James Madison; not electable in this age

Discussion in 'Other Christian Denominations' started by Nevada, Feb 12, 2012.

  1. Nevada

    Nevada
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    How times have changed. Here is a quote of Madison's, pertaining to the mixing of religion and politics. Tell me, what would leaders of the Christian Right think of a politician saying this today, were his name something other than "James Madison"?

    [T]he prevailing opinion in Europe, England not excepted, has been that religion could not be preserved without the support of government nor government be supported without an established religion that there must be at least an alliance of some sort between them. It remained for North America to bring the great and interesting subject to a fair, and finally a decisive test.
    It is true that the New England states have not discontinued establishments of religions formed under very peculiar circumstances; but they have by successive relaxations advanced toward the prevailing example; and without any evidence of disadvantage either to religion or good government.

    But the existing character, distinguished as it is by its religious features, and the lapse of time now more than 50 years since the legal support of religion was withdrawn sufficiently proved that it does not need the support of government and it will scarcely be contended that government has suffered by the exemption of religion from its cognizance, or its pecuniary aid. (Letter to Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

    *** *** *** *** *

    And, yes, repairing Catholic Mission churches in California at taxpayer expense is aid. So is The House Chaplain. So are school tuition vouchers. And, if you say, "But, all faiths get the tax dollars." I will counter with:

    Are you all right with faiths you find repugnant, even anti-Christian, sharing in the flow from the US Treasury?
     
  2. Nevada

    Nevada
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
  3. Nevada

    Nevada
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
  4. Alcott

    Alcott
    Expand Collapse
    Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 17, 2002
    Messages:
    7,456
    Likes Received:
    93
    No, I don't think Jimmy is electable today. But there have been a few times a dead man was elected (usually by straight-party voting), so who knows?
     
  5. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    Yes I am - because those repugnant non-Christians put money into the Fed Treasury - and their children deserve a quality education - something that many schools are not providing.

    Note: The Feds should not spend one penny on education - public or private - that is a State/Commonwealth responsibility- but my basic statement stands
     
  6. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    The Founders and Framers said and wrote a lot of things that we are largely in ignorance about in this current age where the teaching of proper civics is left out of the picture.

    None of them would be electable today, for we have drifted into a quasi-Marxist socialism that would cause each or any of them to foment a new revolution against their own nation's government because it violates the clauses that they considered would make it illegitimate!

    There were several sure tenets that the Founders and Framers held, first that a man WOULD be involved with some church, but that church would not be national in scope. Rather, they had no issues at all with a State church and they lived in an era where that reality existed. We project onto the period of the founding of America with our own worldview where anything goes. Though they did indeed support the universal nature of religious freedom (George Washington had a letter to that effect to a leader of a Jewish group, as did others likewise) but for the most part they recognized that states had rights that the federal government did not, including the right to a state church and mandatory participation in order to run as a candidate from that particular state. Second, they held that WHEN the government started to dictate policy to the people instead of represent the will OF the people that the government was illegitimate and due for overthrow by the people. They build our Constitution with that idea in mind, which was gathered from the work of John Locke.
     
  7. Nevada

    Nevada
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    154
    Likes Received:
    0
    ah Salty and glfredrick, are you OK with Thomas Jefferson's saying, in his autobiography, that America should be home to Hindus, atheists, Muslims, and all manner of infidels?

    Because, this is the true test of religious freedom. That the USA is neutral in regards to religion, not partial to any particular group or groups. This is why religious freedom is a challenge. It is an all or nothing thing.

    James Madison wrote of "Total separation" as what he wanted.

    Let me paraphrase that:

    gimme my religious freedom full strength, not watered down.

    with all due respect.
     
  8. Salty

    Salty
    Expand Collapse
    20,000 Posts Club
    Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 8, 2003
    Messages:
    22,129
    Likes Received:
    221
    Yes, I am okay with it - I will respect their belief to practice, but they need to respect others beliefs as well.
     
  9. glfredrick

    glfredrick
    Expand Collapse
    New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2010
    Messages:
    4,996
    Likes Received:
    0
    Are we okay with freedom for religions alternative to Christianity in America?

    Of course... That is the Christian position! We realize that there are false religions, that is our mission field. Why on earth would we wish to oust people from a FREE LAND when they are coming TO US so that we can missionalize them and send them back to their homeland with the gospel?

    In that we BLOW so many chances to do so, we are likely in sin against God. Some of the greatest enemies of America can here to study in our colleges and while they were here they were never treated in Christian love nor did (for all outward appearances) anyone witness to them. We would rather point fingers and war against each other than to do what Christ commanded in the great commission.

    Does that mean, however, that we should turn our back on our own Declaration of Independence, which stipulates in no uncertain language from whence those freedoms stem? Absoultely not. We are a nation that was/is founded on Judeo-Christian principles and with a decidedly biblical worldview. To surrender that is to surrender America without a shot being fired. And yet, it seems that we are most hasty to surrender that indeed!

    Virtually all the Framers and Founders made note of the fact that their Republic could not stand unless the mores and morals (culture and worldview) of the elected officials and the public remained in good standing with God. They understood that were great freedoms were given, great responsibilities were required, including standing up against utopian tyrannies that might (and probably would) come our way. Some of the Bill of Rights are there to give American citizens the ability to revolt against our own government should that government drift into tyranny -- as it now has -- and it is due time for that revolt.

    We can do the revolt in one of two ways. We can elect representatives and an executive branch that holds to the heart of the Constitution and Declaration and who see the rights of the people as unalianable or we can start shooting. How much better to wrestle back America by vote (and by prayer) than by blood... :saint:
     

Share This Page

Loading...