17th-century Korean Confucian scholar who wrote extensively against slave-holding in 17th-century Korea.

Today, child and adult slavery and forced labour are illegal in most countries, as well as being against international law.

Abolitionism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[koshergrl]

It isn't so much the establishment of a religion by the government that is the problem..though that is certainly where problems begin.

But the true oppression takes place when the government seeks to PREVENT people from adhering to their OWN religion, punishes them for doing so, and oppresses them if they do not worship in an "approved" way.

And that is exactly what our stalwart anti-Christian friends propose. Christians must not be public in their worship, all mention of God must be struck from the books, and public figures are not allowed to mention Christ or God in the commission of their duties.

Sounds a lot like "don't ask don't tell" for Christians. Didn't you guys object to that?

 

[Foxfyre]

Correction to Gadawg's version of history. There were certainly some American congregations comprised of members who mostly supported slavery, but history will show that most of the church opposed slavery, supported abolition, and if it were not for Christians being active in that process and pushing hard for it, it almost certainly would not have happened as soon as it did.

There are NO predominantly Christian nations now who support slavery or segregation. There are numerous non-Christian nations who practice slavery whether or not they call it that.

 

[koshergrl]

Elizabeth I adopted just that sort of policy when she moved to the throne after Mary Tudor. Mary sought and destroyed those who insisted upon adhering publicly to a religion she did not approve, including her own statesmen...as did Henry VIII.

Elizabeth re-adopted the Church of England, but refused to persecute Catholics (much).

 

[PoliticalChic]

Correction to Gadawg's version of history. There were certainly some American congregations comprised of members who mostly supported slavery, but history will show that most of the church opposed slavery, supported abolition, and if it were not for Christians being active in that process and pushing hard for it, it almost certainly would not have happened as soon as it did.

There are NO predominantly Christian nations now who support slavery or segregation. There are numerous non-Christian nations who practice slavery whether or not they call it that.

And of course the equality idea stems from the Old Testament doctrine that all of us are created in God's image.