Roy Moore announces candidacy in Alabama gubernatorial race

I don't adhere to or align myself with anything ACLU related. In fact, I don't appreciate the implication.

 

Well it was more of a needeling than an assertion of any fact. But your view on establishment is closer to theirs than to the average evangelical Christian.

 

Johnv,

I thought it was the religious right who made a doctrine out of the Danbury Baptist letter. They frequently refer to the "wall of separation" phrase to imply that Amendment I's sole purpose wasto keep the government from establishing a state church/religion.

Please show me ONE organization on the religious right who uses Jefferson's Danbury Baptist letter to support their position on church/state. Conservative Christians who take an accommodationist position reject that letter, and certainly Hugo Black's interpretation of it, as evidence of the meaning of the First Amendment. I would suggest Daniel Dreisbach's Thomas Jefferson and the Wall of Separation Between Church and State which reviews the history surrounding that letter.

I hope no disrespect is implied.

Not at all, none whatsoever. I've very much enjoyed our exchange here. BTW, I sent a request to some Mods to start a BB Forum on church/state. We'll see.

 

D James Kennedy and David Barton. Oh wait, that's two. Sorry.

Seriously, though, among those who ultimately disagree on the bottom line issue, like you and I, the majority of Christians don't use the Danbury Baptist letter in the fashion I said. But, most Christians, though they many be conservative, aren't members of the religious right. I'm sure you'll agree that D James Kennedy does not by any means speak for all conservative Christians, though I must acknowlege that I respect Dr Kennedy highly.

Good idea. I hope, however, that such a forum doesn't get hijacked so as to disallow folks like us from engaging in healthy discussion. To be honest, I tend to refrain from political discussions, both here and in my personal life. This topic got my interest, however, and the discussion has been beneficial.

 

What's it they say abut busted clock? It's still going to be right twice a day?

Seriously, if a position is sound, then it should not be changed just because some activist group somewhere happens to have the same view, dun't a think?

Anyhoo, the benadryl is kicking in, and I'm feeling quite wired. Lookie, my body is acting like rubber.

 

If the posistion is sound. but, alas, it is not.
The left took the Danbury letter and used it to push their veiw of an absolute separation of church from state, as opposed the constitution which simply prevents the gov from getting envolved in establishments of religion. The fact that they had to use it thusly shows that if the constitution were kept in a vacume it would not support an interferenc of the fed gov in state courts and their displays.

We are on page ten, so I'll do the charter post if we start another thread or if FTR's suggestion on a on a BB board is taken, I'll start a thread on it there.

 

How about the communist hunting that went on during the 50's could that be an example?

Concerning the libertarianism ... I have always thought that the basic problem with libertarianism was the "implied" belief that eventually mankind will come to the right choice for themselves (economically, politically, etc...) if given enough opportunity and without outside interference (such as the government). This concept (vacuum) fails to take into account the basic truth that since sin entered the world, mankind is self-destructive and incapable of making the right choice.

In my opinion your "endorsement doesn't mean coercion" you stop short of taking into account the reality of mankinds self-destructive nature.

Does that explaination make any sense?!

 

Sure it's sound. You and I simply disagree on it. No harm done. We agree to disagree. No harm done. Oh wait, I said that already...

 

No no harm done at all. I am better prepared to support my side, and I learned alot about why you support your side. No harm at all, a rare chance to have a mental and moral work out on a very pressing subject. You and FTR have my complet respect.

 

Likewise, my friend.

 

Johnv,

Seriously, though, among those who ultimately disagree on the bottom line issue, like you and I, the majority of Christians don't use the Danbury Baptist letter in the fashion I said. But, most Christians, though they many be conservative, aren't members of the religious right. I'm sure you'll agree that D James Kennedy does not by any means speak for all conservative Christians, though I must acknowlege that I respect Dr Kennedy highly.

I think it's a confusion born of definitions. When I used the term conservative Christian, I basically meant what I call accommodationists (as opposed to strict separationists), those who don't see a violation of the Establishment Clause in so many of the things that have become controversial, such as Moore's monument, 10C displays, nativity creches, and prayers at football games and graduations. There may be many what we might both call conservative Christians who take the stance you do (and, maybe except for this issue--?--you sound pretty conservative, I think, proving my use of that term unsound). But, to address your point, I don't think you will find ANY accommodationists, citing that letter favorably, except that some do make the argument that the Danbury Baptists, in their letter to which Jefferson was responding, were expressing concern about state infringement on religion, and that Jefferson was echoing that concern. IMO, the exchange and Jefferson's term are far too unclear to put much support on, certainly for the accommodationist position.


G2C,

How about the communist hunting that went on during the 50's could that be an example?

We'll probably likewise have to agree to disagree on our own discussion. The example you cited doesn't speak directly to the First Amendment issues and can't begin to answer the four points I raised because there is a unique mix of events and ideas that went with that period. But, to address your example, though, where was the endorsement?

In my opinion your "endorsement doesn't mean coercion" you stop short of taking into account the reality of mankinds self-destructive nature.

It is an interesting point, but the history of the First Amendment and church/state in this country don't support an inevitable progression.

Concerning the libertarianism ... I have always thought that the basic problem with libertarianism was the "implied" belief that eventually mankind will come to the right choice for themselves (economically, politically, etc...) if given enough opportunity and without outside interference (such as the government). This concept (vacuum) fails to take into account the basic truth that since sin entered the world, mankind is self-destructive and incapable of making the right choice.

An interesting observation but not true in my case. There is certainly a wing within the American libertarian movement that is utopian, the anarcho-libertarians, influenced by Murray Rothbard among others. Among free-market libertarians, though, there isn't much of the perfectibility of man thesis that is seen among the Left. That's not because those libertarians accept the Christian view of sinful man, but, IMO, rather because they believe people are unique and different. Because many of them reject any moralism they also view differences between men as irrelevant except as it gives rise to entrepreneurial awareness and market opportunities. I don't think they view it as man coming to the right choice but that such choice must be free in order for the market to function smoothly.

I don't know if my own explanation makes any sense either.

 

This has been another wonderful debate thread.

Sadly, BB rules dictate a ten page limit so this thread will be closed no earlier than 1530 EDT today.

 

Closed at 1620 EDT