Seperation of Church and State

[FredFlash]

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, the fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

The Baptist's letter to Thomas Jefferson did not even mention a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination.

Fred

 

[FredFlash]

His letter explained that they need not fear the establishment of a national denomination—and that while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control—there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious expression of all orthodox religious practices, for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government. The government would interfere with a religious activity was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society.

President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists did not even mention a national denomination, protection of the church; open and free religious expression, orthodox religious practices, true religious expression, true religious duties, a menace to the government or the overall peace and good order of society.

Fred

 

[FredFlash]

Our Founding Fathers set this great nation of ours upon the twin towers of religion and morality.

That is why they established a strict separation of church and state at the federal level. When religion and politics mix they are like poision to each other.

Our first president, George Washington, said that anyone who would attack these twin towers could not possibly consider themselves to be a loyal American.

In that case you are not a loyal American because you are attacking the just and truly Christian principle of no civil authority over matters of religion (the duty which we owe to our Creator).

Not only did they set us up as a nation under God, but a nation founded upon the Judaic-Christian principles summarized in the words, "The laws of nature and the laws of nature’s God," words that we find in the Declaration of Independence.

Show me where Christians ever talked about the laws of nature's God. That was a term coined by the Diests.

Never Intended to Separate State from God or from Religion or from Prayer[

Why didn't the First U. S. Congress ever pray during its daily sessions?

The First Amendment never intended to separate Christian principles from government.

What Christian principles are you talking about senior?

yet today we so often heart the First Amendment couples with the phrase "separation of church and state."

You should have been at the Texas Constitutional Convention in 1845. You would have heard a lot of talk about how the Separation of Church and State was essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness; and how they did not want Bibles in the public schools, the Presbyterians trying to stop the transporting of the mail on Sundays or ministers of the Gospel in the Texas legislature.

Texans Loved the Separation of Church and State in 1845
​

Read the excerpts presented below to learn what the delegates to the Texas Constitution said about the Separation of Church and State at the 1845 Constitutional Convention.

Mr. Baylor spoke in support of the proposed ban on members of the clergy serving as State Legislators and said that the ban was calculated to keep clear and well defined the distinction between Church and State, so essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness. Page 163, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.

Mr. Davis said The only reason why I rise is that during my canvass in Liberty County, I was accused of wishing to unite Church and State, in consequence of my opinions upon this subject. I deny that it is uniting Church and State to permit ministers of the gospel to participate in the legislation of the country. Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Davis expressed his view that if an effort is desired to be made by the religious portion of the community to unite Church and State, may it not as well be made by the members of the churches as ministers of the gospel? Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Love pointed out that Protestants marked out a different line of policy. They said it was wrong to unite church and State, wrong that the law should settle the rule of faith, and regulate the religion of Jesus Christ. They would not admit that men should be subject to human authority in matters of opinion: they denied the right to control the conscience, it claimed the right to worship as they pleased; although they submitted to the authority of the law, necessary to prevent crime and preserve the good order of society. It was the cause of the success of Protestantism. Page 170, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Brown said that religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Brown I am not willing upon any consideration to relinquish the principle that Church and State, by every mode that can enter into the imagination of this body, should be kept separate, that neither may become corrupt, that religion should have its, powerful sway and benefit influence over private life, and that political affairs should rest in the hands of political men: This, sir, is a discrimination which I feel bound to observe. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Brown - It seems to me safer and better for the institution of religion and better for the institution of government, that the two bodies, both grasping at power, both capable of forming contributions, formidable to liberty on the one hand and to religion on the other, should be kept forever separate and distinct. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.

Mr. Evans stated they have declared in that Bill of Rights that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences: that no man shall be compelled to attend or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience: and that no preference shall ever be given by law, to any religious societies, or mode of worship. Is not that article amply sufficient guard and security against the union of church and state? If not, I will go with any gentleman to make it stronger. But how does the exclusion of the ministers of religion from our legislative halls tend to defeat the ruin of church and state. What bearing has such an exclusion upon it? I say it has none at all. Page 184, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Invalid Link Removed


​

Obviously, the words "separation," "church," or "state" are not found in the First Amendment; furthermore, that phrase appears in no founding document.

Mabey you don't see the words because you don't want to . Mabey Satan has blinded you. James Madison says the words are there and he was the smartest man that ever lived. He was also the premier authority, during the Early Years of the Republic ,on the meaning of the religion clauses.

The process of drafting the First Amendment made the intent of the Founders abundantly clear; for before they approved the final wording, the First Amendment went through nearly a dozen different iterations and extensive discussions. Those discussions—recorded in the Congressional Records from June 7 through September 25 of 1789—make clear their intent for the First Amendment. By it, the Founders were saying: "We do not want in America what we had in Great Britain: we don’t want one denomination running the nation. We will not all be Catholics, or Anglicans, or any other single denomination. We do want God’s principles, but we don’t want one denomination running the nation."

It is clear that Rep. Daniel Carroll wanted more that just safeguards aginst one denomination running the nation. He wanted to prohibit the government from even touching the rights of conscience.

Rep. James Livermore also wanted more that just safeguards aginst one denomination running the nation. He wanted to prohibit the government from touching religion.

Rep. Peter Sylvester wanted to make sure that religion was not abolished.

Rep. James Madison wanted more that just safeguards aginst one denomination running the nation. He wanted laws as might infringe the rights of conscience. (He thought that government advice on religion infringee the rights of conscience)

Rep. Joseph Huntington did not want the people to have a right to support religion as directed by their consciences. He wanted the government to that.

Presented below are all the recorded references to the religion clauses during the drafting of the Bill of Rights by the First Congress

The Debate in the House

Monday, June 8, 1789:

[James Madison speaking]: Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2 be inserted this clause to wit: No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases. (Annals of Congress, 1:434-435)

Saturday, August 15, 1789:

The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.

The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'

Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. he feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.

MR. VINING suggested the propriety to transposing the two members of the sentence.

MR. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law.

MR. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had 'no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.'

MR. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.

MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.

MR. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.

By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.

MR. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.

MR. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.

MR. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.

MR. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words 'no National religion shall be established by law', did not imply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it. (Annals of Congress 1:729-731)

Monday, August 17, 1789:

The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:

Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph, insert 'No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.'

MR. TUCKER: this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of constitutions of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.

MR. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people.

MR. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he thought it not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative proposition; 'the equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be infringed by any state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and MR. TUCKER'S motion being rejected, the clause was adopted. (Note: In the final wording of the amendments that were sent to the Senate the transposition had not taken place. No reason for that mistake is recorded). (Annals of Congress, 1:755)

Thursday, August 20, 1789:

On motion of MR. AMES, the fourth amendment was altered to read 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.' This being adopted..." (Annals of Congress, 1:766)

The Debate in the Senate

All that is recorded of the debate over the religion clauses in the Senate of the First Congress is a list of motions and votes in the Senate Journal. Constitutional scholar Derek Davis summarizes the record as follows:

[The] amendment as submitted to the Senate...reflected a stylistic change that gave it the following reading: 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.' No record was left of the proceedings that brought about this stylistic change.

The Senate began deliberations on the House amendment on 3 September and continued through 9 September. The Ames amendment must have provoked controversy in the Senate, since several alternative versions were suggested in its place. In considering the House's draft, a Senate motion was first made to strike out 'religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' and to insert, 'one religious sect or society in preference to others.' The motion was rejected, and then passed. Thus, the first new Senate version read, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.'

After further debate, the Senate rejected two alternative wordings. First, they rejected language providing, 'Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any Religious Sect or Society." Second, they rejected the language providing, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.'

Later the same day, 3 September, the Senate adopted a draft the treated religion more generically. 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Six days later, the Senate again changed its mind and adopted as its final form of the amendment, 'Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.'

The Senate version of the Amendment was sent to the House, which rejected it.

A House-Senate joint conference (Madison, Sherman, Vining representing the House, Ellsworth, Carroll, Paterson representing the Senate) was then created to resolve the disagreement over the religion amendment. A compromise amendment was eventually agreed upon as reported under the date of September 24, 1789. (Derek Davis, Original Intent, p. 60)

The Conference Committee

September 24, 1789:

The House proceeded to consider the report of a committee of conference, on the subject matter of the amendments depending between the two houses to the several articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as proposed by this House; whereupon, it was resolved, that they recede from their disagreement to all the amendments; provided that the two articles, which, by the amendments of the Senate, are now proposed to be inserted as the third and eighth articles shall be amended to read as follows: Article three, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

On the motion, it was resolved, that the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the Executives of the several States which have ratified the constitution, copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto and like copies to the Executives of Rhode Island and North Carolina. (Annals of Congress, 1:913-914)
Invalid Link Removed​

This intent was well understood, as evidenced by court rulings after the First Amendment. For example, a 1799 court declared: "By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the same equal footing."

How was the Christian religion established? It wasn't. You have obviously misread or intentionally distorted what the Court said.

In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination.

Show me where the Baptists said anything in their letter about a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination; and I will show you where they complained about the Connecticut Certificate Law.

FVF

 

[The Experiment]

I'm against it. Churches are faction groups (note: self interest groups) and the Constitution was designed to fight these organizations from overpowering the government.

Laws and how they are executed should have absolutely no ties, no basis towards any certain religion or religion at all.

 

[BioHazzard]

.....seperation from church and state. The seperation is to protect ALL religions not just christianity. ....

That is absolutely correct. The separation of church and state is intended for there to be no state sponsored religion. The founding fathers left their homecountries where state sponsored religion resulted in the persecution of the citizen. The constitutional separation of church and state, is intended to avoid repeating that problem.

The separation of church and state has been distorted to argue against religion and God. But its original intent is to prevent the establishment of an official religion. The founding fathers did not intend America to be a godless nation, but rather a nation for all to worship, or not to worship, God as he/she so pleases.

Despite the myth and misinformation, the Declaration of Independence, specifically refer to God, the Creator, and Divine Providence...

" The Declaration of Independence: IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one
people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with
another, and to assume, among the Powers of the earth, the separate
and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires
that they should declare the causes which impel them to the
separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of
Happiness.

...

And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor....."


Henceforth, the founding fathers specifically did NOT intend America to be a godless, non-religious nation.

 

[BioHazzard]

BTW, if people think a godless government is the way to go, there have been political systems like that already. It is called communism and socialism. Yep. No god and no religion. It took over 60 years and tens of millions of lives destroyed, to prove what a catastrophy to humanity that was. I am sure some will argue that it isn't the godless and non-religious nature of communism that destroyed it. Perhads not. But the catastrophic failure of a godless system, certainly does not speak well for it.

 

[FredFlash]

That is absolutely correct. The separation of church and state is intended for there to be no state sponsored religion.

Is declaring the people's trust in God on the nation's coins a state sponsored religion?

The founding fathers left their homecountries where state sponsored religion resulted in the persecution of the citizen.

Define the term "founding fathers" for us.

The constitutional separation of church and state, is intended to avoid repeating that problem.

James Madison said it was to exempt the duty which we owe to our Creator from the cognizance of the civil government. During the Early Days of the Republic it was Madison's view that prevalied in every dispute over the meaning of the establishment clause, except for the dispute over government support for military and legislative chaplains.

The separation of church and state has been distorted to argue against religion and God.

Distorted by whom and how?

But its original intent is to prevent the establishment of an official religion.

Which one of the founders said that?

The founding fathers did not intend America to be a godless nation, but rather a nation for all to worship, or not to worship, God as he/she so pleases.

The First Amendment is so ambiguous it could mean anthing.

Despite the myth and misinformation, the Declaration of Independence, specifically refer to God, the Creator, and Divine Providence...

Does it advise us to trust in God or recommend that we believe in one nation under God or suggest that we obey any particular religious commandments?

Henceforth, the founding fathers specifically did NOT intend America to be a godless, non-religious nation.

Is that why the First U. S. Congress did not allow prayer during its daily legislative sessions?

FVF

 

[BioHazzard]

Is declaring the people's trust in God on the nation's coins a state sponsored religion?
NOPE That should be obvious to you and do not need me to point that out.


Define the term "founding fathers" for us.
Go ask your teachers. That is simply ridiculous. Are we in kindergarden how?


James Madison said it was to exempt the duty which we owe to our Creator from the cognizance of the civil government. During the Early Days of the Republic it was Madison's view that prevalied in every dispute over the meaning of the establishment clause, except for the dispute over government support for military and legislative chaplains.
your point being?


Distorted by whom and how?
By those who want to forbid the mentioning of god or religion in any official context.


Which one of the founders said that?
Don't know


The First Amendment is so ambiguous it could mean anthing.
Your point being?


Does it advise us to trust in God or recommend that we believe in one nation under God or suggest that we obey any particular religious commandments?
Reread my post. It should be obvious.


Is that why the First U. S. Congress did not allow prayer during its daily legislative sessions?
Don't know. What do you think?
FVF

..............

 

[FredFlash]

Dear BioHazzard:

"Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government."

FVF

 

[The Experiment]

BTW, if people think a godless government is the way to go, there have been political systems like that already. It is called communism and socialism. Yep. No god and no religion. It took over 60 years and tens of millions of lives destroyed, to prove what a catastrophy to humanity that was. I am sure some will argue that it isn't the godless and non-religious nature of communism that destroyed it. Perhads not. But the catastrophic failure of a godless system, certainly does not speak well for it.

:icon_lol: :wtf: :rofl: :trout: :blink:

:lol:

Holy hell, you neocons need to check yourself. Its what I said folks, neocons are unable to properly reason.

As a warning though, there is a clear cut difference between conservatism and neoconservatism. CDB is an example of conservatism. Biohazzard is a neocon. See the vast, gaping hole of intelligence that separates the two.

Wow. Wow. Ok, I think I'm good.

 

[MaynardMeek]

Not sure how i feel about this... When people talk about Religion in american.. it only means "christianity".. all other religions are free to do what ever they wish, when ever.. All aspects of public christianity has been perverted to actually allow all to join... but with that being said.. christianity has always been a religion that would change its views and alter some things to allow people to join. When new people X were taken over by spain.. they worship a sun god with no name... then father joe whomever the hell comes in and said.. "oh! we know the name.. its Jesus.. and those other gods.. nooo they are angels and saints etc etc...

but as for church and state.. it doesn't matter.. all western religions ( jewish faith is not included in my western folder) is so watered down and usless that it will never hold true power.. the liberalization of the church has made it worthless.. therefor.. this topic is a waste of time and band width...



BUT.. with that being said... it is easier to create and control a society and economy if they are woven with religious ideology.... its great for the economy.. its great to keep a class structure... its also needed because human's are born with this feeling of abandonment and thusly religion fills that void....

 

[FredFlash]

The separation of church and state is intended for there to be no state sponsored religion.

What exactly is a "state sponsored religion?"

FVF

 

[MaynardMeek]

Like.. the church of england... etc.. there is no "official" reglion of the USA

 

[FredFlash]

Like.. the church of england... etc.. there is no "official" reglion of the USA

Like the Church of England in the 1600's or the Church of England in 1789?

FVF

 

[Sooty]

Blah, I'm not even going to read the entire thread before making an idiotic 17 year old comment!

Half the laws the founding fathers originally came up with don't really hold much sway in the modern political scene.
If we are free to practice religion, then why would I get in trouble for wearing a five pointed star, having satanic signs tattooed onto my body, and worshipping the devil.
(not that I have or do any of those things, but I know kids who are interpreted as bad for those things. It's just religion, and different beliefs... who can say what is wrong and right? In the long term it doesnt matter at all.)

 

[FredFlash]

Blah, I'm not even going to read the entire thread before making an idiotic 17 year old comment!

Half the laws the founding fathers originally came up with don't really hold much sway in the modern political scene.
If we are free to practice religion, then why would I get in trouble for wearing a five pointed star, having satanic signs tattooed onto my body, and worshipping the devil.
(not that I have or do any of those things, but I know kids who are interpreted as bad for those things. It's just religion, and different beliefs... who can say what is wrong and right? In the long term it doesnt matter at all.)

The Congregationalist in New England worshiped the Devil.

FVF

 

[Sooty]

Good! Equal practice of religion should be tolerated.. IMHO.

However when it starts to get out of control... things such as murder, sacrifice(unless the person volunteers) and violence - this is when the state needs to step in and take a hand in religion.

 

[EEmain]

CDB is an example of conservatism. Biohazzard is a neocon. See the vast, gaping hole of intelligence that separates the two.

I`m thinking it`s an ability to freethink not so much intelligence. There are very well educated and/or intelligent people in all movements.



[FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif]Dogmatic thinking:[/FONT][FONT=arial, helvetica, sans serif] “Vulgar believers can only operate with slogans and stereotypes within a point of view with which they egocentrically identify…”[/FONT]

 

[EEmain]

The founding fathers came from lands where there was a long history of Church+Politics meant suppresion of one group or another. As such they tried to setup a system to see that this wouldn`t happen again.

 

[FredFlash]

Good! Equal practice of religion should be tolerated.. IMHO.

However when it starts to get out of control... things such as murder, sacrifice(unless the person volunteers) and violence - this is when the state needs to step in and take a hand in religion.

What if it is my religious duty to murder or make a human sacrifice or smoke the marijuanna or take the peyote or marry many wives?

FVF

 

[FredFlash]

Does anyone know where I might find the 1853 report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in relation to the expediency of abolishing the office of chaplain in the public service?
Invalid Link Removed

FVF

 

[BioHazzard]

:icon_lol: :wtf: :rofl: :trout: :blink:

:lol:

Holy hell, you neocons need to check yourself. Its what I said folks, neocons are unable to properly reason.

As a warning though, there is a clear cut difference between conservatism and neoconservatism. CDB is an example of conservatism. Biohazzard is a neocon. See the vast, gaping hole of intelligence that separates the two.

Wow. Wow. Ok, I think I'm good.

Unfortunately, you are just another one of those out of the mainstream, fringe lunatics... I mean fringe elements.. who have little or no meaningful participation in the society, and whose opinions are generally ignored by the majority. It is cool that our political system allows crazies to speak freely. lol

So, what do you do? You sit around and whine about how the rest of the world is not what you fantasize how it should be. Meanwhile, time, life and the world are passing you by.... lol

P.S. Have you read the news? Us neocon rule! Took us 2 decades in the making, and we are not done yet!! You ain't seen nothing yet!! It is inevitable that new world order is one belongs to the NeoCon. Just look at the progress we make globally. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany.. etc... NeoCon on a warpath to domination. The reason is simple. Our ideology is right. That's it! Plain and simple. Oh yeah.. forgot to mention.. we know how to run things, and not just yepping smart on the internet.

 

[BioHazzard]

What exactly is a "state sponsored religion?"

FVF

Well, I have an idea. Why don't you check with countries that have an official religion? There are plenty of countries with state sponsored religion. I am sure they can provide you an idea what a "state sponsored religion" is.

Even better, move to live in one of those countries with an official religion or state sponsored religion. You can see for yourself how a state sponsored religion operates. I have lived in one such county for many years. You should try it. Sure beats the hell out of just talking about it online.

 

[BioHazzard]

The founding fathers came from lands where there was a long history of Church+Politics meant suppresion of one group or another. As such they tried to setup a system to see that this wouldn`t happen again.

Exactly what I said earlier.... But some people prefer their own version of reality.

 

[EEmain]

Exactly what I said earlier.... But some people prefer their own version of reality.

We all have our own version of reality... but that is another thread :hammer: could get real interesting too.

 

[FredFlash]

In 1787 the Congress passed an act in which special lands were designated "for the sole used of Christian Indians and the Moravian Bretheren missionaries, for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity."

--Margo Diann Abshier

 

[kwyckemynd00]

why do Americans kill more people with guns than any other country?

I'd challenge that statistic because I believe there is much dishonesty when it comes to reporting crime.

In addition to that, criminals "break the law", so banning guns isn't going to deter many people who are commited to breaking the law.

 

[FredFlash]

Well, I have an idea. Why don't you check with countries that have an official religion? There are plenty of countries with state sponsored religion. I am sure they can provide you an idea what a "state sponsored religion" is.

Even better, move to live in one of those countries with an official religion or state sponsored religion. You can see for yourself how a state sponsored religion operates. I have lived in one such county for many years. You should try it. Sure beats the hell out of just talking about it online.

What country was that?

FVF

 

[BioHazzard]

What country was that?
FVF

What? You don't believe me?
Malaysia, where the official religion is Islam. Bear in mind that it is one of the most tolerant Islamic countries. The political system is paliarmentary monarchy. Over there, you have constitutionally protected right to religious freedom. The rights of other religions are respected and protected, officially. But the official religion is Islam. Islam is sponsored by the state and supported with taxes. Mosques are built and operated with tax money. Anything related to Islam, is supported with tax money. Over there, you simply don't question the government using YOUR tax money to support Islam. That is a no-no!!

 

[FredFlash]

What? You don't believe me?
Malaysia, where the official religion is Islam. Bear in mind that it is one of the most tolerant Islamic countries. The political system is paliarmentary monarchy. Over there, you have constitutionally protected right to religious freedom. The rights of other religions are respected and protected, officially. But the official religion is Islam. Islam is sponsored by the state and supported with taxes. Mosques are built and operated with tax money. Anything related to Islam, is supported with tax money. Over there, you simply don't question the government using YOUR tax money to support Islam. That is a no-no!!

I do not question your honestly. I am interested in the relationship of Religion and State in other nations.

Are taxes collected from the non-Islamic population to support Mosques? How does the Malaysian government sponsor the offical religion without infringing on religious freedom?

Fred

 

[BioHazzard]

I do not question your honestly. I am interested in the relationship of Religion and State in other nations.

Are taxes collected from the non-Islamic population to support Mosques? How does the Malaysian government sponsor the offical religion without infringing on religious freedom?

Fred

The taxes are collected from everyone with income, in theory. But it is like 95% is collected from the ethnic Chinese who are 99% non-muslim. It is a complicated situation that is unique to that country. The Chinese in Malaysia are decendents of Chinese who migrated from China at the turn of the last century. They are considered Malaysia citizen. The Chinese used to dominate the economy and hence have traditionally bore the biggest burden on taxation. These days, state run conglomerates rule the corporate world in Malaysia. These conglomerates are owned, controlled and managed by people connected to the ruling alliance. Shady deals and corruption are the norm. I doubt they pay any taxes at all, considered that they are subsidized with public taxes in the first place.

The taxes are used to pursue anything the government sees fit, with no regards to equality or any concern for not even the appearance of bias or unfair practice. Public money is considered the private purse of the ruling alliance. The rulling alliance has ruled the country single handedly since the independence of the country. They have absolute majority and can ammend the constitution at the whimp of the Prime Minister.

In order to keep a majority of the population happy being subjucated to their rule, the ruling aliance use this official religion as the rallying point. Anything related to Islam is heavily and totally supported with taxes. Islamic scholars and students are on government payroll. It is a gravy train, some sort of social program in reality. The government encourages the Muslim citizen to devote all their energy and attention to the study of Islam.

Thing is, you are NOT allowed to question, let alone criticise anything related Islam. You can criticize the government, but absolutely NOTHING related Islam, the state sponsored religion. They can throw you in jail without trial and keep you there indefinitely. The only excuse they need is that you are a threat to national security. You have no appeal.

 

[FredFlash]

Dear BioHazzard

Are you no longer in Malaysia?

FVF

 

[EEmain]

I'd challenge that statistic because I believe there is much dishonesty when it comes to reporting crime.

Not to mention firearms and bullets cost money... and in the absense of these a rock, club or machete will be just as good.

 

[BioHazzard]

Dear BioHazzard

Are you no longer in Malaysia?

FVF

Left right around the big Asian Meltdown in the late 90's. After that the government instituted currency control and made it very difficult to repatriate profit/funds out of the country.

I sure hope things turn around in that country. Just as long as you don't butt head with Islam and you don't butt head with the government, and you pay your taxes, then you are pretty much left alone to your own vices. If you question the government then you had better do it humbly and keep it down. You are not allowed to criticise the government instituted policy of setting quotas and preferential treatment for the majority group. Yes, you read it right! Preferential treatment in favour of the majority!! lol

It is a part of the world, where 'who you know' makes all the difference. If you get the right connection, and you actually have talent/skills, you can make the good life of a merchant prince. Money and connection allow you to do things that you cannot do in America.

But I digress. lol The point is, yes there is this thing called state sponsored religion or official religion and it is used as a political tool to keep the people in their place. Islam is at the stage where it is very intrusive into the faithful's life. It dictates what you can or cannot do. Your private life is subjucated to the dictate of Islam. If you are a muslim, your rights are defined by Islam. Islam does not allow you to renounce it. IF you think Islam treats infidels harshly, wait till you see how it treats its apostates. lol Islam governs every aspect of your life. You can't say you would just do as you please. LOL They have this thing called Sharia Court to deal with you. They will arrest you and punish you IF you violate what is expected of you as a muslim. lol Of course, for the rich and powerful, they can still get away with they decadence and corruption. There is this element of 'do as we say but not as we do". lol

So, Islam can be a very powerful tool for the government to control the population. Unfortunately, as we have witnessed, in many situation, Islam takes on a life of its own, and the government has to ride the tiger and try not to get eaten alive.

Islam is presently at the stage where Christianity once was. So it is an evolutionary process. Christianity has evolved to the point it is no longer an oppressive factor in people's daily life. There may be faithful who adhere to everything Vatican says. But most Roman Catholics think nothing of putting on a condom, whatever the Church says notwithstanding.

For Islam to evolve, it has to come from inside. The burden is on the shoulder of the moderate muslims.

 

[FredFlash]

Dear BioHazzard:

May I assume that you are not a follower of the Islamic faith?

Fred

 

[BioHazzard]

Dear BioHazzard:

May I assume that you are not a follower of the Islamic faith?

Fred

I am not. Does that mean I am biased?

I have plenty of muslim friends and colleague. I almost married a muslim.

 

[FredFlash]

I am not. Does that mean I am biased?

Everyone is biased. The problem is not to allow it to effect your judgment.

After your experence in Malaysia perhaps you can understand why James Madison fought so hard for the Separation of Church and State in America, and why people like me oppose even seemingly trivial violations of the pure principle.

There are those who would impose a Union of Church and State here in the U. S. if they could. Their strategy is to convice us to adopt seemingly plausible and reasonable deviations from the principle and then argue that there were not exceptions at all.

Case in point: Congress establishing two Chaplainships in 1789 and charging the expense ($500 per year) to the taxpayers.

The establishment was for Congress only, not the people. There was no assumption of authority over the religious sentiments or the manner of worship of the people. The Chaplains never invited any Congressman to pray during an official daily legislative session because that would imply a duty to do so.

The Chaplain's prayer services were held before the bell rang to reconvene and officially open business for the day. By all accounts, very few Congressmen attended the services. In 1789, the belief that one had a natural right to render homage to Creator according to one's conscience and conviction was universal. However, it was not a universal belief that the duty to contribute to the financial support of religion was a matter of conscience.

Just 22 years later, the advocates of a Church State Union (the Federalists) were arguing in the House of Representatives that regulating the funds of a religious society was within the authority of Congress, as well as the authority to address the the fact that religion had been entirely excluded from the ten square mile area of the District of Columbia.

Mr. WHEATON said he differed widely from his colleague (Mr. PICKMAN) as to the importance of the bill now under consideration. He did not imagine that they were to assume the objections of the President to be valid, and of course to dismiss the bill. They had a duty to perform as well as the President. He had performed his duty in the case presented for consideration. And would gentlemen assume it as a correct position because the bill was objected to by the President that the House ought not to act understandingly?

This was not the correct principle. In his view the objections made by the President to this bill were altogether futile. Mr. W. said he did not consider the bill any infringement of the Constitution. If it was, both branches of the Legislature, since the commencement of the government, had been guilty of such infringement. It could not be said, indeed, that they had been guilty of doing much about religion; but they had at every session appointed Chaplains, to be of different denominations, to interchange weekly between the Houses. Now, if a bill for regulating the funds of a religious society could be an infringement of the Constitution, the two Houses had so far infringed it by electing, paying or contracting with their Chaplains. For so far it established two different denominations of religion. Mr. W. deemed this question of very great consequence. Were the people of this District never to have any religion? Was it to be entirely excluded from these ten miles square? He should be afraid to come it that were to be the case. The want of time was no sufficient reason against giving this subject mature consideration. What was done ought to be well done. For these reasons he was in favor of the bill lying on the table. A Century of Lawmaking for a New Nation: U.S. Congressional Documents and Debates, 1774 - 1875 Annals of Congress, House of Representatives, 11th Congress, 3rd Session Pages 983 & 984.

Invalid Link Removed

​

 

[BioHazzard]

Well, I am glad that you know your history that well.

"...why people like me oppose even seemingly trivial violations of the pure principle. ...."

If it is seemingly trivial, then I think I have better things to do with my time. I don't like to waste my time splitting hair.

 

[FredFlash]

Well, I am glad that you know your history that well.

"...why people like me oppose even seemingly trivial violations of the pure principle. ...."

If it is seemingly trivial, then I think I have better things to do with my time. I don't like to waste my time splitting hair.

A little bit of a Union of Church and State is like a bit of cancer or a little bit of sin. It is corruption that can eventually kill.

FVF

 

[BioHazzard]

A little bit of a Union of Church and State is like a bit of cancer or a little bit of sin. It is corruption that can eventually kill.

FVF

You are being paranoid there. lol Live a little. The sky is not falling. lol The world was here, before us. The world will still be here after we are gone.

A little bit of sin is no big deal, as long as we don't commit some absolute no-no. I try to live my life as a good person and I try to go out of my way to be of service to others, whether it is a fellow human being in need or an animal in need of help. But I am not going to lose any sleep if I fail to be a person w/o sin.

I wouldn't worry about 'a little bit of Union of the State and the Church', if I were you. The burden of the nation is not on your shoulder or my shoulder, alone. While many people would like to see our government reflects the basic goodness enshrined in Christianity, few would want the State to impose an official religion or a US government sponsored Church. There is little doubt that the doctrine of separation of the State and Church is as firmly established in the minds of the American people as that of the right to free speech. So, I think you worry too much there.

 

[FredFlash]

I wouldn't worry about 'a little bit of Union of the State and the Church', if I were you. The burden of the nation is not on your shoulder or my shoulder, alone. While many people would like to see our government reflects the basic goodness enshrined in Christianity, few would want the State to impose an official religion or a US government sponsored Church. There is little doubt that the doctrine of separation of the State and Church is as firmly established in the minds of the American people as that of the right to free speech. So, I think you worry too much there.

You make a very good point that the doctrine of separation of the State and Church is well established in the minds of the American people.

FVF