Pledge of Allegiance not what the Founding Fathers had in mind

What a twist! “Reinterpret” based on history?! No, interpret based on historical context. Your suggesting that documents should be interpreted without proper regard to historical context is to “reinterpret” them according to whim or prejudice, the very attitude of the activist agenda that would gut the constitution, repeal its guaranteed rights, and undermine the moral fabric of society: “We don’t care what they originally meant, only what we want them to mean”--the essence of Progressivism. America could well do without such "progress."

 

God, forbid!

 

And here I thought this forum is one!

 

No, that is what liberals want to do. Originally, the 1st Amendment was written to protect Christian religious freedom. That is its original historical context. It was written to protect Christians in the colonies from the persecution of the Church of England, which was in the colonies, particularly Virginia. It is because of Christians that other religions enjoy religious freedom in the US.

The Constitution is not a living document that needs to be reinterpreted or changed. It simply needs to be enforced. It is the law of the land, as written. The Progressives (Communists) want to scuttle the Constitution and so we need to protect it from those on the Left who want to do violence to it.

 

I haven't use the term theocracy. My argument is we are in no legal or formal way a Christian nation. That's what the Constitution and the Treaty of Tripoli both say in clear terms.

 

The historical context for the first amendment is provided by the Treaty of Tripoli. I'm not gutting the Constitution. I'm simply stating what it clearly says about the freedom of religion. Rave on. I'm ignoring your inane generalizations.

 

The Constitution was not written to protect Christian religious rights. It protects the rights of all religions. Do you think it does not protect the rights of Jews?

 

At the time, the first amendment was not written to protect all religions. The 1st Amendment was a response to the Church of England in the colonies and its oppression of the Baptists in Virginia. John Leland of the Baptists in Virginia convinced Madison to have a clause in that amendment protecting religious freedom. At the time, it was protecting the freedom of the Christians in the colonies from the Church of England.

Like it or not, that is the original historical context for establishment clause in the 1st amendment. You should study Baptist history a little better. It is because of Baptists like Leland, that we don't have a national church/religion in America. What many don't know is that Samuel Adams and John Adams both favored having a national church. Without John Leland's intervention, most Americans would be Episcopalians today.

Yes, it protects the rights of Jews, but that pertains to its wider application. And it is because of the Christian basis for the 1st Amendment, that Jews enjoy religious freedom. We are the only country that truly offers that to them, outside of Israel.

 

You quoted Greg Byrd who used the term. I assumed that you agreed with his quote.

We are a Christian nation in terms of our character which is what we mean when we say that. Liberals hate Christianity and don't want America to even resemble Christianity, but one can easily see the Christian influence in our founding documents. And it is because of our strong Christian history and tradition in this country particularly in the way our country was founded that people of other religions have freedom of religion in the US.

You are trying to parse the matter by arguing about legality. But being a Christian nation is more than simply being "legally" Christian. We are a Christian nation, but we are not legally a theocracy. Our legal system is rooted in Christian values. Our government's character was originally designed to reflect Christian values. And we can see the Christian character of the leaders of our nation at its founding. Unfortunately, that is lost on most people today.

We can be a Christian nation without Christianity being legislated as the official religion of the state.

 

They are unbelievers

Then it is our job to eradicate them.

 

It is a baldfaced LIE to say liberals hate Christianity. That lie has hurt Christ's Church immensely.

 

I certainly agree that Christianity has had a very positive effect on America. Recently, however, the unBiblical combination of church and state has hurt us and the Church. I'm talking about the law because many of the Christian right assume they should have preferential treatment under the law.

 

There has been no combination of Church and state. And Christians are not clamoring for preferential treatment under the law. They are expecting equal treatment under the law and not being prosecuted unfairly for practicing their faith in public. You need to stop listening to liberal talking points.

 

No, it is not a lie. Liberals hate Christianity. I should clarify. They hate the biblical version. They love the version of Christianity that does not have Christ in it. Liberals hate those who are authentic followers of Jesus. That's because they hate the Jesus of the Bible. They love "gentle Jesus meek and mild" the ecumenical Jesus that embraces homosexuality as normal, who makes no demands, who was just a nice guy with some nice things to say.

They hate the Jesus of the Bible, the Jesus of Revelation 19 and 20 who comes in power and glory to execute judgement on the living and the dead. They hate Jesus of the Bible who demands that they repent and turn from their sin. They hate the Jesus who says, "if you want to be my disciple, deny yourself, take up your cross and follow me."

Liberalism is the antithesis of the authentic, New Testament Christian faith. It stands ideologically opposed to everything the Bible teaches. Liberalism is Anathema.

 

You're blind to what's going on. The Republican party has hoodwinked fundamentalist Christians and now there is a tight combination of the two.

 

Liberty University rescues two windows honoring SBC’s rightward shift scrapped by Southwestern Seminary – Baptist News Global

This is a good example of a "Christian" leader saying something overtly political:

Liberty University rescues two windows honoring SBC’s rightward shift scrapped by Southwestern Seminary

Introducing Vines, retired pastor of First Baptist Church in Jacksonville, Florida, as the baccalaureate speaker, President Falwell criticized removal of a series of windows designed to honor heroes of the SBC “conservative resurgence” from MacGorman Chapel at the seminary located in Fort Worth, Texas.

Falwell said Vines, a longtime Liberty University trustee, “was instrumental – along with several others like Adrian Rogers, Charles Stanley, Bailey Smith – in reforming the Southern Baptist Convention in the late 1980s to make it more accurately reflect the conservative values of the members of most Southern Baptist churches.”

Falwell said Liberty University paid for the window honoring the senior Falwell – the university’s founder – a few years ago at the request of Dorothy Patterson, at the time First Lady at Southwestern Seminary.

Patterson, whose tenure ended abruptly last year with the firing of her husband, Paige Patterson, as seminary president, said at the time she intended for the windows designed by Don Young Glass Studio to document the 20-year history of the movement spearheaded by her husband and Houston layman Paul Pressler to steer the denomination sharply to the right.

Falwell said members of First Baptist Jacksonville donated funds to include a window honoring Vines, who served as SBC president in 1988 and 1989 during a succession of leaders committed to using the office’s appointive powers to advance goals of the conservative resurgence.

“Well, now both of those windows have been removed by the new regime,” Falwell said. “I guess Southern Baptists have their own deep state.”

 

The fact that the Republican party is made up of people who disagree with each other about Trump, the fact that the GoP is full of millions of "Never Trumpers" only shows that we, as a party, are not monolithically and uncritically supportive of Trump. That means that he is not hoodwinking us. We value independent thinking, as opposed to the Democrat party and its "plantation" mentality.

 

What's wrong with that?

Here is a giant two volume set of books of preachers living at the time of our nations' founding available on Amazon:


https://www.amazon.com/Political-Se...NLHM/ref=mt_hardcover?_encoding=UTF8&me=&qid=

 

You’re funny. I’ll tell you this.....if the people in their Baptist churches knew what was really transpiring in the SBC right now, they would leave in droves. Who is being hoodwinked?

 

You've got it exactly wrong. Conservatives want to exclude the Sermon on the Mount and MAT 25. Red Letter Christians is a group that focuses on the words of Jesus in the Bible. They oppose those like you who pronounce their political opponents to be nonBelievers.

What Red Letter Christians Can Do When Political Talk Becomes Difficult – Red Letter Christians

What Red Letter Christians Can Do When Political Talk Becomes Difficult

The meanness that has been expressed toward various candidates, along with what is heard on “talk radio,” seems at times, to be extremely one sided and harsh. Character assassinations have become normative and distortions of what candidates actually say has become common.

Nevertheless, there is an imperative for Red Letter Christians to speak about the crucial concerns that are impacting what will be decided by elected officials. We must do this, however, without being ugly toward those who are opposed to what we believe to be “Christian” points of view.

As the campaigns related to the 2020 election unfold, there is going to be a lot of meanness and hatred expressed. We Red Letter Christians are required to stand opposed to that kind of talk and, according to the red letters of Jesus, “overcome evil with good.” May we Red Letter Christians say to those who refuse to be civil in political discourse that we are followers of Jesus who expects us to be kind to one another, even when that might seem difficult.

To make value judgments about whether a particular politician is a Christian is beyond our prerogative. As Billy Graham once said, “My task is to preach the Gospel. It is the task of the Holy Spirit to bring people under conviction. And it is the responsibility of God to do the judging.” I think those should become the guiding words for all of us as we enter political discussions. We should speak the truth in love and not judge others, lest we also be judged.

During the days that lie ahead let us each talk politics whenever we can with whomever we can. The stakes in the coming elections are high and we dare not remain passive. We must, however, challenge any politician who dehumanizes their political opponents with degrading talk. That’s what Jesus was talking about when He said in Matthew 5:22, with words that are highlighted with red letters in my Bible, that whoever degrades another person by what is said is guilty of “Raca” — which is akin to committing a grave sin like murder. That, it must be agreed, makes diminishing the humanity of another child of God serious stuff.