USA's Protestant Minority (soon)

[mioque]

"the Dutch were so bad that the Pilgrims fled to the wilderness of America."
''
The Puritans were into witchhunting something the Dutch government sternly opposed.

So a load of early US politicians stirrs the pot to get at the Christian vote and that is evidence that the US governmental system isn't secular?
The US never had a ministry of Christianity, nor did it have a Statechurch, there isn't even a government sponsored Bible translation in the US.
Great Britain that's a country that was set up as a Christian nation. State Church (Anglicanism), State Bible (AV 1611), bishops in parliament and even it's own 'pope' (her majesty the queen).

 

[Shammai]

Mioque -

We did have a "sponsored" bible (1782), an importing of bibles by the government and even a fasting day, according to www.loc.gov's (Library of Congress') 4th section of "Religion and the Founding of the American Republic":

Congressional Fast Day Proclamation - May 17, 1776
Congress proclaimed days of fasting and of thanksgiving annually throughout the Revolutionary War. This proclamation by Congress set May 17, 1776, as a "day of Humiliation, Fasting and Prayer" throughout the colonies.

Congress' Committee of Commerce imported 20,000 Bibles - September 11, 1777
The war with Britain cut off the supply of Bibles to the United States with the result that on Sept. 11, 1777, Congress instructed its Committee of Commerce to import 20,000 Bibles from "Scotland, Holland or elsewhere."

Aitken's Bible Endorsed by Congress - September 12, 1782
On January 21, 1781, Philadelphia printer Robert Aitken (1734-1802) petitioned Congress to officially sanction a publication of the Old and New Testament which he was preparing at his own expense. Congress "highly approve the pious and laudable undertaking of Mr. Aitken, as subservient to the interest of religion . . . in this country, and . . . they recommend this edition of the bible to the inhabitants of the United States." This resolution was a result of Aitken's successful accomplishment of his project.

Aitken published Congress's recommendation of September 1782 and related documents (Item 115) as an imprimatur on the two pages following his title page. Aitken's Bible, published under Congressional patronage, was the first English language Bible published on the North American continent.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html

--edited because I can't spell library.

[ July 24, 2004, 07:42 PM: Message edited by: Shammai ]

 

[rsr]

Why bad-mouth the Dutch? Many people (including the Pilgrims and Smyth and Helwys) fled to Holland to escape religious persecution in England. Ad hominem on a national basis.

I see we're back to the David Barton school of American history.

"On July 4, 1821, President Adams said, "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

No evidence that J.Q. Adams said this; it's excerpted from a book about Adams by another author.

John Adams was more Unitarian than his son; a reading of his letters to Jefferson is most enlightening.

When quoting, some references would be nice.

 

[Shammai]

And it should have been "E Pluribus Pluribum" not "E Pluribus Pluribus".

Just in case the Latin Linguistic Police are watching

 

[Scott J]

You're both right and wrong mioque.

The US never had an official religion. However, the founding Fathers even before there was a Christian vote to get at held that individual sovereignty was the only way to ensure that the Christian religion could be properly practiced.

The establishment clause isn't an anti-church/Christian statement but rather a supportive statement. It was made so that folks like Baptist could practice religion according to their conscience. It is premised upon the acceptance of Christ's declaration that His kingdom is not of this world. It is a uniquely "Christian", not secular, concept. *** I say this recognizing that the RCC developed and promoted the union of church and state and that the Protestants were slow to disavow themselves of the idea.

Secular humanists do not have respect for the free exercise of religion. Daily in the US they attempt to restrict expressions of Christian faith into the home or church. They strangely show a great deal of tolerance in the expressions of other faiths and rejoice in "diversity."

When atheism is the dominant force in gov't., it does not guarantee the free exercise of religion but rather attempts to educate it out of society. Witness the modern communist movements.

Islam certainly does not encourage or protect religious liberty... nor does Buddhism or Hinduism.

No. The idea that government should have no role in one's religious choices is quite "Christian" and fundamentalists Christian at that.

The fact that religious freedoms and expression are being eroded in the US is a reflection of the diminishing biblical worldview more than anything else. It directly results from our failure to evangelize and stand on principle.

 

[rsr]

As to the Aitken Bible: The "endorsement" occurred before adoption of the Bill of Rights; the approval was a typical congressional resolution of support and there is no record that the Congress ever put up any cash for the project, which produced a Bible that sold poorly. (According to my sources, you're more likely to find a Gutenberg Bible than an Aitken Bible.)

 

[rsr]

Free exercise of religion is not a specifically Protestant value; in fact, in America it was primarily the Baptists, Methodists (and southern Presbyterians) who espoused religious liberty. It is the birthright of Baptists.

(In Europe, the Dutch were unique in accepting dissent, though I think they drew the line at the Latin Rite folks.)

It is not a part of the founding of Anglicanism, Presbyterianism, Luterhanism or others. It is the unique contribution of the Baptist sect (Clint, are your reading?)

 

[just-want-peace]

As far as the Christian foundations of this country, read The Light and the Glory by Peter Marshall and another who's name I don't recall.

The gist of the book is the foundation of this country based on Christian principles.

It starts with Columbus, and continues through the Revolutionary War.

Some excellent research and conclusions.

Basically it totally debunks all this modern tripe of "separation of church and state" as the liberals now define it!

It is an excellent book to restore your belief that we were once "God's People", and, hopefully, could be again if we desired it strongly enough!

 

[rsr]

David Manuel was the co-author.

Somehow, I wouldn't want to live in a place where Columbus set the rules; he would have persecuted pagans, Protestants, Jews and Muslims alike.

 

[church mouse guy]

Mioque, I don't see how you can say that England was founded as a Christian nation since the England that we know today was discovered by the known world by Julius Caesar and England has a long history.

 

[rsr]

It's easy. Scotland and England were united under King James with the Church of England as the established church; before that, there was no Great Britain.

 

[church mouse guy]

"The Puritans were into witchhunting something the Dutch government sternly opposed."

You may have confused the Pilgrims. They were separatists who fled to Leiden in 1608 and to America in 1620, according to my reference book. The trials that are alluded to were in 1692 and were localized and shortly stopped. Most, if not all, Pilgrims would have been dead by 1692.

 

[rsr]

The England we know today is the creation of James I, who united Scotland and England under one crown, with the Anglican Church in the saddle.

 

[mioque]

rsr
"(In Europe, the Dutch were unique in accepting dissent, though I think they drew the line at the Latin Rite folks.)"
''
The Catholics were 2nd class citizens for a few centuries after the Dutch war for independance, but they never were as unpopular as they seem to have been in the USA during the same period.

 

[ituttut]

Originally posted by Johnv:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by Artimaeus:
I hope those on this board who view pluralism and diversity as such a good thing will not soon regret their support. Especially when decisions of the majority no longer even resemble a reflection of Christian values.

Whoa there!

First, you're presuming that the only Christian values are "protestant" values.

Second, the whole "protestant majority" thing is incredibly subjective. Many Baptists and other denominations/groups will say that they're not protestant.

Third, there has never been a "majority religion" in the US, unless you juggle denominational numbers and put them under the general term "Christian". But many Baptist won't consider Catholics, Lutherans, and Anglicans Christians.

Besides,who cares what demographics say? Last time I checked my Bible, my faith is supposed to be a personal individual relationship, not a denominational institution. </font>[/QUOTE]I do like that Johnv. Wisdom always shows through. It is a one on one basis in the spirit that counts.

 

[ituttut]

We in Christ have always be the minority in the eyes of the world. Yet we have always been the majority. One with Christ makes a majority. When He places us in His Body, we are on high, above it all. That is the Church that Christians belong to. That is where our repentance is found, and that is where we are baptized into His death.

Still being carnal (alive in these human bodies), our fellowship down here is of our choosing, but the church down here does not save us. It gives many a place to meet with people that hold certain (doctrine) things in commonality. We are strangers down here, just passing through. In our personalities, Christ has us do His will. That is the reason I would suppose for the different denominations. This is the reason for that “soup kitchen” we try to avoid in the “ratty” part of town that furnishes human needs, the love of Christ, and the Word for those that wish to hear it; or The Salvation Army, and many others. These Christians, and those that become Christians out of this environment, may never darken the door of a church. I do believe we err when we start thinking anyone that does not go to church on a regular basis may not be a Christian.

The Word will make the Christian. God will then put that Christian to work, if they desire to follow His will. It may be in a church, and it may not. He directs, and we do, or we don’t. I personally give much more to other causes than into the treasury (debt) of my church. God has put into my heart not to build buildings, but to give where He directs me, to spreading the Word, not to one denomination only, but to all, including the Jew, and assistance for the “down and out”. But this is Me. God has chosen you and you follow as He directs YOU. I won’t judge you for following orders from Christ Jesus, and I hope you won’t judge me, just because His orders to me differ. We are in Him and those that remain out of Him are nothing. We are the majority as that is all there is.

Christian faith, ituttut

 

[church mouse guy]

Unfortunately, the Roman Catholic Church is not the same in doctrine as Protestant churches, so that the divisions are deep between the two. Let's hope that history does not go backwards if the intolerant RCC becomes the majority in the USA.

Here are some of the deep differneces that I copied from a man named Mike Gendron in an article entitled Unity, Tolerance and Doctrinal Truth :

"Evangelicals and Catholics are so divided by doctrine that they stand directly opposed to one another. Following are just a few doctrines to consider…

• By definition an Evangelical is one who has repented and believed the Gospel, while a Roman Catholic is one who adheres to the official teachings and traditions of Roman Catholicism.

• An evangelical is regenerated by the baptism of the Holy Spirit.
A Roman Catholic believes regeneration is by the baptism of water.

• An evangelical is saved by God’s unmerited grace.
A Roman Catholic is saved by meriting the graces for Salvation.

• An evangelical is saved for good works.
A Roman Catholic is saved by good works.

• An evangelical is justified once by faith.
A Roman Catholic is justified repeatedly by sacraments and works.

• An evangelical is saved for all eternity.
A Roman Catholic is saved until a mortal sin is committed.

• An evangelical believes salvation is offered to those outside the church (the body of Christ).
A Roman Catholic believes salvation is offered through the church.

• An evangelical receives Jesus once, spiritually in the heart.
A Roman Catholic receives Jesus frequently, physically in stomach.

• An evangelical is purified by the blood of Jesus.
A Roman Catholic is purified by the fires of purgatory.

• An evangelical believes the Lord’s Supper is a memorial.
A Roman Catholic believes the Lord’s Supper is a sacrifice of Jesus.

• An evangelical believes Scripture has authority over the church.
A Roman Catholic believes the church has authority over Scriptures."

 

[LadyEagle]

This is a good discussion going on here. So rather than issue the usual 3-page warning in this forum, I'm moving the thread to General Baptist Discussions.

Please feel free to continue the discussion there.

Lady Eagle,
Moderator

 

[church mouse guy]

This Mike Gendron who listed the differences between Protestants and Catholics that I posted above, Lady Eagle and everyone else, also made this statement:

"Know Doctrine--Know Division
No Doctrine--No Division"

 

[mioque]

"This Mike Gendron"
''
Ofcourse Gendron (I read one of his books, 'Preparing Catholics for eternity.') is a typical example of a guy that makes a living writing books that pretend to be aimed at Catholics (trying to show them the error of their Churches way and thus convincing the readers to leave it it), but that actually are purely aimed at his fellow fundamentalists (preaching to the choir once more) giving them the secure happy feeling that yes they made the right choiche by not being members of the RCC.

This annoys me for 3 reasons.

- Guys like Mike know this. And usually don't care.
-It obscures real doctrinal debate between Catholics and Protestants just as much as the we are all the same crowd does. Together they make real fruitfull debate often impossible.
-Texts like these are always riddled with inaccuracies because truth is less important than digging up the dirt in a sparkly way.
In that list CMG posted for example all of the statements are at least questionable because of oversimplification.