Zone1 Separation of Church and State?

[BreezeWood]

What is it that you think I didn't answer? Do you even know?

they are called the civil war amendments - where you got your ass blown off.

 

[BreezeWood]

That's not anything like what he created. Perhaps you should do some research. There is no refutation of Judaism. The book ends with Jesus' death. There are no supernatural occurrences, no angels regarding his birth etc. Your interpretation is way off target.

fine, next time read the reply ... no, not made by jefferson.

 

[BreezeWood]

You used the word aimless, so wonder would not work. You can't "wonder aimlessly". The Jews wandered in the desert, not wondered.

You can however wander aimlessly, which I am sure you do on a regular basis.

well, not everyone wonders in the desert, aimlessly and do attempt to know the truth - recorded history can help.

wandering - is aimless ... one can wonder aimlessly than to "attempt to know the truth". no time limit, 2000 years as their excuse.

of course, a christian most likely would not know the difference.

 

[Muhammed]

What this means, to those with any historical perspective, is that Congress has no power to declare a national religion,

Bullshit. No law means no law. That prohibition is in no way limited to the declaration of a national religion at all. It is simply not the purview of the government to decide what is or is not religious in the first place.

 

[Foxfyre]

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.

Did you not write this in your Post #713? (emphasis mine):

"And I want it understood that Christians are citizens wo do want a theocracy, but none-the-less have an equal voice and an equal duty to this secular democracy. . ."

What conclusion should I draw from that other than you, a Christian, want a theocracy?

 

[Foxfyre]

again, what is a church - in response to your self serving assertion the gov't and church are not equally distinguishable.

The Church is the cumulative body of who believe in Jesus the Christ and have accepted him as their personal savior.

 

[Foxfyre]

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

So quote the sentences you think pertinent to support your position?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Actually I didn't. I addressed the establishment clause was originally intended to only apply to the federal government and then in 1947 SCOTUS applied to the states.

the pro-separationist and rationalism shift to Evangelical Christianity about the time DeToqueville visited America,


You compartmentalize history too much.
Prior to the revolution about a decade or two Through the turn of the century the Founding Generation was not very religious.

Deism, Enlightenment were up. Church attendance was down. Disestablishment of state churchesl was what the irreligious majority wanted states to do.

This explains the shift from Deism to Evangelical Christianity quite well.

The Separation of Church and State in the United States

"The Separation of Church and State in the United States" published on by Oxford University Press.

oxfordre.com

the separationist narrative runs into difficulties once one considers the nineteenth century. Indeed, the impetus toward achieving a more complete form of disestablishment foundered early in the next century. Attitudes about disengaging religious and temporal realms shifted as natural rights rationalism lost favor to a new Protestant evangelical ethos that came to dominate the nation culturally by the second third of the century. This attitudinal shift affected perspectives toward church-state remlations.

Several factors contributed to this transformation in attitudes. First was the American reaction to the French Revolution and the subsequent decline in deistic thought in the United States. That reaction coincided with the wide-scale outbreak of evangelical revivals after 1800, commonly called the Second Great Awakening. Spurred on by spiritual longing, frontier conditions, and the vacuum left by disestablishment, America entered a period of religious experimentation, what historian Jon Butler has termed a “spiritual hothouse” and what Shakers called a period of religious “democratization.” While many people experimented with heterodox forms of spirituality such as Mormonism, transcendentalism, and Mesmerism, the clear winners were Methodists and Baptists. Church membership tripled, and Protestant evangelicalism quickly became the dominant cultural expression in America, fueled by a post-millennialist eschatology (which taught that the Second Coming of Jesus would occur at the conclusion of a thousand-year golden reign). Society was, in a sense, perfectible, and America would be at the vanguard of bringing about Christ’s Kingdom. To facilitate the Second Coming, evangelical leaders created voluntary organizations designed to reform society by addressing issues such as intemperance, biblical illiteracy, and Sabbath observance.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

wandering - is aimless ... one can wonder aimlessly than to "attempt to know the truth". no time limit, 2000 years as their excuse.

of course, a christian most likely would not know the difference.

That is the epitome of stupid! Congratulations!

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

bible belt is nationwide ... the same reflections of christianity date back to the 4th century - in no time throughout history have the desert religions not been to the forefront of persecution and victimization of the innocent - home boy.

It is incredible that you have no concept of the discussion. Were you injured in a accident while attempting to tip cows?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

“disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social symptom of declining interest in organized Christianit.” See Link below

Not until SCOTUS ruled it that way because at least two established state religions continued to exist (7 years and 9 years) after the 14th was ratified by the states.

Colonists were not much into public worshipping a divine Jesus in Richmond Va. in the year of the Lord 1784

Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

founders.archives.gov

The importance of formal religion in the 1780s is a concept difficult for a secularistic society to grasp. JM had a decent respect for the opinions of his peers and must have been aware of the intensity with which his Baptist and Presbyterian neighbors approached religious worship. He was also conscious of loyalties held by such patriots as Edmund Pendleton and Patrick Henry for the former established church, and of their conviction that taxes should be offered to all churches through a general assessment lest public morality languish.

Nonetheless, disestablishment was an accomplished fact, a social symptom of declining interest in organized Christianity. Church-going in Virginia had long been on the decline as communicants found more reasons for attending Sunday horse races or cock fights than for being in pews. In 1784 a foreign traveler in Richmond noted that the village had only “one small church, but [it was] spacious enough for all the pious souls of the place and the region. If the Virginians themselves did not freely and openly admit that zeal for religion, and religion generally, is now very faint among them, the fact might easily be divined from other circumstances” (Schoepf, Travels in the Confederation, II, 62). In the face of such realities there were still many members of the General Assembly disposed to aid the Protestant Episcopal church, and they seemed determined to carry the General Assessment bill despite widespread but inarticulate opposition from their constituents. In this confused situation the Presbyterians occupied an ambiguous position. Convinced that a religious subsidy would pass, the Hanover Presbytery first declared that “Religion as a spiritual System is not to be considered an object of human Legislation,” and in the next breath made a bid to share in the proceeds of a general assessment for teachers of Christianity (ViHi: Records of the Proceedings of Hanover Presbytery from the year 1755 to the year 1786 [typed copy by George S. Wallace, 1930], pp. 326–27).

 

[Ace Nova]

wandering - is aimless ... one can wonder aimlessly than to "attempt to know the truth". no time limit, 2000 years as their excuse.

of course, a christian most likely would not know the difference.

You claim to not "sin" and rebuke members with quotes such as, "I'm not a sinner, sinner!"



Is it difficult to "live a sin free life? What does it take? Do you ever find yourself "stumbling? - vs causing you to potentially sin and when that happens, what do you do?

 

[Picaro]

Are you saying it was the founder’s intent to protect citizens from Federal Police busting into people’s homes without a warrant, but state police could do it with impunity:

^^^ Just said he's profoundly stupid and doesn't know what he's talking about. We already knew that.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

i. Separation of Church and State? 240807 {post•1}. Meriweather Aug’24 Ssocas: The Constitution prohibits the hierarchy of Churches/Religions from being involved in State/Federal government.
mrwthr 240807 Ssocas00001


ii. Separation of Church and State?
240807 {post•794}

Should such a hierarchy put forth legislation that is based upon church truth such as the sanctity of life begins at conception.

 

[Meriweather]

How do assume to know God's will? Who told you what to believe? does God instruct your personally or are you assuming so from your religious instruction?

All of the above, plus as Paul mentions in his Letter to the Corinthians that God's covenants are written on the our hearts. God is love and goodness, perfect, and these are our models, the targets. God is also free and he created human beings in his image and so we, too, are designed for freedom. People of faith are taught to discern the will of God and to follow it. To guide us we have the Commandments and the Beatitudes to guide us along with these questions: What will be the most loving? What is ethically better? What allows for the most freedom? This means searching our hearts.

 

[Meriweather]

Did you not write this in your Post #713? (emphasis mine):

"And I want it understood that Christians are citizens wo do want a theocracy, but none-the-less have an equal voice and an equal duty to this secular democracy. . ."

What conclusion should I draw from that other than you, a Christian, want a theocracy?

Read it again, this time with the emphasis on none-the-less have an equal voice and an equal duty to this secular democracy. . ."

 

[ding]

So quote the sentences you think pertinent to support your position?

Thomas Jefferson and many of his contemporaries understood
that the natural rights of man depended upon teleological considerations.
So viewed, and accepting the premise that man's goal is being
with his Creator for eternity, man has the duty to abide by His will
and directions, because they are necessary to satisfy man's duties.
Jefferson wrote that "the true office is to declare and enforce our
natural rights and duties."24 The existence of natural duties and the
relationship of rights to duties were quite apparent to Jefferson, and
anyone who has studied the man should realize that the only natural
duties Jefferson acknowledged were not to temporal kings, but to
the Creator.
James Madison was even more explicit that the source of rights
exists in man's duty to his Creator. Writing of the unalienable right
of religion in his Memorial and Remonstrance, he stated that the
right is unalienable
"because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards
the creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator
such homeage, and such only, as he believes to be acceptable to
Him. His duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree
of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man
can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be
considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe: And
if a member of Civil Society, who enters into any subordinate
Association, must always do it with a reservation of his duty
to the general authority; much more must every man who becomes
a member of any particular Civil Society, do it with a
saving of his allegiance to the Universal Sovereign." 25
Another leading Virginian, George Mason, was equally clear in
asserting that the obligation of man to his Maker was the source of natural
rights. In 1772 he wrote:
"Now all acts of legislature apparently contrary to natural right
and justice, are, in our laws, and must be in the nature of
things, considered as void. The laws of nature are the laws of
God: A legislature must not obstruct our obedience to him from
whose punishments they cannot protect us. All human constitutions
which contradict His laws, we are in conscience
bound to disobey. Such have been the adjudications of our
courts of justice." 26
The imperative necessity of understanding ends and duties in
order to delineate natural rights was appreciated not only by Messrs.
Jefferson, Madison, and Mason, but also by Virginians generally in
our formative period. The members of the Virginia convention that
ratified the United States Constitution saw and stated that the natural
rights of conscience and religion are predicated upon an obligation
to God. They contended that it was because of "the duty which we
owe to our Creator," that "all men have an equal, natural and unalienable
right to the free exercise of religion according to the dictates
of conscience." 27

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Thomas Jefferson

Thomas Jefferson and many of his contemporaries understood that the natural rights of man depended upon teleological considerations. So viewed, and accepting the premise that man's goal is being. with his Creator for eternity,

Not so fast Saint_Ding

Jefferson wrote formally to Adams (22 Aug. 1813), is assent to a rationally intelligible proposition, and the notion of an afterlife seems not to be rationally intelligible—at least, not in the metempirical manner in which it had been historically discussed.

 

[BreezeWood]

again, what is a church - in response to your self serving assertion the gov't and church are not equally distinguishable.

The Church is the cumulative body of who believe in Jesus the Christ and have accepted him as their personal savior.

were even that true, your definition of church what exactly is that definition without the repudiation of judaism as taught by jesus as well liberation theology, self determination those people in the 1st century gave their lives for.

the paradoxal religion of a church is what truly should have an establishment clause of its own. your cone heads are an example kkk.

 

[BreezeWood]

That is the epitome of stupid! Congratulations!

- that you did not understand from the beginning - genius.