Zone1 Christianity and our founding fathers

[ding]

It is sick that you would equate Israel with Iran.

I don't know if it is sick or not but it is ignorant.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

For securing religious rights, not abolishing religious rights.

Well, that came out of nowhere. Are you OK? Your rights are guaranteed to believe whatever you want in the 1st Amendment. What is wrong with you, din.g

 

[ding]

Well, that came out of nowhere. Are you OK? Your rights are guaranteed to believe whatever you want in the 1st Amendment. What is wrong with you, din.g

It came out of the mouths of the founding fathers. Religious freedom was a big deal to them. So don't read atheism into the secular nature of our government.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Don't you accuse of saying things I did not say. I just wrote above you that "

Your rights are guaranteed to believe whatever you want in the 1st Amendment. What is wrong with you, din.g

However, you are not allowed to infringe religion on government. Ever.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Critique of Prayer and Supernatural Revelation:

if you reject all supernatural aspects of Jesus, then he’s just a man to you.

Throughout the OT, embellishment is used to accentuate the point of accounts; to make accounts more memorable and easier to remember and pass down orally. Never as the point of the account itself as in the case of Jesus. So, no, not embellishment at all. The supernatural aspect of God choosing to be born into this world to testify to the truth.

But your response is somewhat deceiving in that you don't accept any supernatural aspect about anything. Even God. So why even make that silly argument at all? Why not just say there is no such thing as the supernatural?

You don't believe in anything that is supernatural so you kind of are.

Can a Christian be an adherent of one of the World’s Great Religions without believing what you say is “the supernatural aspect of God choosing to be born into this world to testify to the truth.”

Does the United States of America embody a national expression of the TRUTH that Jesus Christ was the only historic supernatural aspect of God choosing to be born into this world to testify to the truth?

 

[ding]

Can a Christian be an adherent of one of the World’s Great Religions without believing what you say is “the supernatural aspect of God choosing to be born into this world to testify to the truth.”

What does that matter?

 

[ding]

Don't you accuse of saying things I did not say. I just wrote above you that "


However, you are not allowed to infringe religion on government. Ever.

It wasn't written for the protection of government. It was written to protect state religions - of which approximately half of the states had at the time the constitution was ratified - from a national religion.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

1st Amendment was written for We the People to believe as we choose, to be protected from established state religions, all of which were swept away by 1820 to protect We the Peope.

Ding has been hooded in the Cone of Shame.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

What is up with the data dump? You can't be more succinct than that?

As far as religion, the Costitution says we will respect no religion. Religion has no place in government. In this country, we separate church from state. Period.

And lastly, about Israel, they want to be known as "the Jewish State"! That is a theocracy and it is disgusting for anyone living there who is not Jewish.

Mike's America did not exist.

 

[ding]

1st Amendment was written for We the People to believe as we choose, to be protected from established state religions, all of which were swept away by 1820 to protect We the Peope.

Ding has been hooded in the Cone of Shame.
View attachment 914811

No, it was written to prevent the federal government from interfering with state established religion.

Madison unsuccessfully tried to attach the the 1st amendment restriction that was applied to the federal government to the states but that version of the amendment was defeated in the senate. As far as the Founders were concerned it was up to the states to decide if the states wanted to establish state religions. In other words, the establishment clause was written to restrict the federal government from interfering with state established religions; of which half the states had at the time the constitution was ratified.

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

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

No, it was written to prevent the state established religions from interfering with the federal government. The 'no religious test' was a very important reinforcement of that blocking organized religion from interfering with government.

 

[ding]

No, it was written to prevent the state established religions from interfering with the federal government. The 'no religious test' was a very important reinforcement of that blocking organized religion from interfering with government.

Did you see the link?

 

[ding]

No, it was written to prevent the state established religions from interfering with the federal government.

Do you have a link to support this?

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

Did you see the link?

It's poor interpretation. The states were afraid of the power, rightfully so, of organized religion.

It's obvious. They would not have the 1st Amendment or the religious test.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Did you see the link?

The states were afraid of the power, rightfully so, of organized religion

Absolutely JHSH; Saint Ding’s druthers for a particular revealed type religious organization headquartered in Rome blinds him to the spirit of the establishment clause that protects individuals from all religious organizations that can amass great wealth selling salvation.

Saint Ding is going down another dead end argument and he does not have reverse in his mind

The founders didn’t know how to physically disestablish churches and the new federal government didn’t have a national church to disestablish so that part was a no brainer.

But what Saint Ding misses is that the Constitution created the revolutionary idea that the individual can’t be coerced by any government to control their conscience on spirituality and relationships with religious organizations.

Atheists were liberated by the American Revolution after a thousand years of church oppression.

The result of that freedom of conscience turned into the disestablishment of all state churches by cutting off the ability of even a dominant church to force non/believers to support the business of saving souls.

Disestablishment of State Churches in the Late Eighteenth Century and Early Nineteenth Century the years following the ratification of the Constitution, however, a movement to disestablish state churches made rapid progress. The principal driving force behind the drive to disestablish state churches in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was opposition to paying taxes to support a church other than the one that an individual attended. In addition, the movement’s supporters also wished to prevent the civil government from coming between individuals and God and to be free to worship without interference (Tarr, p. 82; Adams and Emmerich, 1989).

Saint Ding says he does not want a Christian Theocratic Rule here;

But can we expect Saint Ding to denounce Saint Trump welcoming Saint Putin’s fellow white Christian authoritarian “boss” of illiberal Hungary to the Church at Mar a Lago?

I. THE CHALLENGES OF DISESTABLISHMENT

By the early 1830s, all states—the original thirteen colonies and new states admitted after independence—were formally disestablished via constitutional provision. States admitted thereafter included such provisions in their initial constitutions.19 The process was not identical in each state: some of the original states and many of the new ones had never had formal establishments. But the movement was powerful, and within a generation after the Revolution, the idea of an established religion seemed to be a fundamental denial of liberty and corruption of genuine faith.
240309c

 

[ding]

It's poor interpretation. The states were afraid of the power, rightfully so, of organized religion.

It's obvious. They would not have the 1st Amendment or the religious test.

In the letter from Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Miller, Thomas Jefferson stated, "I consider the government of the US. as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment, or free exercise, of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the U. S. Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the general government. It must then rest with the states, as far as it can be in any human authority. But it is only proposed that I should recommend, not prescribe a day of fasting & prayer. That is, that I should indirectly assume to the U. S. an authority over religious exercises which the Constitution has directly precluded them from."

 

[ding]

Absolutely JHSH; Saint Ding’s druthers for a particular revealed type religious organization headquartered in Rome blinds him to the spirit of the establishment clause that protects individuals from all religious organizations that can amass great wealth selling salvation.

Saint Ding is going down another dead end argument and he does not have reverse in his mind

The founders didn’t know how to physically disestablish churches and the new federal government didn’t have a national church to disestablish so that part was a no brainer.

But what Saint Ding misses is that the Constitution created the revolutionary idea that the individual can’t be coerced by any government to control their conscience on spirituality and relationships with religious organizations.

Atheists were liberated by the American Revolution after a thousand years of church oppression.

The result of that freedom of conscience turned into the disestablishment of all state churches by cutting off the ability of even a dominant church to force non/believers to support the business of saving souls.

Disestablishment of State Churches in the Late Eighteenth Century and Early Nineteenth Century the years following the ratification of the Constitution, however, a movement to disestablish state churches made rapid progress. The principal driving force behind the drive to disestablish state churches in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries was opposition to paying taxes to support a church other than the one that an individual attended. In addition, the movement’s supporters also wished to prevent the civil government from coming between individuals and God and to be free to worship without interference (Tarr, p. 82; Adams and Emmerich, 1989).

Saint Ding says he does not want a Christian Theocratic Rule here;

But can we expect Saint Ding to denounce Saint Trump welcoming Saint Putin’s fellow white Christian authoritarian “boss” of illiberal Hungary to the Church at Mar a Lago?

I. THE CHALLENGES OF DISESTABLISHMENT

By the early 1830s, all states—the original thirteen colonies and new states admitted after independence—were formally disestablished via constitutional provision. States admitted thereafter included such provisions in their initial constitutions.19 The process was not identical in each state: some of the original states and many of the new ones had never had formal establishments. But the movement was powerful, and within a generation after the Revolution, the idea of an established religion seemed to be a fundamental denial of liberty and corruption of genuine faith.
240309c

Amendment I (Religion): Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller

 

[ding]

It's poor interpretation. The states were afraid of the power, rightfully so, of organized religion.

It's obvious. They would not have the 1st Amendment or the religious test.

Now do you understand the reason for the establishment clause?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Amendment I (Religion): Thomas Jefferson to Rev. Samuel Miller

I realize I cannot make you read Saint Ding what I write. But that’s OK. What you avoid reveals more than any answers or defense of your weird ideology could ever do. I don’t think there is a defense.

Do you think Viktor Orban is upholding Jeffersonian democracy in Hungary right now?