Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[ding]

Jefferson believed that rights are granted, even if you believe there is no God. He said that.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

I just didn't want it left to the anti religious group to use it as evidence that we evil Christians want a theocracy.

Overturning Grove versus Wade. It was a theocratic Supreme Court decision pushed by the Catholic Church and evangelical Christians against the will of Liberal Christianity and the rest of American society.

You will pay in November, but it still wasn’t an attempt at theocracy on a state by state basis.

 

[Foxfyre]

The founding fathers - to a man - believed that rights are granted because we have a duty to God; an obligation.

Do you agree with that?

Not exactly. The Founding Father believed our rights come from God and not from any human authority and intended to have a government that would acknowledge, protect, and not interfere with those rights. Whether or not a person believed in God and preferred the term 'natural rights', the principle was the same.

I don't know how many agreed with John Adams that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." But I don't recall anybody arguing with him about that.

​

 

[ding]

Washington was a Freemason he believed that duty of which you speak can be applied to any God.

John Adams was a Unitarian. He didn’t believe in original sin or that Jesus Christ died on the cross and rose from the dead. The duty to God was just to be a good Civic person. That is not Christianity as mankind has experienced the gospel of Jesus Christ throughout the ages.

That's what atheists tell themselves to help them sleep at night. George Washington would have considered militant atheists to be unpatriotic. Read his farewell address.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

 

[ding]

Not exactly. The Founding Father believed our rights come from God and not from any human authority and intended to have a government that would acknowledge, protect, and not interfere with those rights. Whether or not a person believed in God and preferred the term 'natural rights', the principle was the same.

I don't know how many agreed with John Adams that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." But I don't recall anybody arguing with him about that.

​

Our founding fathers believed that our rights are conditional. That we are granted inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures but that those rights require us to meet our obligation and duty to God.

 

[Foxfyre]

Overturning Grove versus Wade. It was a theocratic Supreme Court decision pushed by the Catholic Church and evangelical Christians against the will of Liberal Christianity and the rest of American society.

You will pay in November, but it still wasn’t an attempt at theocracy on a state by state basis.

I do not buy that at all. I think it was a majority of justices who recognized the error of the Court in making such a law when there is no constitutional authority given the SCOTUS to make law. Such a law should be decided by the people's elected representatives or via referendum and not by the courts. They kept religion entirely out of it as they should.

 

[BreezeWood]

I just didn't want it left to the anti religious group to use it as evidence that we evil Christians want a theocracy.

one might wonder what is a church ...

there is no doubt what is the agenda of the desert religions than selectivity, servitude and denial for a purpose all of their own. at least the similarities of their bibles.

 

[Foxfyre]

Our founding fathers believed that our rights are conditional. That we are granted inalienable rights for no other reason than we are God's creatures but that those rights require us to meet our obligation and duty to God.

I disagree. Our Founding Fathers believed our rights are unalienable and in no way conditional and wrote a Constitution intended to allow the people to exercise those unalienable rights that the federal government would in no way restrict or restrain. The laws they passed had that principle in mind. Every citizen had the right to bear arms. He/she did not have the right to use those arms to unlawfully deprive another citizen of his/her right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc.

And one unalienable right they recognized to a man was a person's right to be religious or not, the right to believe in God or not, the right to join a particular religious group or not, the right to choose for oneself what is a person's duty to God. And the government was given zero authority to order or interfere with any of that.

 

[BreezeWood]

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People.

hardly a one, those that wrote the constitution considered the european theocracies as - religious. they were primarily deist.

 

[ding]

hardly a one, those that wrote the constitution considered the european theocracies as - religions. they were primarily deist.

I get that it bothers you. You're a filthy socialist.

 

[ding]

I disagree. Our Founding Fathers believed our rights are unalienable and in no way conditional and wrote a Constitution intended to allow the people to exercise those unalienable rights that the federal government would in no way restrict or restrain. The laws they passed had that principle in mind. Every citizen had the right to bear arms. He/she did not have the right to use those arms to unlawfully deprive another citizen of his/her right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness etc.

And one unalienable right they recognized to a man was a person's right to be religious or not, the right to believe in God or not, the right to join a particular religious group or not, the right to choose for oneself what is a person's duty to God. And the government was given zero authority to order or interfere with any of that.

The link I provided says otherwise.

 

[Meriweather]

I just didn't want it left to the anti religious group to use it as evidence that we evil Christians want a theocracy.

And I want it understood that Christians are citizens who do want a theocracy, but none-the-less have an equal voice and an equal duty to this secular democracy. Trying to shut them out under the guise of "separation of Church and State is intolerable because it is a step in the direction of not allowing people of faith to vote based on "separation of Church and State". All I was ever saying is that people of any/all faiths should be heard on secular matters in our secular government. No one should think that this infringes on separation of Church and State. The fact that people seem to--even in this thread--I find astonishing. Do people not understand we have a secular government? If a person of faith has an opinion on government issues then they must be violating separation of Church and State? Unbelievable.

Those who try to make abortion and school choice an encroachment of theocracy into government need to be corrected.

 

[Foxfyre]

And I want it understood that Christians are citizens who do want a theocracy, but none-the-less have an equal voice and an equal duty to this secular democracy. Trying to shut them out under the guise of "separation of Church and State is intolerable because it is a step in the direction of not allowing people of faith to vote based on "separation of Church and State". All I was ever saying is that people of any/all faiths should be heard on secular matters in our secular government. No one should think that this infringes on separation of Church and State. The fact that people seem to--even in this thread--I find astonishing. Do people not understand we have a secular government? If a person of faith has an opinion on government issues then they must be violating separation of Church and State? Unbelievable.

Those who try to make abortion and school choice an encroachment of theocracy into government need to be corrected.

If you want a theocracy you are honestly the first person claiming Christianity as his faith I have EVER accounted who wanted that. The Constitution first and foremost was to make this a government of, for and by the people who would not be controlled by a monarchy, dictatorship, totalitarian government of any kind, would be subject to dictates of no pope who did not choose to be subject, who would be governed by no religious authority against his/her will, all of which a theocracy would be.

And they did want the people to be people of faith just the same. Those who preach separation of church and state--something the Founders never intended--simply want authority to deny the Church or any other religious group to be seen, heard, or have any voice at all. The Founders wanted all citizens, Christians and not, to have the right to equally believe or not believe, to speak or not speak, with all having identical power with their voice and their vote.

 

[Foxfyre]

The link I provided says otherwise.

I get my information and arrive at my conclusions from studying the Constitution and the documents the Founding Fathers left us that gives us their perspective on what government should be and give those far more credibility than any link to somebody's opinion on the internet. If you can offer a better argument than the Constitution and founding documents, go for it.

 

[Meriweather]

If you want a theocracy you are honestly the first person claiming Christianity as his faith I have EVER accounted who wanted that.

That you even wrote that sentence tells me you don't even bother to read what I write.

I have NEVER wanted a theocracy, would never consider it. Why? Because it is not good for theocracy. It doesn't help secular government either. I am very much in favor of ALL citizen participating in democracy with no intimidation by anyone.

 

[ding]

I get my information and arrive at my conclusions from studying the Constitution and the documents the Founding Fathers left us that gives us their perspective on what government should be and give those far more credibility than any link to somebody's opinion on the internet. If you can offer a better argument than the Constitution and founding documents, go for it.

I think I will rely on the words of the founding fathers. The link I provided was from the Washington and Lee Law Review is based upon documented historical facts and the words of the founding fathers.

https://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr

 

[whutTHEYsay]

That's what atheists tell themselves to help them sleep at night. George Washington would have considered militant atheists to be unpatriotic. Read his farewell address.

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams

In 1776 there were only about 20 percent of the residence of the 13 colonies who were members of a Christian church.

Do you think that was religious enough for John Adams Saint_Ding?

It kept going up steadily, but today’s religious right is very despondent
about the state of Christian religion in America.

Frauds Tucker and Laura distance from T 201130 {post•135} NotfooledbyW Churching of America : Membership In America Percentage of population that belongs to a church: 1776 17% 1850 34% 1860 37% 1870 35% 1890 45% 1906 51% 1916 53% 1926 56% 1952 59% 1980 62% 1995 65% * *Estimated. Source: "The Churching of America: 1776-1990" by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark and Gallup Organization data“ •••• nfbw 201130 Vftald00135

 

[Ace Nova]

My question addresses the fact that citizens of faith (all faiths) may participate in civic issues and should not be intimidated by those snapping, "Separation of Church and State" at them. The primary example of this could be abortion, but it also extends into school choice. People are free to practice their faith. Offering the choice of a Christian, Jewish, Muslim school, etc., is not the Feds pushing a religion, but offering the choices the Constitution guarantees. Because some religions are against abortion, it does not make abortion a religious issue and therefore is not an example for separation of church and state. As mentioned previously, some atheists are also against abortion.

People of faith should be able to voice their opinions on these issues without those on the opposing side of the issue running up the flag of separation of church and state.

We're not in disagreement. The people stating "separation of church and state" when discussing things like "abortion" "school choice" etc have no idea what they are talking about. It's not a "Church vs state" issue.

Separation of Church and state essentially means that the Federal Government cannot be ruled by and cannot have an "official religion".

Taken from Quora:

Britain had an established state church (the Church of England) headed by the King. Refusal to participate in that church could result in subject being criminally punished, or face other political limitations. Many British subjects came to the colonies to escape those restrictions and practice the type of religion that they wanted.

By the time of independence, there was a wide variety of churches in America. The founders did not want to see a sectarian war over which church would become the official religion, and which would be outlawed, as often happened in Europe. Instead, the Constitution forbade the federal government from establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Initially, this only applied to the federal government. Some states created their own similar rules at the state level. In other cases, some states had official state religions well into the 19th century.

What was Britain like that caused the 13 colonist to want a separation of church and state?

Answer (1 of 5): More important is what the religious situation in the colonies was like. And the answer to that is that it was really complex and growing increasingly so during the decades preceding the Revolution. Due to immigration from various parts of Europe and to waves of religious revival...

www.quora.com

 

[ding]

In 1776 there were only about 20 percent of the residence of the 13 colonies who were members of a Christian church.

Do you think that was religious enough for John Adams Saint_Ding?

It kept going up steadily, but today’s religious right is very despondent
about the state of Christian religion in America.

Frauds Tucker and Laura distance from T 201130 {post•135} NotfooledbyW Churching of America : Membership In America Percentage of population that belongs to a church: 1776 17% 1850 34% 1860 37% 1870 35% 1890 45% 1906 51% 1916 53% 1926 56% 1952 59% 1980 62% 1995 65% * *Estimated. Source: "The Churching of America: 1776-1990" by Roger Finke and Rodney Stark and Gallup Organization data“ •••• nfbw 201130 Vftald00135

You'd have to ask him, but do you suppose that means the rest were atheists or not Christians? Because you are passing over a shitload of historical data of a Christian heritage and direct testimony of an impartial witness who said it was.

And lastly, does it matter? Do you suppose the founding fathers were lying about it? I think you need to face reality that militant atheists like yourself were few and far between and still are today.

 

[whutTHEYsay]

the Constitution forbade the federal government from establishing a state religion or prohibiting the free exercise of any religion.

Once the words, “prohibiting the free exercise of any religion“ were inked on the pages of the US Constitution, there practically could be no more state churches. State controlled religion was scheduled for extinction and it happened.


Think about it.