Wall of seperation ?

Sam:
With the common practice today of government entitlements to the (C)3 Business Church, there is no wall of separation. The courts have ruled. The sentence is passed. The fact is written with a pen of iron. The benefits given to all (C)3 Business Churches have caused them to get on the "Dole System" just like state welfare and millions of individual Americans. We have an Established Church in America. It is the one that the IRS recognizes as a Business Church. Do you belong to a Business Church or to a Church that Christ is the Lord of?

Thanks -----Bart

 

THe first amendment's concept of Separation of Church and State was intended to keep the government out of the church, AND to keep the church out of the government. There was great concern that the new country would adopt the Anglican Church as its official religion. Jefferson wanted to keep the Anglican Church, and any other church, out of the government. He additionally wanted to keep the government from interfering in a individual's religious liberty.

It's separation of Church AND State.
Not separation of Church FROM State, and
not Separation of State from Church.

It's both.

 

Agreed.

WRONG! Ding! Ding! Ding! Ah, but you learned that from revisionist history, no doubt.

Didn't have such problems when I was growing up. We prayed in classrooms. We prayed at graduations - even had a guest minister deliver the prayers. We prayed (teams) before sports events. We said the pledge with "under God." We read our Bibles in class. We had a moment of prayer every morning when we said the pledge (not a moment of silence). Ah, yes. You're a product of Revisionist History and Madeline Murray O'Hare (but you didn't grow up here in America in the same generation as I did).

And that has nothing to do with my Baptist heritage in the way you misinterpreted it. Quite the opposite, in fact.

My family has been here since the 1600s. They were part of the God fearing people who settled this country, many of them preachers and lawyers - and my ancestors would be appalled if they saw the shape this country is in today and how God is not supposed to be mentioned or honored in public places. So, I'll thank you not to insult me. (I do accept your apology, however.)

PS: You can read about the Barbary pirates on the Internet. They were Muslims.

 

If you were required to recite an official school prayer, then the government was endorsing its official religion upon you. What if you were a Christian who believed that recitation of such a prayer constituted a vain repetition, and was therefore against your religion? The government, by forcing you to pray it, was violating your Christian beliefs.

As for me, I don't want my government endorsing official an official religion, even if it coincides with my own. When it does, it takes the religious liberty out of my hands into its own, thus robbing me of my religious liberty without even knowing.

This is still allowed, as is formal prayer at things like city council meeting. For it to be allowed, it must be at the start (or end) of the event. Also, while organized, these must be voluntary, not compulsory. However, many school districts have "wimped out" and dropped such activities altogether. It is their right to do so, but so is their right to included it. The latter would be in the better public interest, imo. Thanksfully, my local school district has not dropped the practice. Neither has my local City Council or local Board of Supervisors.

The pledge still contains the phrase "under God". The pledge is recited as such in the local school districts. However, recitation of the pledge is not mandatory, though it is public and organized.

Students still can. I have two kids in public school. They can read their bibles during study times if their schoolwork is completed.

The schools in this area have a moment of silence for prayer, meditation, or reflection. Students are allowed to pray if they like, or they are allowed to do nothing. However, the Christian club has public organized prayer right before school starts, of which my daughter is a member.

I submit that it's you who is a product of revisionist history a la D James Kennedy.

Good for you. My family has been here since 1628. I, however, did not enter the country until the early 70's when I immigrated. And, as you know, I'm a naturalized citizen. woohoo!!!

I'm aware of the Barbary Pirates and am aware that most were culturally Muslim. (the cultures of the Barbary Coast were generally Muslim). My contention is that their religious affiliation was inconsequential to their profession. Most pirates were European and culturally, at least, Christian of one sort of another.

 

Madison also said:

From his notes

Note: Perfidy is defined as "The quality or state of being faithless or disloyal."

"Cursed be all that learning that is contrary to the cross of Christ."

"Religion [is] the basis and Foundation of Government."

"It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage....Before any man can be considered as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governor of the Universe."

"We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves, to control ourselves, to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God."

Nothing revisionist about these.

 

Hey John, how is life?
The Virginia Colony was founded for PROFIT!!

 

Regardless of how you view the history of this country lets talk about now. What is that is hoped to be accomplished by effectively excluding those that have different religious beliefs then you? Or is exclusion even the right word? What is the point of the overall debate? Surely you wouldn't be in favor of eliminating religious freedoms? The Constituion doesn't favor one relgion over another, even though I am sure they could not have imagined the "strange" beliefs that we see today, I somehow doubt they would have made any law against it. BTW not intended as a trick question, just trying to move the conversation along

 

I never thought I would see Baptists denouncing separation of church and state; I bet John Leland, Roger Williams, and other early Baptists are spinning in their graves!

But, then, I never thought I would see Baptists embracing creeds, either.

Guess the word "Baptist" doesn't mean what it used to.

 

And in Jefferson's day white people owned black people, your point is?

The fact of the matter is that people who scream about seperation of church and state not being a good thing, really want christianity to be the recognized belief of America. Some Americans tried state supported religion, it didn't work! People are not truly free if they are not free to be something other then what the majority is! </font>[/QUOTE]The point is that Jefferson never envisioned the Public Arena being a place where an individual's free speech rights were censored.

The Worship Services I mentioned were not government organized but permitted by government since the public owns the buildings.

 

And in Jefferson's day white people owned black people, your point is?

The fact of the matter is that people who scream about seperation of church and state not being a good thing, really want christianity to be the recognized belief of America. Some Americans tried state supported religion, it didn't work! People are not truly free if they are not free to be something other then what the majority is! </font>[/QUOTE]And what is your point by interjecting Slavery into this post? Are you suggesting that if people are wrong about one thing they are wrong about all things?

As far as your second paragraph is concerned, I agree totally. What made you think I didn't?

 

Hardshell,

My point was to confront the idea that everything the founding father's did is exactly what we should be doing today, confronting the "good ole days" arguement that I hear so often when this topic comes up. Some seem to see these men as "saints", when they were flawed humans just like you and me with some great ideas and some not so great ideas.

Question to save me double posting...How would the United States be different if founded today? Would the Constitution be worded to reflect Christian freedom or religious freedom? Obviously I say it always was religious freedom.

 

Posting the first one - the other two are at the link below:

Link

 

The "wall of seperation" was intended to keep churches, sects, denominations, groups, and entities from controlling the government and to keep the government from controlling these same entities. It was not a solid brick wall preventing individual people from going back and forth. Government workers are allowed to interact with any church of their choice or would we relegate them to damnation. Individual Christians can also pass through this wall and interact with government as free citizens just the same as the lost. They are allowed to work for the government and be salt and light, they do not have to check their christianity at the door.