Politics and Religion

[Grumblenuts]

Sorry, but I don't believe that politics and religion should be mixed.

Our Republic, meaning our form of government, is religious in nature. There's no getting around it.

All men are created...endowed by their creator...

"created" as in borne and born by "their creator" meaning their mother

 

[Bezukhov]

What I want to know is whether the founder of Christianity, who, while He walked the Earth, never involved Himself with the politics of His day, encouraged His followers to "But seek ye first the kingdom of God, and His righteousness; and all these things shall be added unto you." And added later " My kingdom is not of this world: if my kingdom were of this world, then would my servants fight, that I should not be delivered to the Jews: but now is my kingdom not from hence". Now He wants His followers and religion to involve itself with the grubby business of worldly politics?

 

[ReinyDays]

I'd like the long explanation of "The founding, establishment, and principles are completely different." ... if you don't mind

Im sorry but this is about as good as I can do,

George III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Bible and America’s Government

The Bible and the Symphony Orchestra

www.wayoflife.org

I cant tell you much more than that.
Is it possible that you might be suggesting to me, that what I was taught in high school many years ago was wrong, in the that my history teacher told my class, that most, if not all the men involved with the original draft of the constitution, were religious ?

Was your history teacher as anti-Catholic and your link? ... Christians aren't supposed to hate on each other you know ...

I'll assume you do mind explaining yourself ... read Judges and Kings again ... and then compare to what the Bible teaches to your statement "The founding, establishment, and principles are completely different." ... maybe God was teasing the Hebrews eh? ...

 

[Dogbiscuit]

So Ive taken the time to read some the

Was your history teacher as anti-Catholic and your link? ... Christians aren't supposed to hate on each other you know ...

I'll assume you do mind explaining yourself ... read Judges and Kings again ... and then compare to what the Bible teaches to your statement "The founding, establishment, and principles are completely different." ... maybe God was teasing the Hebrews eh? ...

I feel my submission of knowledge on this subject is clear.
I obviously dont know as much as you do.
I am curious as to why you didnt answer my question...
Is it possible that you might be suggesting to me, that what I was taught in high school many years ago was wrong, in the that my history teacher told my class, that most, if not all the men involved with the original draft of the constitution, were religious ?

 

[ReinyDays]

So Ive taken the time to read some the

Was your history teacher as anti-Catholic and your link? ... Christians aren't supposed to hate on each other you know ...

I'll assume you do mind explaining yourself ... read Judges and Kings again ... and then compare to what the Bible teaches to your statement "The founding, establishment, and principles are completely different." ... maybe God was teasing the Hebrews eh? ...

I feel my submission of knowledge on this subject is clear.
I obviously dont know as much as you do.
I am curious as to why you didnt answer my question...
Is it possible that you might be suggesting to me, that what I was taught in high school many years ago was wrong, in the that my history teacher told my class, that most, if not all the men involved with the original draft of the constitution, were religious ?

Just as long as you remember that it was the death sentence in the UK to skip Church on Sunday ... and by that I mean the Church of England and no other ... this far after the Reformation I don't think very many people were being hung, drawn and quartered for this offense, but I believe the law was still on the books in the 1970's ...

So ... yeah ... most people were religious back then ... so what? ... the founding fathers were of a wide variety of Christian denominations as I understand the matter ... thus the idea of all religions being allowed ... which leads to the notion of no religion in government ...

Your history teacher lied to you ... then laughed about it with your other teachers ... they like making a game out of it, breaks up the monotony of trying to teach under-parented children ...

 

[Dogbiscuit]

most people were religious back then ... so what?

Sounds great.
Thanks

 

[ding]

How did he do that?

Well without having to type out a long explanation, he said, " in the United States, these two entities are completely separate",
and they are not completely separate. People may want you to believe they are in written documentation only, aka Constitution, but they arent. Why do you think the libs are so concerned about Barretts nomination ?
This in combination with his full context is contradictory, especially when compared to my response of "The founding, establishment, and principles are completely different."
Remember that back when our country was founded, and the Constitution was written, that probably 99.9% of all Americans believed in a God...period. It was just a given back then.
Today, most radical libs want so much to take that away.
They think that God and Politics dont mix, and they do.

You know... that's exactly what Alexis De Tocqueville observed....

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

Interesting read.
Ive also found it interesting that all state constitutions mention God or the "divine"

God or the divine is referenced in every state constitution

God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall.

www.pewresearch.org

That's because the establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions. The so called separation of church and state only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. In fact, half of the states had established state religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

.

That's because the establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions. The so called separation of church and state only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. In fact, half of the states had established state religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

.
no it was written to insure the separation of church and the state.

so now you know why separation of church and the state was made the law of the land through the establishment clause, 1st amendment and the inclusion of the civil war amendments of equal protection -- for the same reason, the abrogation of separate state rule.

one christianity is bad enough, bing and his 50 state christianities would be the biggest dysfunctional laughing stock constellation the world has ever seen.

How many times am I going to have to prove this to you?

Understanding the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Why wasn’t the Free-Exercise Clause (Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion) sufficient in itself? No other First Amendment right—freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly, or petition—has a pair of clauses devoted to it.

isi.org

The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. Of which half the states had at the time of ratification.

 

[ding]

"... The Establishment Clause serves two purposes: it both prohibits Congress from Establishing a religion but it also prohibits Congress from meddling with state religious establishments..."

Incorporating the Establishment Clause, Wrongly - James R. Rogers

The structural guarantee of the Establishment Clause can be preserved even with protections that prevent restricting individuals' religious liberty.

lawliberty.org

.

 

[MarcATL]

So you are alright living in a country, where the government was founded and established with a belief in God, but now you dont want to mix the two ?
Gotcha

Explain how they were mixed by the founders.

 

[MarcATL]

Belief in God is not the same thing as religion. Belief in God is personal, religion is cultural. If you want to mix the two expect other religions to try and get in on the act. Sharia Law could become the law in certain areas of the US where Muslims are a majority. There are conflicts in NY where orthodox Jews are a majority. Are you OK with those or is Christianity the only religion that should be mixed with politics?

Even under Christianity, there's so many different denominations, which one will prevail? Or which ones?

Should we follow 'Jehovah's Witness' doctrine, that doesn't allow for blood transfusions, so who knows how many people will die as a result of it.

How about Mormon doctrine? Should that govern the land?

 

[alang1216]

Belief in God is not the same thing as religion. Belief in God is personal, religion is cultural. If you want to mix the two expect other religions to try and get in on the act. Sharia Law could become the law in certain areas of the US where Muslims are a majority. There are conflicts in NY where orthodox Jews are a majority. Are you OK with those or is Christianity the only religion that should be mixed with politics?

Even under Christianity, there's so many different denominations, which one will prevail? Or which ones?

Should we follow 'Jehovah's Witness' doctrine, that doesn't allow for blood transfusions, so who knows how many people will die as a result of it.

How about Mormon doctrine? Should that govern the land?

When you mix religion and politics (theocracy) you often get the worst of both. It is popular in Islamic countries like Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Sudan, and Iran. These are examples today but history is filled with them from most every religion.

 

[ding]

So you are alright living in a country, where the government was founded and established with a belief in God, but now you dont want to mix the two ?
Gotcha

Explain how they were mixed by the founders.

Why limit it to the founders? Are we the people not America?

But to answer your question directly, their values and principles informed their decisions the same as your values and principles inform your decisions.

 

[BreezeWood]

How did he do that?

Well without having to type out a long explanation, he said, " in the United States, these two entities are completely separate",
and they are not completely separate. People may want you to believe they are in written documentation only, aka Constitution, but they arent. Why do you think the libs are so concerned about Barretts nomination ?
This in combination with his full context is contradictory, especially when compared to my response of "The founding, establishment, and principles are completely different."
Remember that back when our country was founded, and the Constitution was written, that probably 99.9% of all Americans believed in a God...period. It was just a given back then.
Today, most radical libs want so much to take that away.
They think that God and Politics dont mix, and they do.

You know... that's exactly what Alexis De Tocqueville observed....

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

Interesting read.
Ive also found it interesting that all state constitutions mention God or the "divine"

God or the divine is referenced in every state constitution

God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall.

www.pewresearch.org

That's because the establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions. The so called separation of church and state only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. In fact, half of the states had established state religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

.

That's because the establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions. The so called separation of church and state only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. In fact, half of the states had established state religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

.
no it was written to insure the separation of church and the state.

so now you know why separation of church and the state was made the law of the land through the establishment clause, 1st amendment and the inclusion of the civil war amendments of equal protection -- for the same reason, the abrogation of separate state rule.

one christianity is bad enough, bing and his 50 state christianities would be the biggest dysfunctional laughing stock constellation the world has ever seen.

How many times am I going to have to prove this to you?

Understanding the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Why wasn’t the Free-Exercise Clause (Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion) sufficient in itself? No other First Amendment right—freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly, or petition—has a pair of clauses devoted to it.

isi.org

The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. Of which half the states had at the time of ratification.

.

The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. Of which half the states had at the time of ratification.

no it was written to insure the separation of church and the state.

- separation of church and the state was made the law of the land through the establishment clause, 1st amendment and the inclusion of the civil war amendments of equal protection -- for the same reason, the abrogation of separate state rule.

.
the actual written document does nothing of the sort in regards to the individual states.

the langue of the amendment is the law, not a preface for circumstantial inferences no matter how they may have been intended.
.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

the written document makes no reference to circumstantial pleas but specifically makes separation of state and religion the law of the land. and (or) allows for religious freedom if so pursued.

later, the civil war amendments equal protection curtail a specific inclusion at the state level.

 

[ding]

How did he do that?

Well without having to type out a long explanation, he said, " in the United States, these two entities are completely separate",
and they are not completely separate. People may want you to believe they are in written documentation only, aka Constitution, but they arent. Why do you think the libs are so concerned about Barretts nomination ?
This in combination with his full context is contradictory, especially when compared to my response of "The founding, establishment, and principles are completely different."
Remember that back when our country was founded, and the Constitution was written, that probably 99.9% of all Americans believed in a God...period. It was just a given back then.
Today, most radical libs want so much to take that away.
They think that God and Politics dont mix, and they do.

You know... that's exactly what Alexis De Tocqueville observed....

One Nation Under God: Alexis de Tocqueville

Upon my arrival in the United States the religious aspect of the country was the first thing that struck my attention; and the longer I stayed there, the more I perceived the great political consequences resulting from this new state of things.

In France I had almost always seen the spirit of religion and the spirit of freedom marching in opposite directions. But in America I found they were intimately united and that they reigned in common over the same country.

Religion in America...must be regarded as the foremost of the political institutions of that country; for if it does not impart a taste for freedom, it facilitates the use of it. Indeed, it is in this same point of view that the inhabitants of the United States themselves look upon religious belief.

I do not know whether all Americans have a sincere faith in their religion -- for who can search the human heart? But I am certain that they hold it to be indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. This opinion is not peculiar to a class of citizens or a party, but it belongs to the whole nation and to every rank of society.

In the United States, the sovereign authority is religious...there is no country in the world where the Christian religion retains a greater influence over the souls of men than in America, and there can be no greater proof of its utility and of its conformity to human nature than that its influence is powerfully felt over the most enlightened and free nation of the earth.

In the United States, the influence of religion is not confined to the manners, but it extends to the intelligence of the people...

Christianity, therefore, reigns without obstacle, by universal consent...

I sought for the key to the greatness and genius of America in her harbors...; in her fertile fields and boundless forests; in her rich mines and vast world commerce; in her public school system and institutions of learning. I sought for it in her democratic Congress and in her matchless Constitution.

Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits flame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power. America is great because America is good, and if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great. The safeguard of morality is religion, and morality is the best security of law as well as the surest pledge of freedom. The Americans combine the notions of Christianity and of liberty so intimately in their minds, that it is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other. Christianity is the companion of liberty in all its conflicts -- the cradle of its infancy, and the divine source of its claims.

Tocqueville gives this account of a court case in New York:
While I was in America, a witness, who happened to be called at the assizes of the county of Chester (state of New York), declared that he did not believe in the existence of God or in the immortality of the soul. The judge refused to admit his evidence, on the ground that the witness had destroyed beforehand all confidence of the court in what he was about to say. The newspapers related the fact without any further comment. The New York Spectator of August 23rd, 1831, relates the fact in the following terms:

"The court of common pleas of Chester county (New York), a few days since rejected a witness who declared his disbelief in the existence of God. The presiding judge remarked, that he had not before been aware that there was a man living who did not believe in the existence of God; that this belief constituted the sanction of all testimony in a court of justice: and that he knew of no case in a Christian country, where a witness had been permitted to testify without such belief."

Interesting read.
Ive also found it interesting that all state constitutions mention God or the "divine"

God or the divine is referenced in every state constitution

God or the divine is mentioned at least once in each of the 50 state constitutions and nearly 200 times overall.

www.pewresearch.org

That's because the establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions. The so called separation of church and state only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. In fact, half of the states had established state religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

.

That's because the establishment clause was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religions. The so called separation of church and state only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. In fact, half of the states had established state religions at the time the constitution was ratified.

.
no it was written to insure the separation of church and the state.

so now you know why separation of church and the state was made the law of the land through the establishment clause, 1st amendment and the inclusion of the civil war amendments of equal protection -- for the same reason, the abrogation of separate state rule.

one christianity is bad enough, bing and his 50 state christianities would be the biggest dysfunctional laughing stock constellation the world has ever seen.

How many times am I going to have to prove this to you?

Understanding the First Amendment’s Religion Clauses - Intercollegiate Studies Institute

Why wasn’t the Free-Exercise Clause (Congress shall make no law “prohibiting the free exercise” of religion) sufficient in itself? No other First Amendment right—freedom of speech, press, peaceable assembly, or petition—has a pair of clauses devoted to it.

isi.org

The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. Of which half the states had at the time of ratification.

.

The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment only applied to the federal government. States were free to establish state religions. Of which half the states had at the time of ratification.

no it was written to insure the separation of church and the state.

- separation of church and the state was made the law of the land through the establishment clause, 1st amendment and the inclusion of the civil war amendments of equal protection -- for the same reason, the abrogation of separate state rule.

.
the actual written document does nothing of the sort in regards to the individual states.

the langue of the amendment is the law, not a preface for circumstantial inferences no matter how they may have been intended.
.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

the written document makes no reference to circumstantial pleas but specifically makes separation of state and religion the law of the land. and (or) allows for religious freedom if so pursued.

later, the civil war amendments equal protection curtail a specific inclusion at the state level.

Did you even read the links, dummy?

 

[ding]

"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State

The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

www.forbes.com

 

[justinacolmena]

"created" as in borne and born by "their creator" meaning their mother

Look. You've got things twisted up in a bottle straight out of the liquor store. The supernatural obsessions over the VIrgin Mary with birthing and mothering have got to stop, along with excessive viewing of pornography and other propaganda from the vice industry.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

Explain how they were mixed by the founders.

Youre a tad bit too late.
If you really care, read previous comments for a full explanation.

 

[Dogbiscuit]

I took the time to read several comments from several different posts besides this one.
Im impressed (easy to do) with the knowledge of many of the members. Interestingly, I also noticed that some you remain, and converse, primarily on this forum. Often times Ive seen words and phrases manipulated and taken out of context, also facts were presented, including factual quotes from history, and many times it made me wonder why the controversy started to begin with, not long after the thread started.
On this forum I realize that both sides of an argument can continue to infinity.
On this forum there are threads with no winners or losers at times, imo. What I mean, its like two people fighting over a piece of bread, and they continue fighting until they are so tired, that neither gets the bread. Then they start again, only to get the same results. Its like a specific dialect is used from each, to express what they both know to be fact, combined with what they believe. I guess some feel there is productivity in it, or they wouldn't be on here doing it. The other side of that coin is, one can easily sense that some might have a genuine resentment, and it seems to drive their responses.
With my education, Im in waaay over my head on this forum. Ive lived my entire life always wishing that I had the knowledge that many on this forum have, but after reading many of the comments, for the first time in my life Im very grateful for being exactly who I am, including my intelligence and education level.
No matter if you believe there is a God, or if you believe there is not, I believe there is not much room for hate, most of the time in our society, and I sincerely hope that most would agree with that.
Forrest Gump, where are you when I need you ?

 

[BreezeWood]

"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State

The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

www.forbes.com

.

"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society.

.
is screaming your way of gaining attention - sorry your juvenile theatrics are less than impressive.

society may handle the various religions including christianity the point is the 1st amendment itself, the written text that clearly states religion is prohibited in any form an involvement in the state gov't.

 

[ding]

"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity.

Where the French Revolution and its official policy of “De-Christianization” quickly devolved into bloodshed and oppression, here freedom flourished. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Our forbears embraced tradition and left local autonomy largely intact.

Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Few Americans would have tolerated a coercive central government infringing on their rights to post religious symbols on local schools, courts or anywhere else.

Americans built society from the ground up. Many had fled oppression. The colonies instituted local self-government indigenously to confirm the rights resident in their persons and property. Few would have willingly been dispossessed by Washington of the very freedoms which they had just secured from London.

Here men could and did rise as their efforts merited. Commoners were unshackled from feudal paralysis and freed to find God individually. Both the economy and church thrived. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.”

Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.”

Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.”

The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.”

Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed.

His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State

The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

www.forbes.com

.

"...Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society.

.
is screaming your way of gaining attention - sorry your juvenile theatrics are less than impressive.

society may handle the various religions including christianity the point is the 1st amendment itself, the written text that clearly states religion is prohibited in any form an involvement in the state gov't.

Facts are facts. You don't have any facts. That's why you can't post anything other than your uninformed opinion.

Our forefathers never sought to evict the church from society. They recognized that the several states did not share uniform values. We lived and worshipped differently. The framers were a diverse bunch with wildly divergent opinions on many issues, but eliminating the very foundations of America’s heritage would have horrified them. On few issues was there more unanimity. Our independence was seen as the culmination of a march toward liberty, not a rejection of America’s historical cultural moorings. Schools, courts and the public square were often overtly Christian and had been since their colonial beginnings. Alexis de Tocqueville observed that Americans intertwined individual liberty with vibrant faith. “It is impossible to make them conceive the one without the other.” Even non-Christian founders thought religion essential. None would have wished to upend the very basis for education, law or culture. The Northwest Ordinance of 1787 states: “Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.” Americans understood freedom without morality quickly devolves into debauchery. Whether from sincere faith, or, prudence instilling an honest, law-abiding, responsible and hardworking populace, all esteemed biblical morality as the bedrock of self government. George Washington believed, “Religion and morality are indispensible supports” for “it is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” The phrase “separation between church and state” was reintroduced by former Klansman Hugo Black, historically one of our most liberal Supreme Court judges. In the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education, Justice Black invoked Thomas Jefferson stating, “The First Amendment has erected ‘a wall of separation between church and state.’ . . . that wall must be kept high and impregnable.” Thomas Jefferson thought differently. The Danbury Baptists wrote to him congratulating his election and objecting to the First Amendment. They thought it implied government dispensed what was not government’s to give. Jefferson agreed. His reply clearly applied “Separation of Church and State” to the establishment and not to the free exercise of religion. As he expressed, what communities did and how they worshipped were not federal affairs. Jefferson later said the central government was “interdicted from intermeddling with religious institutions.” Such were state matters..."

The True Meaning of Separation of Church and State

The Founders weren't anti-religion, rather they were against the federal government establishing one.

www.forbes.com

You can't back up anything you claim. You lose.