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

[Dr.Drock]

Oh and I forgot my favorite, Bush's Wall Street bailout, if that's not liberal socialism nothing is.

 

[JRK]

I've already seen that thread, and I agree with you. Each president sets the bar a little lower than the last one. Obama is worse and a much more liberal spender than Bush, Bush was worse and a much more liberal spender than Clinton and you could go on and on down the line of presidents.

The trend will continue, and the next republican president will be even worse and spend even more liberally than Obama is.

Other than GWB medicare program he did a very good job
the wars?
people have there feelings and they for the most part changed with the what ever the press told them to think

GWB was within 2.5 trillion of 8 years of a balanced budget, deficit, not DEBT

9-11 eat up 1/2 of that, more if you take into account the loss of revenue 01-03
his medicare program took about 400 billion

My friend, thats a far cry from being a liberal and its not in the same ball park as Obama. we would be in so much better shape with 5% UE and 163 billion in defict

that would be 2007
the last GOP budget

Skyrocketing debt, skyrocketing spending, huge growth of the dept of education including no child left behind, expanding gov't by inventing the dept of homeland security, the liberal notion of "saving Iraq from an evil dictator", welfare budgets that set records all 8 years of his presidency in terms of spending, I could go on all day, you can make excuses for it as a partisan, as a conservative I cannot.

no child left behind was an attempt to reach across the aisle
i agree that was another increase we did not need
GWB without 9-11 comes cole to 8 years of a balanced budget
Any way I have stated many times my feelings on his spending

Drock 08-09 was close to 1/2 of his total deficits
Thats was done with a left wing lead congress
I do not know what else to say
he was handed a recession, 9-11, Enron and Al Gore and a serious stock market crash in his first 300 days
we got thru it and had 5 great years after that
He stood up when the wheels came off and had the guts to save wall street which save trillions in 401ks with our wealth
we got that money back, unlike Obama has done
He waited 18 months before we invaded Iraq, Quitely closed bases in Saudi and Kuwait after
He stood by his people when he should not have, and made tough choices when he had to and ended the Iraq war before he left while at the same time added 100s of billions to our debt by giving the tax payer money in his style of a stimulus instead of the unions and god knows who else like was done in 09

GWB is not my hero, but he is a great man that deserves allor better than he is getting

 

[Intense]

You still missed it by a mile. You have to go back further than that. Study the influence of the Anabaptist sects on Early America, most notably their most famous sect, the Quakers. Then do some homework on the founding of RI and PA. There is plenty of documented evidence that the origin of Separation of Church and State predated your guys by at least a century. Read the essays of William Penn and do some homework on Roger Williams.

None of your references support your point unless you fail to take into account the historical/demographic contextual differences of the 18th Century American and today. Your perspective is all off.

A Letter Concerning Toleration

by John Locke

1689

Translated by William Popple
John Locke: A Letter Concerning Toleration

Got you beat by 2 generations. Roger Williams got to it ahead of Locke and was an American to boot.

Historical Baptist Quotes on the Separation of Church and State
Roger Williams in 1644
"When they [the Church] have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the Candlestick, etc., and made His Garden a wilderness as it is this day. And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and Paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and all that be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the World." Roger Williams, "Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered," The Complete Writings of Roger Williams (New York: Russell & Russell Inc. 1963), Vol. 1, 108.
----
Williams argues that, when the separation between church and state is breached by the church, then the church itself suffers. Instead of a garden, it becomes an uncivilized wilderness, plagued by weeds and undergrowth. It is likely that Williams is referencing a parable in Matthew:

He put before them another parable: "The kingdom of heaven may be compared to someone who sowed good seed in his field; but while everybody was asleep, an enemy came and sowed weeds among the wheat, and then went away. So when the plants came up and bore grain, then the weeds appeared as well. ...

The one who sows the good seed is the Son of Man; the field is the world, and the good seed are the children of the kingdom; the weeds are the children of the evil one, and the enemy who sowed them is the devil; the harvest is the end of the age, and the reapers are angels..." (Matthew 13:24-39)

Even as early as 1644, then, people recognized that a "wall of separation" between the church and the state was not a wall which only worked "one way." Instead, it was something which should protect both church and state from each other, ensuring that both could fulfill their functions properly.
Communist Church/State Separation - Is Church/State Separation a Communist Plot

Got you beat by 2 generations. Roger Williams got to it ahead of Locke and was an American to boot.

Except that both Jefferson based their foundation on Locke, not Williams. Good try though. Nice to see that Williams was also rooted in scripture, Rooting the Separation of Church and State in Jesus's words. How about you learn to distinguish between the Separation of Church and State, from the Separation of God and State. Apply Conscience First, and we have something constructive to talk about.

Let's consider the concern of Tyranny destroying the new Republic, a misdirected Government more of a threat than misguided Zealots. Again, one with the power to confiscate property, imprison, and execute, the other only the power to excommunicate and claims of power over Salvation, true or not.

New York went to great lengths to keep Clergy out of Government entirely, as I showed earlier in this Thread. Why? Because of the History of Organized Religion in relation to oppression, at least in part. What I am doing, what you yet to see, is distinguishing between God, Church, Society, and Government. We do not abandon the Forces that formed and Govern Creation without abandoning Justice. We do not blame God for what we do to each other. We do not blame God for what others claim to do in his name. In matters of Conscience we are obligated to what is right over what our obligation is to the State. Take the hit, the punishment, for the sake of what is Right, from the Crucifixion, to Locke teaching of Nonviolent Civil disobedience, to Thoreau, MLK, Gandhi.

 

[Gadawg73]

There is a motif that runs through a segment of the Old Testament that offered variations on the basic theme: "In those days there was no king in Israel; every man did what was right in his own eyes." The people were frustrated that they did not have what they thought they wanted and they were frustrated that their neighbors did not behave to their liking, and they clamored for a king that would provide what they wanted and make everybody 'behave'. As the text continues, we find they got their king and a whole lot of unintended negative consequences.

The American Revolution was fought to rid the people of a 'king' (authoritarian government) and initiate the pure classical liberal concept of unalienable rights and a people who, with their rights secured, would govern themselves free of any form of king, monarchy, feudal lord, dicatator, totalitarian government etc. And for the hundred plus years this concept was protected and implemented, it produced the most free, most innovative, most prosperous, most compassionate, most progressive nation the world had ever known.

But alas, a segment of society who didn't study the origins of this nation and know little of those origins, now find they don't have all they want and their neighbors don't behave as they think they should, and they clamor for a 'king' to provide what they think they want. Unfortunately a lot of those people have made it into our governing bodies and court system.

If we don't start reeducating people on the concept of unalienable rights and self governance, I do believe we will lose those amazing freedoms.

Not much to add but I liked both of your posts (md and fox).

The Reformation was the beginning of the people's determination to break away from the immoral, destructive, and oppressive church/state alliances that, in the 18th Century, existed pretty much throughout all of Europe and the near East. The American Revolution was fought to finally accomplish complete separation of religion (among other things) from government control.

If we again allow a 'pope' or 'archbishop' or 'king' or 'court' or any other component of the federal government dictate if or where we may pray, what and where we can place symbols or imagery, what songs we may sing and where, the concept of separation of church and state is not protected. Instead we have again allowed government to control the unalienable rights of the people re religion.

You mean a complete seperation of government from religous control.
Do you deny that every single European government at that time was controlled by religion?

 

[CryingKoala]

Except that both Jefferson based their foundation on Locke, not Williams. Good try though. Nice to see that Williams was also rooted in scripture, Rooting the Separation of Church and State in Jesus's words.

It wasn't even a unique idea for Locke either, nor is Locke the sole source of the Establishment Clause in any way shape or form. It was already established doctrine/law in the colonies of RI and PA. Jefferson and Madison or anyone involved in the drafting of the Constitution were not dealing with the concept in the purely theoretical by the time the Constitution was drafted. It was already in practice, just not universally among all colonies.


How about you learn to distinguish between the Separation of Church and State, from the Separation of God and State. Apply Conscience First, and we have something constructive to talk about.

Its a false distinction. You are still missing the point that Separation of Church and State does not equal the complete banishment of God or whatever religious belief you chose to accept from the political sphere.

All it means is you have to can't show preference to any single version of it. In other words, its not disagreement with you entirely. Its just warning that you have to qualify your statements a lot more than what you have done. You have to make acknowledgment that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to promote religious plurality. Your citation to the NY charter in of itself does not prove your point unless you illustrated that it was a much more inclusive document for its time.

 

[koshergrl]

No, it doesn't mean you can't show preference. You CAN show preference. You cannot establish LAW which establishes state religion. No state religion is NOT the same thing as NO REFERENCES.

The right to have a preference and to be vocal about your preference is exactly what the pretend separation of church and state was meant to protect.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

You have to make acknowledgment that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to promote religious plurality.

No one has to acknowledge that, for it is not true. The purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the state from imposing your religion on me, and the purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to protect religious liberty. Religious plurality is irrelevant.

 

[Intense]

Except that both Jefferson based their foundation on Locke, not Williams. Good try though. Nice to see that Williams was also rooted in scripture, Rooting the Separation of Church and State in Jesus's words.

It wasn't even a unique idea for Locke either, nor is Locke the sole source of the Establishment Clause in any way shape or form. It was already established doctrine/law in the colonies of RI and PA. Jefferson and Madison or anyone involved in the drafting of the Constitution were not dealing with the concept in the purely theoretical by the time the Constitution was drafted. It was already in practice, just not universally among all colonies.


How about you learn to distinguish between the Separation of Church and State, from the Separation of God and State. Apply Conscience First, and we have something constructive to talk about.

Its a false distinction. You are still missing the point that Separation of Church and State does not equal the complete banishment of God or whatever religious belief you chose to accept from the political sphere.

All it means is you have to can't show preference to any single version of it. In other words, its not disagreement with you entirely. Its just warning that you have to qualify your statements a lot more than what you have done. You have to make acknowledgment that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to promote religious plurality. Your citation to the NY charter in of itself does not prove your point unless you illustrated that it was a much more inclusive document for its time.

It wasn't even a unique idea for Locke either, nor is Locke the sole source of the Establishment Clause in any way shape or form. It was already established doctrine/law in the colonies of RI and PA. Jefferson and Madison or anyone involved in the drafting of the Constitution were not dealing with the concept in the purely theoretical by the time the Constitution was drafted. It was already in practice, just not universally among all colonies.

"Memorial and Remonstrance" contains direct references from Locke, so does the Declaration of Independence, so does the Virginia Constitution. That works for me. You are placing too much emphasis on RI, and possibly Pa, too. NY obviously oppressed Clergy in relation to Government participation, and was wrong in doing so. We are not all that far apart in our views, though you might want to truly know my positions, rather than assume. I am anti Tyranny, regardless of the source, I am also anti Chaos or Anarchy, regardless of the source. Mark Levin I believe coined the term, "Constructive Liberty". I am fine with that.

Its a false distinction. You are still missing the point that Separation of Church and State does not equal the complete banishment of God or whatever religious belief you chose to accept from the political sphere.

All it means is you have to can't show preference to any single version of it. In other words, its not disagreement with you entirely. Its just warning that you have to qualify your statements a lot more than what you have done. You have to make acknowledgment that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to promote religious plurality. Your citation to the NY charter in of itself does not prove your point unless you illustrated that it was a much more inclusive document for its time.

Actually it is not a false distinction. This Site specifically has a long history of battles of whether God exists, of whether Unalienable or Natural Rights exist at all. There are those here that adamantly reject the notion of God in All forms. Again, I distinguish between, God, the Individual, the Church, Society, and Government, with purpose.

We Each have Every Right to show Preference to Our Faith, to Conscience, I personally believe we are obligated to do so, to show preference to Conscience over the flavor of the day. We are charged with bearing witness and telling the truth about what we see, to establish Justice, to effect change, this obligation comes before our obligation to the State, be you Christian, Jew, Muslim, or Atheist. Acting against Conscience is where we find injustice. Remember what Thoreau said about the Fountain Head? In effect, taking the training wheels off? In relation to Plurality, there are those of us that believe, that no matter the path, with Conscience as your guide, the destination is a given. Abandon it, and all bets are off.

 

[Intense]

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

 

[Gadawg73]

You have to make acknowledgment that the purpose of the Establishment Clause is to promote religious plurality.

No one has to acknowledge that, for it is not true. The purpose of the Establishment Clause is to prevent the state from imposing your religion on me, and the purpose of the Free Exercise Clause is to protect religious liberty. Religious plurality is irrelevant.

No, the establishment clause was to prevent any religion from having influence over the government.
Just like it was done in all of the European countries and in the Colonies.
The European countries, all of them, had religous influences in every aspect of their "governments", monarchies, and the Founders wanted no part of that.
The power of the monarchies was mandated as divine right given to them by God. A commoner had no way to get past that as God ran the show in all European countries of the daythe monarchs proclaimed.
And the Founders ran like hell from that. They wanted God to have NOTHING to do with anything government here and the Constitution reflects that.
We are a nation OF LAWS, not men and their various, changing like the wind, religous opinions, influences and doctrines.
You have yet to show any evidence whatsoever that all of the European countries at the time this great nationwas founded did not have heavily religous influenced governments.
Every one of them and the Colonies.

 

[Gadawg73]

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

I love Thoreau. As a boy in the hills of Tennessee I read all of his works in the mid 60s. Walden is my favorite as that taught me the discipline to be as wealthy as I am now.
Thoreau was an abolitionist and was adamantly opposed to the religous influences that the church had on government and their support of slavery. On Civil Disobediece is a must read.
"There is more religion in men's science than there is science in their religion".
Thoreau is an excellent example of not wanting religous influences in government.

 

[koshergrl]

Good lord, ABOLITION came about because of the churches, not in spite of them.

Apparently while you were reading Thoreau you neglected history.

 

[JRK]

Good lord, ABOLITION came about because of the churches, not in spite of them.

Apparently while you were reading Thoreau you neglected history.

People, not religion do harm

 

[JakeStarkey]

Persecution and reform both came about by organized religion in America.

 

[JRK]

Persecution and reform both came about by organized religion in America.

That came from the people Jake, not the religion

People who run airplanes into buildings in the name of Allah would not be doing it if there was no people
Simply put people are evil, not the religion

 

[Dr.Drock]

Other than GWB medicare program he did a very good job
the wars?
people have there feelings and they for the most part changed with the what ever the press told them to think

GWB was within 2.5 trillion of 8 years of a balanced budget, deficit, not DEBT

9-11 eat up 1/2 of that, more if you take into account the loss of revenue 01-03
his medicare program took about 400 billion

My friend, thats a far cry from being a liberal and its not in the same ball park as Obama. we would be in so much better shape with 5% UE and 163 billion in defict

that would be 2007
the last GOP budget

Skyrocketing debt, skyrocketing spending, huge growth of the dept of education including no child left behind, expanding gov't by inventing the dept of homeland security, the liberal notion of "saving Iraq from an evil dictator", welfare budgets that set records all 8 years of his presidency in terms of spending, I could go on all day, you can make excuses for it as a partisan, as a conservative I cannot.

no child left behind was an attempt to reach across the aisle
i agree that was another increase we did not need
GWB without 9-11 comes cole to 8 years of a balanced budget
Any way I have stated many times my feelings on his spending

Drock 08-09 was close to 1/2 of his total deficits
Thats was done with a left wing lead congress
I do not know what else to say
he was handed a recession, 9-11, Enron and Al Gore and a serious stock market crash in his first 300 days
we got thru it and had 5 great years after that
He stood up when the wheels came off and had the guts to save wall street which save trillions in 401ks with our wealth
we got that money back, unlike Obama has done
He waited 18 months before we invaded Iraq, Quitely closed bases in Saudi and Kuwait after
He stood by his people when he should not have, and made tough choices when he had to and ended the Iraq war before he left while at the same time added 100s of billions to our debt by giving the tax payer money in his style of a stimulus instead of the unions and god knows who else like was done in 09

GWB is not my hero, but he is a great man that deserves allor better than he is getting

Like I said you'll make excuses for him all day because he's your hero and you're a hardcore partisan.

No real conservative would EVER say bailing out Wall Street was the right thing to do.

 

[Intense]

[17] They who know of no purer sources of truth, who have traced up its stream no higher, stand, and wisely stand, by the Bible and the Constitution, and drink at it there with reverence and humility; but they who behold where it comes trickling into this lake or that pool, gird up their loins once more, and continue their pilgrimage toward its fountain-head.

[18] No man with a genius for legislation has appeared in America. They are rare in the history of the world. There are orators, politicians, and eloquent men, by the thousand; but the speaker has not yet opened his mouth to speak who is capable of settling the much-vexed questions of the day. We love eloquence for its own sake, and not for any truth which it may utter, or any heroism it may inspire. Our legislators have not yet learned the comparative value of free-trade and of freedom, of union, and of rectitude, to a nation. They have no genius or talent for comparatively humble questions of taxation and finance, commerce and manufacturers and agriculture. If we were left solely to the wordy wit of legislators in Congress for our guidance, uncorrected by the seasonable experience and the effectual complaints of the people, America would not long retain her rank among the nations. For eighteen hundred years, though perchance I have no right to say it, the New Testament has been written; yet where is the legislator who has wisdom and practical talent enough to avail himself of the light which it sheds on the science of legislation?

[19] The authority of government, even such as I am willing to submit to — for I will cheerfully obey those who know and can do better than I, and in many things even those who neither know nor can do so well — is still an impure one: to be strictly just, it must have the sanction and consent of the governed. It can have no pure right over my person and property but what I concede to it. The progress from an absolute to a limited monarchy, from a limited monarchy to a democracy, is a progress toward a true respect for the individual. Even the Chinese philosopher (8) was wise enough to regard the individual as the basis of the empire. Is a democracy, such as we know it, the last improvement possible in government? Is it not possible to take a step further towards recognizing and organizing the rights of man? There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power, from which all its own power and authority are derived, and treats him accordingly. I please myself with imagining a State at least which can afford to be just to all men, and to treat the individual with respect as a neighbor; which even would not think it inconsistent with its own repose if a few were to live aloof from it, not meddling with it, nor embraced by it, who fulfilled all the duties of neighbors and fellow-men. A State which bore this kind of fruit, and suffered it to drop off as fast as it ripened, would prepare the way for a still more perfect and glorious State, which also I have imagined, but not yet anywhere seen.

Thoreau's Civil Disobedience - 3

I love Thoreau. As a boy in the hills of Tennessee I read all of his works in the mid 60s. Walden is my favorite as that taught me the discipline to be as wealthy as I am now.
Thoreau was an abolitionist and was adamantly opposed to the religous influences that the church had on government and their support of slavery. On Civil Disobediece is a must read.
"There is more religion in men's science than there is science in their religion".
Thoreau is an excellent example of not wanting religous influences in government.

Allot of Thoreau's influence came from Locke, who did advocate Non Violent Civil Disobedience, in matters of Conscience, and a belief in God, not to be confused with the recognition of the Tyranny of the Church, or the Tyranny of the State, the latter seen as the greater threat, with a few exceptions.

 

[Intense]

Persecution and reform both came about by organized religion in America.

It is a human factor.

 

[Gadawg73]

Good lord, ABOLITION came about because of the churches, not in spite of them.

Apparently while you were reading Thoreau you neglected history.

You have proved you are not very smart and know no history.
Again, you get a pass because you are obviously very young and naive.
The churches supported abolition?
Yes, ONE church, the Quaker church which are my ancestors. Reference the name Captain Jacob Terhune earlier. He was a Quaker from Clintondale NY where my relatives still live today.
No girl, in Europe you are right, the church did support abolition, but not here. The Catholics here were afraid to.
William Garrison led the movement here and he also led the movement for women's suffrage.
And you claim he had support from the churches?
Girl, read some history books and get back to us.

 

[Gadawg73]

Persecution and reform both came about by organized religion in America.

It is a human factor.

As is all religion.