Theocracy In America--Who wants this?

[Southpaw]

Judeo/-Christian VALUES at the time....and how they related in a secular sense...

NOT religion.

just to clarify...and imo.

care

What do you mean? Please expound.

 

[jillian]

That's fine. Your board, your rules. Read the link, people. Quit arguing about something that is clearly settled by what the Founders actually said.

No problem. Thanks for understanding.

You're taking what they said out of context. Look at what they did in their own lives... and remember, regardless of what they said to pander for votes (they were politicians, after all), they made sure that there was a separation of church and state here.

I think that was pretty smart. Believe what you want. Just don't think you can impose it on everyone else.

Cheers.

 

[catzmeow]

Read the link catz, they didn't have a problem with the States having their own established churces because the First Amendment prohibited the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT from establishing an official church such as "the Church of England" back in the "old Country", that would supersede what each individual state chose....was my understanding from reading the link....??? I could be wrong on that, but this is how it read to me...

And quite frankly, i don't think ALL of our founding fathers, would have permitted for decades, the Established Churches that some states hung on to, IF IT WERE unconstitutional....do you?

The founding fathers weren't in control until around 1783, and even then, the U.S. existed in a state of upheaval. The constitution wasn't approved until 1787. To say that the status quo existed because the founding fathers approved of it, given the lack of governmental control they, is patently disengenous.

Further, if ALL the founding fathers approved of that status quo, Jefferson would hardly have written the Virginia Statute in 1777, and gotten it through the Virginia House in 1786. Clearly, enough people approved of removing religious monopolies to pass this legislation TWICE. Once in Virginia, and then, later, as the first amendment.

 

[Care4all]

Let's go to some Congressional documents shall we?

This is the text of the Continental Congress November 1, 1777 national Thanksgiving Day Proclamation; as printed in the Journals of Congress.



Let's see, we have God, Jesus, and the Holy Ghost. Can't be talking about Christianity... can we?

The First Amendment, PROTECTED those with varying religious beliefs or non-beliefs to express them IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE.... in the public, on public grounds...not just in someone's private home or on Private grounds.

They did not "establish a church" my making Thanksgiving Day a Federal Holiday and the first amendment allows religious praise or non praise in the public....

we have a pastor or guest rabbi or guest Buddhist monk etc say the opening prayer of Congress every day of the week they are present. This is not an established Church and not forbidden by the Constitution.

Making an event or day a Federal Holiday is not forbidden because this Federal Holiday is given off to ALL Federal Employees....NOT JUST THE RELIGIOUS Federal employees and also has a SECULAR purpose is what i was reading in one of those earlier links...

There is alot of history on the First Amendment and its interpretation with even differing opinions over the years from the Supreme court...it is very interesting imo, and I am going to continue to read up on it!

I just love this stuff! Anything involved with the Constitution!

Care

 

[catzmeow]

As stated, the first amendment was based upon the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. it specifically addresses state churches:

...fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavouring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world, and through all time; that to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical;

that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor, whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness, and is withdrawing from the ministry those temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind;

that our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing any citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which in common with his fellow-citizens he has a natural right;

that it tends only to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it;

that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way;

that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion, and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency, is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own;

that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government, for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order;

and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself, that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict, unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them:

[Sec. 2] Be it enacted by the General Assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

This is a strong rebuke of state religion.

 

[catzmeow]

And, here is James Madison on the same topic:

http://www.firstfreedom.org/PDF/Memorial_Remonstrance.pdf

Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We
hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it.

Who does not see that the same authority, which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? That the same
authority, which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

...Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and
to observe the Religion, which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence, which has convinced us. If this freedom be abused, it is an offence against God, not against man: To God, therefore, not to man, must an account of it be rendered.

...5. Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation.

6. Because the establishment proposed by the Bill is not requisite for the support of the Christian Religion. To say that it is, is a contradiction to the Christian Religion itself, for every page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicon that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

I can tell that you are relying solely upon sources that wish to trample on the wall that protects the religious liberties of all in the short-sighted quest for greater power for themselves and their peers. This is so anti-American it makes me sick.

 

[Southpaw]

No problem. Thanks for understanding.

You're taking what they said out of context. Look at what they did in their own lives... and remember, regardless of what they said to pander for votes (they were politicians, after all), they made sure that there was a separation of church and state here.

I think that was pretty smart. Believe what you want. Just don't think you can impose it on everyone else.

Cheers.

The First Amendment, PROTECTED those with varying religious beliefs or non-beliefs to express them IN THE PUBLIC SQUARE.... in the public, on public grounds...not just in someone's private home or on Private grounds.

They did not "establish a church" my making Thanksgiving Day a Federal Holiday and the first amendment allows religious praise or non praise in the public....

we have a pastor or guest rabbi or guest Buddhist monk etc say the opening prayer of Congress every day of the week they are present. This is not an established Church and not forbidden by the Constitution.

Making an event or day a Federal Holiday is not forbidden because this Federal Holiday is given off to ALL Federal Employees....NOT JUST THE RELIGIOUS Federal employees and also has a SECULAR purpose is what i was reading in one of those earlier links...

There is alot of history on the First Amendment and its interpretation with even differing opinions over the years from the Supreme court...it is very interesting imo, and I am going to continue to read up on it!

I just love this stuff! Anything involved with the Constitution!

Care

I think both of you are misunderstanding why I'm posting this stuff.

Yes, I'm a fundie.
Yes, I think a large portion, perhaps even a majority, of the the FFs were fundies.
Yes, I think that a decent portion, including some of the most famous such as TJ and BF, of the FFs were Enlightenment-age deists. (would likely be secular humanists today)
Yes, I think that the FFs intended religious freedom for all and established this as a nation for religious freedom.
No, I don't think we should make America a theocracy or establish a national religion. We'd screw it up pretty quickly.

Jillian, unless you know the context of all of those speeches, how can you claim I'm taking anything out of context. Please post where those comments from the FFs were out of context. Thanks.

Care, I agree with you. I don't want America to be a 'Christian nation.' That's not its purpose. I want America to be a nation where everyone of every creed and faith can choose to worship as they will.

 

[Care4all]

The founding fathers weren't in control until around 1783, and even then, the U.S. existed in a state of upheaval. The constitution wasn't approved until 1787. To say that the status quo existed because the founding fathers approved of it, given the lack of governmental control they, is patently disengenous.

Further, if ALL the founding fathers approved of that status quo, Jefferson would hardly have written the Virginia Statute in 1777, and gotten it through the Virginia House in 1786. Clearly, enough people approved of removing religious monopolies to pass this legislation TWICE. Once in Virginia, and then, later, as the first amendment.

catz....it is fact that the separation of Church and state, was the Federal government's prohibition, NOT INDIVIDUAL STATE GOVERNMENTS.....

Please STOP the arguing and read the links you originally provided, where I got my other links for you to read from....pretty please....

It helps to be a little opened minded on this subject and not so set on what you once thought....I would be willing to even agree with you, if you provided something that proves otherwise, but from all that i have read, and from the history of our country, and from what historians and scholars have said, the Constitution forbade ONLY the Federal Government from establishing a Federal established church, while it PERMITTED each individual state, TO MAKE THEIR OWN DECISIONS on whether to Establish a church or not.

This IS HOW it was understood by the founders and every state that signed and ratified the Constitution....it was NOT UNTIL the 14th amendment, did the first amendment apply to the states. States would NOT have signed on to the US constitution who had established churches if they thought it to mean that their established churches were no longer valid, as they had voted for themselves, no?

These States, had to ratify our Constitution....every one of them, had to sign on to it and agree to ALL OF IT, and as said, to do such and continue to have their own State Established Church NEGATES what you are saying Catz??? Especially since it was well in to several decades of the 1800's before the last Established State Church stopped being in existance???

Anyway, this is NOT how it is today...the 14th changed it.

Care

 

[Care4all]

Catz, let me read what you posted while i was responding to your other post....before responding to my last post....

thank you...for the debate IN ADVANCE! LOL

care

 

[Southpaw]

And, here is James Madison on the same topic:

http://www.firstfreedom.org/PDF/Memorial_Remonstrance.pdf

I can tell that you are relying solely upon sources that wish to trample on the wall that protects the religious liberties of all in the short-sighted quest for greater power for themselves and their peers. This is so anti-American it makes me sick.

Jefferson wrote about 'the wall' way back in the last half of the 18th century. The SCOTUS didn't implement it until the 1950s, iirc. Doesn't that break make you a little suspicious?

 

[Agnapostate]

Jefferson wrote about 'the wall' way back in the last half of the 18th century. The SCOTUS didn't implement it until the 1950s, iirc. Doesn't that break make you a little suspicious?

I thought the letter to the Danbury Baptists was written in the early 19th century. Perhaps I was mistaken.

 

[Southpaw]

I thought the letter to the Danbury Baptists was written in the early 19th century. Perhaps I was mistaken.

You are definitely correct. I was overly vague because I was too lazy to Google.

1802

 

[sky dancer]

The US is not a Christian nation, and was never intended to be a Christian nation, much to the chagin of the Pat Robertsons, and James Dobsons of the world.

 

[Care4all]

And, here is James Madison on the same topic:

http://www.firstfreedom.org/PDF/Memorial_Remonstrance.pdf




I can tell that you are relying solely upon sources that wish to trample on the wall that protects the religious liberties of all in the short-sighted quest for greater power for themselves and their peers. This is so anti-American it makes me sick.

UPDATE!

It is taking me time to read this full link, hubby is off today and bothering the crud out of me...now he wants lunch, so when i finish with this i will respond, interesting stuff so far....but what i am getting out of it so far is this was a Bill that he opposed that would have made religious teachings mandatory in all schools in virginia, correct? I haven't gotten too far in to it, but can you answer that?

And i will get back to you after lunch....again interesting stuff, ty!

care

 

[Agnapostate]

If only Robertson and Dobson had kicked the bucket when Jerry Falwell did...

 

[catzmeow]

States would NOT have signed on to the US constitution who had established churches if they thought it to mean that their established churches were no longer valid, as they had voted for themselves, no?

Wrong. The first amendment, passed in 1791, 4 years AFTER the constitution was ratified, changed it. You're relying on a single (bad) source. And also, your timeline is all buggered up.

 

[catzmeow]

UPDATE!

It is taking me time to read this full link, hubby is off today and bothering the crud out of me...now he wants lunch, so when i finish with this i will respond, interesting stuff so far....but what i am getting out of it so far is this was a Bill that he opposed that would have made religious teachings mandatory in all schools in virginia, correct? I haven't gotten too far in to it, but can you answer that?

And i will get back to you after lunch....again interesting stuff, ty!

care

I believe it would have required a religious litmus test for political candidates and also imposed a religious "tax" on residents taht required them to support a specific denomination.

 

[sky dancer]

Meet the Dominionists -- biblical literalists who believe God has called them to take over the U.S. government. As the far-right wing of the evangelical movement, Dominionists are pressing an agenda that makes Newt Gingrich's Contract With America look like the Communist Manifesto. They want to rewrite schoolbooks to reflect a Christian version of American history, pack the nation's courts with judges who follow Old Testament law, post the Ten Commandments in every courthouse and make it a felony for gay men to have sex and women to have abortions. In Florida, when the courts ordered Terri Schiavo's feeding tube removed, it was the Dominionists who organized round-the-clock protests and issued a fiery call for Gov. Jeb Bush to defy the law and take Schiavo into state custody. Their ultimate goal is to plant the seeds of a "faith-based" government that will endure far longer than Bush's presidency -- all the way until Jesus comes back.

" This movement is no more about following the example of Christ than Bush's Clean Water Act is about clean water."

The godfather of the Dominionists is D. James Kennedy, the most influential evangelical you've never heard of. A former Arthur Murray dance instructor, he launched his Florida ministry in 1959, when most evangelicals still followed Billy Graham's gospel of nonpartisan soul-saving. Kennedy built Coral Ridge Ministries into a $37-million-a-year empire, with a TV-and-radio audience of 3 million, by preaching that it was time to save America -- not soul by soul but election by election. After helping found the Moral Majority in 1979, Kennedy became a five-star general in the Christian army. Bush sought his blessing before running for president -- and continues to consult top Dominionists on matters of federal policy.

"Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost," Kennedy says. "As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society."

At Reclaiming America, most of the conference is taken up by grassroots training sessions that supply ministers, retirees and devout churchgoers with "The Facts of Stem-Cell Research" or "Practical Steps to Impact Your Community with America's Historical Judeo-Christian Heritage." "We're going to turn you into an army of one," Gary Cass, executive director of Reclaiming America, promises activists at one workshop held in Evangalism Explosion Hall. The Dominionists also attend speeches by supporters like Rep. Katherine Harris of Florida, who urges them to "win back America for God." In their spare time, conference-goers buy books about a God-devised health program called the Maker's Diet or meet with a financial adviser who offers a "biblically sound investment plan."

To implement their sweeping agenda, the Dominionists are working to remake the federal courts in God's image. In their view, the Founding Fathers never intended to erect a barrier between politics and religion. "The First Amendment does not say there should be a separation of church and state," declares Alan Sears, president and CEO of the Alliance Defense Fund, a team of 750 attorneys trained by the Dominionists to fight abortion and gay marriage. Sears argues that the constitutional guarantee against state-sponsored religion is actually designed to "shield" the church from federal interference -- allowing Christians to take their rightful place at the head of the government. "We have a right, indeed an obligation, to govern," says David Limbaugh, brother of Rush and author of Persecution: How Liberals Are Waging War Against Christianity. Nothing gets the Dominionists to their feet faster than ringing condemnations of judicial tyranny. "Activist judges have systematically deconstructed the Constitution," roars Rick Scarborough, author of Mixing Church and State. "A God-free society is their goal!"

Activist judges, of course, are precisely what the Dominionists want. Their model is Roy Moore, the former Alabama chief justice who installed a 5,300-pound granite memorial to the Ten Commandments, complete with an open Bible carved in its top, in the state judicial building. At Reclaiming America, Roy's Rock sits out front, fresh off a tour of twenty-one states, perched on the flag-festooned flatbed of a diesel truck, a potent symbol of the "faith-based" justice the Dominionists are bent on imposing. Activists at the conference pose for photographs beside the rock and have circulated a petition urging President Bush to appoint Moore -- who once penned an opinion calling for the state to execute "practicing homosexuals" -- to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"The other side knows we've got strongholds in the executive and legislative branches," Cass tells the troops. "If we start winning the judiciary, their power base is going to be eroded."

They're also pressuring Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist -- an ally who's courting support for his presidential bid -- to halt the long-standing use of filibusters to hold up judicial nominations. An anti-filibuster petition circulating at the conference blasts Democrats for their "outrageous stonewalling of appointments" -- even though Congress has approved more nominees of Bush than of any president since Jimmy Carter.

It helps that Dominionists have a direct line to the White House: The Rev. Richard Land, top lobbyist for the 16-million-member Southern Baptist Convention, enjoys a weekly conference call with top Bush advisers including Karl Rove. "We've got the Holy Spirit's wind at our backs!" Land declares in an arm-waving, red-faced speech. He takes particular aim at the threat posed by John Lennon, denouncing "Imagine" as a "secular anthem" that envisions a future of "clone plantations, child sacrifice, legalized polygamy and hard-core porn."

The Dominionists are also stepping up efforts to turn public schools into forums for evangelism. In a landmark case, the Alliance Defense Fund is suing a California school district that threatened to dismiss a born-again teacher who was evangelizing fifth-graders. In the conference's opening ceremony, the Dominionists recite an oath they dream of hearing in every classroom: "I pledge allegiance to the Christian flag, and to the Savior for whose kingdom it stands. One Savior, crucified, risen and coming again, with life and liberty for all who believe."

Cass urges conference-goers to stack school boards with Dominionists. "The most humble Christian is more qualified for office than the best-educated pagan," says Cass, an anti-abortion activist who led a takeover of his school district's board in San Diego. "We built quite a little grass-roots machine out there. Now it's my burden to multiply that success all across America."

While the dominionists rely on grass-roots activists to fight their battles, they are backed by some of America's richest entrepreneurs. Amway founder Rich DeVos, a Kennedy ally who's the leading Republican contender for governor of Michigan, has tossed more than $5 million into the collection plate. Jean Case, wife of former AOL chief Steve Case -- whose fortune was made largely on sex-chat rooms -- has donated $8 million. And Tom Monaghan, founder of Domino's Pizza, is a major source of cash for Focus on the Family, a megaministry working with Kennedy to eliminate all public schools.

The one-two punch of militant activists and big money has helped make the Dominionists a force in Washington, where a growing number of congressmen owe their elections to the machine. Kennedy has also created the Center for Christian Statesmanship, which trains elected officials to "more effectively share their faith in the public arena." Speaking to the group, House Majority Whip Tom DeLay -- a winner of Kennedy's Distinguished Christian Statesman Award -- called Bush's faith-based initiatives "a great opportunity to bring God back into the public institutions of our country."

The most vivid proof of the Christianizing of Capitol Hill comes at the final session of Reclaiming America. Rep. Walter Jones, a lanky congressman from North Carolina, gives a fire-and-brimstone speech that would have gotten him laughed out of Washington thirty years ago. In today's climate, however, he's got a chance of passing his pet project, the Houses of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act, which would permit ministers to endorse political candidates from their pulpits, effectively converting their tax-exempt churches into Republican campaign headquarters.

"America is under assault!" Jones thunders as his aides dash around the sanctuary snapping PR photos. "Everyone in America has the right to speak freely, except for those standing in the pulpits of our churches!" The amen chorus reaches a fever pitch. Hands fly heavenward. It's one thing to hear such words from Dominionist leaders -- but to this crowd, there's nothing more thrilling than getting the gospel from a U.S. congressman. "You cannot have a strong nation that does not follow God," Jones preaches, working up to a climactic, passionate plea for a biblical republic. "God, please -- God, please -- God, please -- save America!"

The Crusaders : Rolling Stone

 

[catzmeow]

Jefferson wrote about 'the wall' way back in the last half of the 18th century. The SCOTUS didn't implement it until the 1950s, iirc. Doesn't that break make you a little suspicious?

History of religion in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

At the time of the passage of the Bill of Rights, many states acted in ways that would now be held unconstitutional. All of the early official state churches were disestablished by 1833 (Massachusetts), including the Congregationalist establishment in Connecticut. It is commonly accepted that, under the doctrine of Incorporation - which uses the Due Process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to hold the Bill of Rights applicable to the states - these state churches could not be reestablished today.

 

[Southpaw]

It amazes me that over the past 50 years, we have seen

- the legalization of abortion
- the acceptance of homosexuality by most of America
- the acceptance of divorce by America
- a huge rise in sexual promiscuity
- an acceptance of pornography
- TV shows move closer and closer to being nothing but sex shows

And so forth and so on, yet people claim that America is becoming more and more 'Christian.'