Keeping Church and State Seperate...

[nacra99]

I don't need to read up, i wasn't disputing any facts about the history of the us...i was just pointing out some contradictions in the points you were making....you made it sound as if your research led you to believe that they put things in the constitution to protect slaves knowing that one day they would need it but did not push to get rid of it then because it was easier for the country to have slaves....i know WHY people back then used slaves, and the reasons that many people today still use to justify it but that doesn't mean that it is justified. And when you bring church into the government but are doing things that the church should have STRONGLY disagreed with then it just seems contradictory. From the beginning of this country the government has done things that contradict with what a good Christian should do....so to me it should be all or none, if people want church and state to not be separated then they need to lead the country as a good Christian would, and i don't think anyone could argue that our government does or ever has done so.

It is absolutely wrong for the Christians at that time to endorse slavery. This is contradictory to Christian teaching.
But we cannot ignore the fact that a group of good Christians finally "woke up" to this realization and it was the Christian movement who started the abolitionist movement both in europe (england) and in the United States that ended slavery. Abraham Lincoln was one of these people and we know how things unfolded.

Christian endorsement of slavery is an abuse of the religion.
A worldview must be judged by their teaching and logical outcome, NOT by their abuse.

[Mzungu]

Argh!

Evolution IS a theory, as I said before. However, a "theory" in the scientific community is totally different from our vernacular use of the term "theory."



Anyone up for an Evolution thread? I'm game...if anyone wants to see me go crazy, that'll do it!

[nikkijean1]

No actually it was socially acceptable to allow this and many of the people that were our founders were not the cruel owners you may think of them as and some actually paid their workers for their work on their plantations. It wasnt as easy as you may think to just stop using the labor in those days farming was a very manual labor process and actually there were a lot of whites that worked on the same farms. These were the people that the term rednecks come from due to their work on the farm causing the back of their necks to turn red from sun exposure. You have to remember as humans we all commit wrongs that we didnt realize were wrong at the time. I suggest reading more information on the founders and you will get a whole new perspective I know I did when I started.

I don't need to read up, i wasn't disputing any facts about the history of the us...i was just pointing out some contradictions in the points you were making....you made it sound as if your research led you to believe that they put things in the constitution to protect slaves knowing that one day they would need it but did not push to get rid of it then because it was easier for the country to have slaves....i know WHY people back then used slaves, and the reasons that many people today still use to justify it but that doesn't mean that it is justified. And when you bring church into the government but are doing things that the church should have STRONGLY disagreed with then it just seems contradictory. From the beginning of this country the government has done things that contradict with what a good Christian should do....so to me it should be all or none, if people want church and state to not be separated then they need to lead the country as a good Christian would, and i don't think anyone could argue that our government does or ever has done so.

[Darbex]

As the environment changes, so do the animals and plants to adapt to it. Those that do, survive, those that don't, go extinct. This is the process of evolution and it is a fact, not a theory. Life on this planet evolves, period.

Mark

I believe all things evolve I just dont believe that we evolved from an ameoba. And it is a theory because we are finding new wrinkles and new "facts" on how evolution works. I am not talking about that things are changing in the environment causing evolution to change. I am talking about our understanding of evolution. We still dont understand exactly how or when it takes place. How fast it happens or what is the overall catalyst.

[ImaGuyGeek]

I have no way of knowing for sure what the founding fathers intended, no one can know. It can be argued that they had their own Masonic religion going on (my opinion is Masonry is a religion)

Actually most of the Founding Fathers were very diligent in keeping their lives, actions and intent meticulously documented, With a little research on the English language and the meanings of words during that time period it becomes very clear when you begin reading the Founding Fathers writings. There are also may books on this subject.

Yes, I agree with the Freemason reference as well. It was very similar to todays Church of Global Warming movement in our Governments left. Both are all about power and money.

[wesleydnunder]

Rhett you know the funny thing is I used to be just like you in my disdain for religion. I thought it was all created by a bunch of lunatic individuals that felt alone in the world and needed an explanation for what is going on around them. Until one day I found him. I told myself that there is no way I am feeling this this is all in my head, then I started to walk to the podium in a church I was attending for a girl I was dating. I kept trying to stop myself but I just couldnt I cant explain it other than it was the hand of God. I know you will just roll your eyes at that and thats fine but what I really wanted to point out was that you cant call Evolution a scientific fact when it changes all the time. To me Scientific facts are all theories because everyday we are finding new "facts" that disprove the previous "fact" so I wish we all would stop using "scientific fact" when its not. A prime example is the idea of black holes. It started with we knew for a fact that they didnt exist anywhere. But we kept saying well why are these universes weight so much more than the sum of all the stars. So scientists kept searching and decades later discovered there were black holes called Super massive black holes that was spinning at the center of active galaxys and you can see them by the matter ejecting from the core of the galaxy. And it was fact that is the only places they were. Then came some scientists that were trying to investigate the center of other non-active galaxys as our own Milky Way. They argued that there must be black holes as well. The scientific community laughed and said it is not possible and their is factual evidence that they only exist in certain galaxys. A few scientists devoted 10 years and discovered that there are dormant black holes in non-active galaxys. Waiting and hiding for a star to come to close to it, in which the energy from the star will be consumed by the black hole re-igniting its core. My point is what you think is fact is not a fact its a theory. Its our feeble attempt to be god and our minds are to small to understand that we dont know everything like we wish we did.

As the environment changes, so do the animals and plants to adapt to it. Those that do, survive, those that don't, go extinct. This is the process of evolution and it is a fact, not a theory. Life on this planet evolves, period.

Mark

[nacra99]

..... I suggest reading more information on the founders and you will get a whole new perspective I know I did when I started.

I totally agree with that statement. If you want to know where a person's beliefs lie, read their writings. For the very same reason today we scrutinize all the writings of a potential supreme court pick.

Incidentally, back I did a paper a while back trying to argue that the founding fathers were against mixing government and religion, but during my research i realized that most of the founding fathers not only endorsed religion, but in fact used government to promote religion, in particular Christianity. I ended up concluding that either
1) The founding fathers were hypocrites in that they did something which is contrary to their intention for this country, or
2) They believed that it is ok for government to endorse religion. (Different from passing a law ESTABLISHING a religion. They believed that government should ENDORSE not ESTABLISH.)

I'll go dig that paper up....

Update:
oohh! I found it! Here are a few examples.

1) Fisher Ames in reaction to the increasing number of secular books being introduced into classrooms.
"“...we have a dangerous trend beginning to take place in our education....We've become accustomed of late to putting little books in the hands of children containing fables with moral lessons. We are spending less time in the classroom on the Bible, which should be the principle text in our schools. The Bible states these great moral lessons better than any other man made book.”

2) Thomas Jefferson (who penned the term "seperation of church & state) on setting aside government land for the native indians “for the sole use of Christian Indians and the Moravian Brethren Missionaries for the civilizing of the Indians and promoting Christianity”. (So much for "seperation")

3) United States Congress in 1780 issued a proclamation “to cause the knowledge of Christianity to spread all over the Earth” (Somebody call the ACLU and arrest these guys!)

4) Congress passed an ordinance (and signed into law by George Washington in Aug 1789) that any territories that want to join the United States were required to teach religion in their schools (NW Ordinance, Section XIV, Article III).

5) Up till the civil war, the capitol building (more specifically the house of representatives) was transformed into a church with BOTH Jefferson & Madison in attendance during sunday worship services. And worship singing was led by the US Marine Corps Band. The speakers podium was used as a preaching pulpit (nancy pulosi has big shoes to fill).

6) John Hancock. "Sensible of the importance of Christian piety and virtue to the order and happiness of a state, I cannot but earnestly commend to you every measure for their support and encouragement. . . . [N]ot only the freedom but the very existence of the republics . . . depend much upon the public institutions of religion." (Independent Chronicle. Nov 2, 1780)

7) Henry Laurens. "I had the honor of being one among many who framed that Constitution. . . . In order effectually to accomplish these great ends, it is incumbent upon us to begin wisely and to proceed in the fear of God; and it is especially the duty of those who bear rule to promote and encourage piety [referring to religion] and virtue and to discourage every degree of vice and immorality."

8) Oliver Ellsworth (supreme court justice in 1802) "[T]he primary objects of government, are peace, order, and prosperity of society. . . . To the promotion of these objects, particularly in a republican government, good morals are essential. Institutions for the promotion of good morals are therefore objects of legislative provision and support and among these . . . religious institutions are eminently useful and important."

9) ALL 50 STATES reference GOD in their constitutions. (Go check it out if you don't believe) . Here's the one for Texas "We the People of the Republic of Texas, acknowledging,with gratitude, the grace and beneficence of God.....". If the founding government of each state wanted their state to have nothing to do with religion, then why would they allow such a thing?

10) The first US Supreme court opened with (guess what?)... a marathon FOUR HOUR prayer session. Asking "almighty God" for guidance in doing their job.

Lots of other examples... but my fingers are cramping.... I'll update later

You are more than entitled to say that the concept of religion is bogus and you want our government and schools to have nothing to do with it, but to say that the founding government did not ENDORSE Christianity in government & schools is Absurd.

[Darbex]

It was taught as the Theory of Evolution. Its no longer a theory. Its scientific fact. How does anybody see if any differently. We dont know HOW the single cell developed into the complex organisms that we are today, but at least we're trying to figure it out scientifically.

Rhett you know the funny thing is I used to be just like you in my disdain for religion. I thought it was all created by a bunch of lunatic individuals that felt alone in the world and needed an explanation for what is going on around them. Until one day I found him. I told myself that there is no way I am feeling this this is all in my head, then I started to walk to the podium in a church I was attending for a girl I was dating. I kept trying to stop myself but I just couldnt I cant explain it other than it was the hand of God. I know you will just roll your eyes at that and thats fine but what I really wanted to point out was that you cant call Evolution a scientific fact when it changes all the time. To me Scientific facts are all theories because everyday we are finding new "facts" that disprove the previous "fact" so I wish we all would stop using "scientific fact" when its not. A prime example is the idea of black holes. It started with we knew for a fact that they didnt exist anywhere. But we kept saying well why are these universes weight so much more than the sum of all the stars. So scientists kept searching and decades later discovered there were black holes called Super massive black holes that was spinning at the center of active galaxys and you can see them by the matter ejecting from the core of the galaxy. And it was fact that is the only places they were. Then came some scientists that were trying to investigate the center of other non-active galaxys as our own Milky Way. They argued that there must be black holes as well. The scientific community laughed and said it is not possible and their is factual evidence that they only exist in certain galaxys. A few scientists devoted 10 years and discovered that there are dormant black holes in non-active galaxys. Waiting and hiding for a star to come to close to it, in which the energy from the star will be consumed by the black hole re-igniting its core. My point is what you think is fact is not a fact its a theory. Its our feeble attempt to be god and our minds are to small to understand that we dont know everything like we wish we did.

[thekarens]

I am in no way offended or bothered by what anyone has said. People are only expressing their own beliefs, which we can all take or leave as we wish.

The Catholic thing really didn't cause me any trouble. When I was old enough to think for myself I knew they were wrong (about a lot of things, but I'm still Pentecostal because they also had a lot of things right.)

The reason I believe there has to be a separation between church and state is because it gets too sticky on mixing morality and legality. In Idaho when I was in high school the kids were allowed to take LDS classes during school hours, but I as a Pentecostal had no such privileges. Kids should be allowed to express or participate in their own faith when it's not on the taxpayers time or dollar. If they want to have a lunch prayer group on school grounds fine, if they want to pray before a game, fine (as an individual decision) but it shouldn't be required.

I have no way of knowing for sure what the founding fathers intended, no one can know. It can be argued that they had their own Masonic religion going on (my opinion is Masonry is a religion)

[Darbex]

this statement seems contradictory so please explain if you can....you are saying that your research or knowledge tells you that the founders knew that slavery could not exist forever and therefore worded in the constitution "all men should be created equal"...so that they could what? eventually decided when the rest of the people they hared the country with could have their piece of the pie?..if they "knew" slavery couldn't last then they must have known it was wrong and it should have contradicted with their Christian beliefs....so then why keep it going? If they were good Christian men? Did their own convenience out way what they knew should have happened a long time ago? Just curious what point you were trying to make there because it seems a little off to me...

No actually it was socially acceptable to allow this and many of the people that were our founders were not the cruel owners you may think of them as and some actually paid their workers for their work on their plantations. It wasnt as easy as you may think to just stop using the labor in those days farming was a very manual labor process and actually there were a lot of whites that worked on the same farms. These were the people that the term rednecks come from due to their work on the farm causing the back of their necks to turn red from sun exposure. You have to remember as humans we all commit wrongs that we didnt realize were wrong at the time. I suggest reading more information on the founders and you will get a whole new perspective I know I did when I started.

[myjohnson]

Thomas Jefferson was a bad@$$!

I wise I could be more like him.

[ImaGuyGeek]

Whether the words separation of church and state are written,

Again, it is not "Whether the words separation of church and state are written" or not because it is an indisputable fact that they are not written anywhere in the founding documents. Can we at least agree on this fact?

the spirit of those words are there and it should be followed.

I think we agree here? The "Establishment Clause" is found in the First Amendment. The "spirit" of that clause I think we agree on as well which is the following...

The Founding Fathers did not want a national religion.

However, they did not intend or even imply the current perverted interpretation of no Christianity being allowed in any publicly funded facility or by any public employee. This is an agenda (being pushed by extremeists) not a written policy. I.E. the difference between an "Agenda" vs "Policy"


***********

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment refers to the first of several pronouncements in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, stating that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". Together with the Free Exercise Clause ("... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"), these two clauses make up what are commonly said as the "religion clauses" of the First Amendment.

The establishment clause has generally been interpreted to prohibit 1) the establishment of a national religion by Congress, or 2) the preference of one religion over another. The first approach is called the "separation" or "no aid" interpretation, while the second approach is called the "non-preferential" or "accommodation" interpretation. The accommodation interpretation prohibits Congress from preferring one religion over another, but does not prohibit the government's entry into religious domain to make accommodations in order to achieve the purposes of the Free Exercise Clause.

The clause itself was seen as a reaction to the Church of England, established as the official church of England and some of the colonies, during the colonial era.

***********

I grew up in a church that believed Catholics were going to hell because they are idol worshippers.

I'm sure that created some difficulty reconciling that as a young adult. I am sorry to hear that. I know some of the early childhood experiences I had in church caused me as a young adult to question my faith and resulted in my experimenting with other religions before I came to realize that my issues were church specific and not issues with Christianity itself. It was a good experience in the end because it resulted in my knowledge of other religions and I approached my relationship with God in a new and refreshed way. But still very confusing.

You can't and shouldn't mix church and state because who is going to decide what church and what beliefs?

I think this statement is referring back to the First Amendment and if so, we are in agreement.

So, all of this said (or typed) I am certainly hoping you are taking this as it's intended. As a honest open discussion on History and facts. I'm in NO way trying to be a butt nor was I in other posts. Traci has accused me once or twice :) of being just slightly too literal. I have also been told that I can come across as condescending or abrasive. I personally don't see it but hey, I have to take others opinions into consideration (that was more of my dry humor).

I truly am interested in your feedback on this post as well as the Founding Fathers issue we have been discussing. You may not have noticed but this is a topic I really enjoy discussing and I am always interested in other opinions and new information on the subject.

[thekarens]

Would you feel the same way though if he was quoting the Quran or the Budhist teachings? Do you believe that would influence someone to become Muslim or Budhist or do you appreciate it because you already agree with him and his beliefs?

[CichlidFan]

I understand .....my point was merely to encourage geoff, to speak freely, just as Traci has invited us to do here in this new sub forum. I appreciate his point and comments as well as yours'.....my only difference of opinion, the right words, spoken at the right time, can change lives.....as I see it....but again, that is just me...smiles.


CF

[thekarens]

I wasn't referring to you Steve. I was referring to non-Christians. Preaching and quoting scripture isn't going to change minds. As far as I go he's preaching to the choir and not saying anything I don't already know, though I don't agree on every point.