Non-separation of church and State.

[Bodi]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

The United States WAS NOT founded on religion.

 

[weaver2]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

Religion is into control, and political power. It has never been interested in unity or ethical values. It's only interest in morality is what it can impose on those they can control. Leaders are exempt from morality.

 

[Mircea]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

Founded on religion? What I'm hearing is you agree to be burned at the stake for celebrating your birthday.

If you're going to tell a story, tell it right.

Those people were not persecuted.

If a religion required you to fling poo for 2 hours a day, and you refused to join them, is that persecution?

No. Just because the majority of people refused to accept the differently twisted bizarre ideas of the Puritans/Pilgrims and ban birthday celebrations and Christmas and Easter and all holiday celebrations does not mean they were persecuting the Puritans/Pilgrims.

We have seen first hand what religious nutters do, and separating church and State is the best thing since sliced bread.

 

[mrjurrs]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

Our country was not founded on religion.

 

[mrjurrs]

The FF wanted every religion to be equal under the law. So you wouldn't have to be a certain state approved religion to hold office, or be a military leader, or even be a school teacher (although Catholics were not welcome in public education in the past). The FF didn't go so far as modern courts; they had no problem with prayer in schools, so long as no one religion had a monopoly. They had no problem with prayer, or religious symbols in public places, so long as it was what the local population was comfortable with.

And for all those reasons, mainly to keep religious organizations non-political, they made religion tax free. Churches aren't supposed, under this doctrine, to make political statements, or favor one candidate over another, or make campaign contributions. They ARE allowed to say, here are our values, vote for the person who best reflects our values. But they cannot directly endorse a particular candidate.

And as a result, it is time to remove the tax-exempt benefit from churches.

 

[weaver2]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

I would love to know what goes through the minds of people like Albert Raley when they encounter all the Greek and Roman sayings and symbols on our money, our flags, our great seal and in our Constitution and never encounter anything from the Bible or traditional Christian symbols? Do they not know what they are looking at? Do they know and just dismiss it as aberrant?

 

[Glitch]

I would love to know what goes through the minds of people like Albert Raley when they encounter all the Greek and Roman sayings and symbols on our money, our flags, our great seal and in our Constitution and never encounter anything from the Bible or traditional Christian symbols? Do they not know what they are looking at? Do they know and just dismiss it as aberrant?

People, like Albert Raley, are obviously ignorant of US history.

Article 11, Treaty of Tripoli, ratified November 4, 1796:

As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen,-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

(emphasis added)

 

[Closer]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

Those annoying evangelical Baptists, who invented the premise, would disagree, though the establishment clause did not ban religion from govt., it just barred the Federal govt. from establishing a state sect; the great fear was of the Anglican Church being granted Federal powers. The Establishment Clause did not prevent the individual state or local govts. from from having state sponsored sects, which makes sense given that most colonies were founded as religious settlements. Demographic changes removed the special sect status as time moved on, not any SC rulings; Massachusett's Congregationalists being the last to go, in 1834 or so. It was never a big deal , the taxes they levied went mostly to fund public schools and colleges, usually the first ones in the colonies.

Sorry, but the claims that the Christians had no effect on the founding of the country is just infantile silliness, given how many religious colonies there were that became states. Contrary to the wishful thinking of all the Howard Zinn victims, Jefferson, Paine, and a tiny handful of other pseudo-intellectuals were not anywhere near a majority of the Founders, and their opinions don't carry any more weight than the others, despite how academics promote them over others.

 

[Closer]

I would love to know what goes through the minds of people like Albert Raley when they encounter all the Greek and Roman sayings and symbols on our money, our flags, our great seal and in our Constitution and never encounter anything from the Bible or traditional Christian symbols? Do they not know what they are looking at? Do they know and just dismiss it as aberrant?

They needed support from a variety of different sects, hence the nuetrality re govt. legal systems and the like, that's why; they didn't care about Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims then, since almost none of them were around enough to matter, hence why there was no need to state the blatantly obvious, that the country was going to be largely Christian, but neutral re the individual sects. You find a much different story in the individual states.

 

[southwest88]

They needed support from a variety of different sects, hence the nuetrality re govt. legal systems and the like, that's why; they didn't care about Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims then, since almost none of them were around enough to matter, hence why there was no need to state the blatantly obvious, that the country was going to be largely Christian, but neutral re the individual sects. You find a much different story in the individual states.

Nope, Jefferson thought about Muslims in the US (along with Jews, Roman Catholics, etc.) He was willing to posit the franchise for Muslims who followed the laws, like any other citizen. (Although the percentage of voters out of the population was relatively small @ the time - maybe around 6% - because a certain amount of property - &/or money - & usually church membership - of the right kind - was also a requirement.)

See
Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an : Islam and the founders / Denise A. Spellberg, c2013, Alfred Knopf, 973.4609 SPEL 2013.

Subjects

 Jefferson, Thomas, -- 1743-1826 -- Political and social views.
 Jefferson, Thomas, -- 1743-1826 -- Religion.
 Muslims -- Civil rights -- United States -- History -- 18th century.
 Islam and politics -- United States.

Notes

 Introduction : Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an : imagining the Muslim as citizen at the founding of the United States -- The European Christian origins of negative, incorrect, curious, but sometimes accurate American ideas about Islam and Muslims, 1529-1797 -- Positive European Christian precedents for the toleration of Muslims, and their presence in colonial America, 1554-1706 -- What Jefferson learned, and didn't, from his Qur'an : his negative views of Islam, and their political uses, contrasted with his support for Muslim civil rights, 1765-1786 -- Could a Muslim be president? : Muslim rights and the ratification of the Constitution, 1788 -- Jefferson "the infidel" wages war against an Islamic power; entertains the first Muslim ambassador in Washington; decides on where to place the Qur'an in his library; and affirms his support for Muslim rights, 1790-1823 -- Beyond toleration : John Leland, Baptist advocate for the rights of Muslims, 1776-1841 -- Afterword why can't a Muslim be president? : eighteenth-century ideals of the Muslim citizen and their significance in the twenty-first century.

Summary

 "In this original and illuminating book, Denise A. Spellberg reveals a little-known but crucial dimension of the story of American religious freedom-- a drama in which Islam played a surprising role. In 1765, eleven years before composing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson bought a Qur'an. This marked only the beginning of his lifelong interest in Islam, and he would go on to acquire numerous books on Middle Eastern languages, history, and travel, taking extensive notes on Islam as it relates to English common law. Jefferson sought to understand Islam notwithstanding his personal disdain for the faith, a sentiment prevalent among his Protestant contemporaries in England and America. But unlike most of them, by 1776 Jefferson could imagine Muslims as future citizens of his new country. Based on groundbreaking research, Spellberg compellingly recounts how a handful of the Founders, Jefferson foremost among them, drew upon Enlightenment ideas about the toleration of Muslims (then deemed the ultimate outsiders in Western society) to fashion out of what had been a purely speculative debate a practical foundation for governance in America. In this way, Muslims, who were not even known to exist in the colonies, became the imaginary outer limit for an unprecedented, uniquely American religious pluralism that would also encompass the actual despised minorities of Jews and Catholics. The rancorous public dispute concerning the inclusion of Muslims, for which principle Jefferson's political foes would vilify him to the end of his life, thus became decisive in the Founders' ultimate judgment not to establish a Protestant nation, as they might well have done." -- From publisher's web site.

(My emphasis)

A brilliant book about Islam & religious freedom in the fledgling US.

 

[Closer]

Nope, Jefferson thought about Muslims in the US (along with Jews, Roman Catholics, etc.) He was willing to posit the franchise for Muslims who followed the laws, like any other citizen. (Although the percentage of voters out of the population was relatively small @ the time - maybe around 6% - because a certain amount of property - &/or money - & usually church membership - of the right kind - was also a requirement.)

See
Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an : Islam and the founders / Denise A. Spellberg, c2013, Alfred Knopf, 973.4609 SPEL 2013.

Subjects

 Jefferson, Thomas, -- 1743-1826 -- Political and social views.
 Jefferson, Thomas, -- 1743-1826 -- Religion.
 Muslims -- Civil rights -- United States -- History -- 18th century.
 Islam and politics -- United States.

Notes

 Introduction : Thomas Jefferson's Qur'an : imagining the Muslim as citizen at the founding of the United States -- The European Christian origins of negative, incorrect, curious, but sometimes accurate American ideas about Islam and Muslims, 1529-1797 -- Positive European Christian precedents for the toleration of Muslims, and their presence in colonial America, 1554-1706 -- What Jefferson learned, and didn't, from his Qur'an : his negative views of Islam, and their political uses, contrasted with his support for Muslim civil rights, 1765-1786 -- Could a Muslim be president? : Muslim rights and the ratification of the Constitution, 1788 -- Jefferson "the infidel" wages war against an Islamic power; entertains the first Muslim ambassador in Washington; decides on where to place the Qur'an in his library; and affirms his support for Muslim rights, 1790-1823 -- Beyond toleration : John Leland, Baptist advocate for the rights of Muslims, 1776-1841 -- Afterword why can't a Muslim be president? : eighteenth-century ideals of the Muslim citizen and their significance in the twenty-first century.

Summary

 "In this original and illuminating book, Denise A. Spellberg reveals a little-known but crucial dimension of the story of American religious freedom-- a drama in which Islam played a surprising role. In 1765, eleven years before composing the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson bought a Qur'an. This marked only the beginning of his lifelong interest in Islam, and he would go on to acquire numerous books on Middle Eastern languages, history, and travel, taking extensive notes on Islam as it relates to English common law. Jefferson sought to understand Islam notwithstanding his personal disdain for the faith, a sentiment prevalent among his Protestant contemporaries in England and America. But unlike most of them, by 1776 Jefferson could imagine Muslims as future citizens of his new country. Based on groundbreaking research, Spellberg compellingly recounts how a handful of the Founders, Jefferson foremost among them, drew upon Enlightenment ideas about the toleration of Muslims (then deemed the ultimate outsiders in Western society) to fashion out of what had been a purely speculative debate a practical foundation for governance in America. In this way, Muslims, who were not even known to exist in the colonies, became the imaginary outer limit for an unprecedented, uniquely American religious pluralism that would also encompass the actual despised minorities of Jews and Catholics. The rancorous public dispute concerning the inclusion of Muslims, for which principle Jefferson's political foes would vilify him to the end of his life, thus became decisive in the Founders' ultimate judgment not to establish a Protestant nation, as they might well have done." -- From publisher's web site.

(My emphasis)

Jefferson was just one person, and he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention in any case. His opinion is his and only his alone. Muslims were not numerous in the colonies at all, and weren't any kind of demographic.

Jefferson wrote all about how slavery was bad n stuff, too, but he went on to make a fortune in the slave trade and braggrd about how lucrative they were, bringing him 10% returns on his investments in them every year. He financed Monticello with them. Jefferson was the be and end all of our Founding; he was far outnumbered by the Evul Evangelicals, and it was in fact those Evul Fundies who elected him to the VP and then to the Presidency, in both terms. He didn't express concerns about placating the Danbury Baptists because he liked their shoes.

 

[Closer]

Continued ....

A brilliant book about Islam & religious freedom in the fledgling US.

Too bad it's probably inaccurate and just wishful thinking, not real history, going by your post.

On edit I looked up Spellberg; she's your typical modern academic, most interested in revising history to fit the usual left wing morality play nonsense, no credibility and in fact support censoring anything negative about Islam. lol UT Austin and Smith. where you automatically fail in any liberal arts program if you aren't a slave to Political Correctness.

 

[southwest88]

Jefferson was just one person, and he wasn't at the Constitutional Convention in any case. His opinion is his and only his alone. Muslims were not numerous in the colonies at all, and weren't any kind of demographic.

Jefferson wrote all about how slavery was bad n stuff, too, but he went on to make a fortune in the slave trade and braggrd about how lucrative they were, bringing him 10% returns on his investments in them every year. He financed Monticello with them. Jefferson was the be and end all of our Founding; he was far outnumbered by the Evul Evangelicals, and it was in fact those Evul Fundies who elected him to the VP and then to the Presidency, in both terms. He didn't express concerns about placating the Danbury Baptists because he liked their shoes.

Jefferson was a think tank, writer, legislative genius, governor, inventor, linguist, horticulturalist, classicist, economist, gentleman planter, & maintained a massive international correspondence to boot, on all those topics & more. The Founding Fathers don't seem to have thought in terms of demographics (the term hadn't been invented yet - first use as a noun in 1966 - see Demographic | Definition of Demographic by Merriam-Webster (merriam-webster.com) ), & the franchise was limited in the early US to a small percentage of principally WASP men of wealth & good church standing (the right churches, @ that).

For all that, Jefferson was constantly nearly broke, or @ least heavily in debt. He worked frantically @ diversifying crops, managing the plantation, managing the work force, & on & on - he was only marginally successful in that effort, barely hanging on, as I recall. He wanted to manumit his slaves, but he could never scrape up the necessary money. His position in society required a lot of expenditures - & he never was able to square that against his desire to free his slaves, while maintaining the lifestyle he enjoyed.

Fundamentalists - that term hadn't been invented then either:

"Christian fundamentalism has been defined by George Marsden as the demand for a strict adherence to certain theological doctrines, in reaction against Modernist theology.[12] The term was originally coined by its supporters to describe what they claimed were five specific classic theological beliefs of Christianity, and that developed into a Christian fundamentalist movement within the Protestant community of the United States in the early part of the 20th century.[13] Fundamentalism as a movement arose in the United States, starting among conservative Presbyterian theologians at Princeton Theological Seminary in the late 19th century. It soon spread to conservatives among the Baptists and other denominations around 1910 to 1920. The movement's purpose was to reaffirm key theological tenets and defend them against the challenges of liberal theology and higher criticism.[14] . "

(My emphasis - more @ Fundamentalism - Wikipedia)

 

[southwest88]

Continued ....

Too bad it's probably inaccurate and just wishful thinking, not real history, going by your post.

On edit I looked up Spellberg; she's your typical modern academic, most interested in revising history to fit the usual left wing morality play nonsense, no credibility and in fact support censoring anything negative about Islam. lol UT Austin and Smith. where you automatically fail in any liberal arts program if you aren't a slave to Political Correctness.

Kirkus disagrees - See THOMAS JEFFERSON'S QUR'AN | Kirkus Reviews

On her credentials - you missed

"Denise A. Spellberg (born c. 1958) is an American scholar of Islamic history. She is professor of history and Middle Eastern Studies at the University of Texas at Austin. Spellberg holds an A.B. in History from Smith College (1980) and an M.A., M. Phil., and a PhD (1989) in Middle Eastern History from Columbia University."

(My emphasis - more @ Denise Spellberg - Wikipedia - the entry there also discusses the alleged censorship issue)

Yah, Texas, that hothouse of liberal politics, ideology. Pretty much explains W Bush, David Barton & the Wallbuilders, Rep. Louis Gohmert, Sec. Energy Perry, Sec. State Tillerson, Sen. Cruz, Tom DeLay, Phil Gramm, & so many others, hm?

 

[Glitch]

They needed support from a variety of different sects, hence the nuetrality re govt. legal systems and the like, that's why; they didn't care about Buddhists, Hindus, or Muslims then, since almost none of them were around enough to matter, hence why there was no need to state the blatantly obvious, that the country was going to be largely Christian, but neutral re the individual sects. You find a much different story in the individual states.

Scroll up two posts to post #482. Obviously you did not read it. If you had you would know that we were dealing Muslims during the entire 1790s, and well into Thomas Jefferson's term as President. And yet the founders still managed to find the time to completely renounce the monumentally stupid notion that the US was founded as a "largely Christian" nation. It wasn't. The US was specifically designed to be secular from the very beginning. The ONLY thing even remotely religious in the entire US Constitution is the Gregorian Date used when the document was signed.

 

[Lisa]

Continued ....



Too bad it's probably inaccurate and just wishful thinking, not real history, going by your post.

On edit I looked up Spellberg; she's your typical modern academic, most interested in revising history to fit the usual left wing morality play nonsense, no credibility and in fact support censoring anything negative about Islam. lol UT Austin and Smith. where you automatically fail in any liberal arts program if you aren't a slave to Political Correctness.

Jefferson was adamant that the US was to be a secular state and that the rights applied to all religions and those who were not religious equally. This is his direct quote. Jefferson was well-read about Islam and owed and read the Q'uran.

As to the invocation of Jefferson, we know that when he and James Madison first proposed the Virginia Statute on Religious Freedom (the frame and basis of the later First Amendment to the Constitution) in 1779, the preamble began, “Well aware that Almighty God hath created the mind free.” Patrick Henry and other devout Christians attempted to substitute the words “Jesus Christ” for “Almighty God” in this opening passage and were overwhelmingly voted down. This vote was interpreted by Jefferson to mean that Virginia’s representatives wanted the law “to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahomedan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.”

What Jefferson really thought about Islam.

It was quite witty of Rep. Keith Ellison, D-Minn., to short-circuit the hostility of those who criticized him for taking his oath on the Quran and to...

slate.com

Madison was equally adamant about the strict separation of chicha and state, as you will understand if you read Memorial and Remonstrance. Pay close attention to lines 1-11.

Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

founders.archives.gov

 

[Juks]

I don’t think there should be a separation. Our country was founded on religion. It would help unite our country as well as restore morals and values.

Sorry to be the one to tell you but the seperation has already taken place. It was done when your country was formed and your constutionen was written. I don't believe there is any christian country where the state isn't devided from the church except the Vatican. There are very few countries in the world where state and "church" is the same. I can only think of Iran at the moment.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The United States WAS NOT founded on religion.

That’s at best a semantic argument. It was clearly founded to be compatible with a Protestant Christian world view.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

Sorry to be the one to tell you but the seperation has already taken place. It was done when your country was formed and your constutionen was written. I don't believe there is any christian country where the state isn't devided from the church except the Vatican. There are very few countries in the world where state and "church" is the same. I can only think of Iran at the moment.

Iran is not a “church” state. You clearly do not know what “church” even means

As far as Christian states, England, Norway, Malta, and Costa Rica all have churches designated as the state church.

 

[Peter]

The UK is not a great example to cite.
This is a secular country and not very religious at all. We don't have a problem with religion we just don't shout about it and it doesn't really mix with politics here.

Tony Blair was pretty famous for his attitude of "We don't do religion here" about the government even though he's quite religious himself.
British people are far more insular about that sort of thing and it's a personal choice.

It'd be nice to have some input from Americans on here who've spent some time in the UK as to how you view the difference between the UK and US when it comes to how religion is treated.

 

[EMNofSeattle]

The UK is not a great example to cite.
This is a secular country and not very religious at all. We don't have a problem with religion we just don't shout about it and it doesn't really mix with politics here.

Tony Blair was pretty famous for his attitude of "We don't do religion here" about the government even though he's quite religious himself.
British people are far more insular about that sort of thing and it's a personal choice.

It has an established church however.

 

[Glitch]

Sorry to be the one to tell you but the seperation has already taken place. It was done when your country was formed and your constutionen was written. I don't believe there is any christian country where the state isn't devided from the church except the Vatican. There are very few countries in the world where state and "church" is the same. I can only think of Iran at the moment.

Don't forget England. The English monarch is also the ruler of the Anglican religion, a.k.a. the Church of England.

It was one of the main reasons why the US was founded as a secular nation.

 

[Glitch]

The UK is not a great example to cite.
This is a secular country and not very religious at all. We don't have a problem with religion we just don't shout about it and it doesn't really mix with politics here.

Tony Blair was pretty famous for his attitude of "We don't do religion here" about the government even though he's quite religious himself.
British people are far more insular about that sort of thing and it's a personal choice.

It'd be nice to have some input from Americans on here who've spent some time in the UK as to how you view the difference between the UK and US when it comes to how religion is treated.

England is not secular by any stretch of the imagination. The monarch of England is also the head of the Church of England. The UK is a cross between a monarchy and a theocracy. The Prime Minister may spout off that he is secular, but he certainly won't be claiming England is secular in front of the Queen (assuming he wants to stay Prime Minister).

 

[Bodi]

That’s at best a semantic argument. It was clearly founded to be compatible with a Protestant Christian world view.

The Founders are not the Government that they created.

 

[Lisa]

That’s at best a semantic argument. It was clearly founded to be compatible with a Protestant Christian world view.

Not according to the Framers because there is nothing to support your claim that the US was created as a protestant Christian state. The US was created as a secular state with equal religious freedom for the citizens, regardless of their beliefs or lack thereof. You might want to put down your bible and study the words of Jefferson and Madison.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.


I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.


Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802.

Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

www.loc.gov

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan [Muslim], the Hindoo [Hindu], and Infidel of every denomination."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2015/12/11/how-thomas-jefferson-and-other-founding-fathers-defended-muslim-rights/

Founders Online: Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. …

Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, [ca. 20 June] 1785

founders.archives.gov

You can believe what you want and worship the god that you wish the government at all levels and the expenditure of our tax dollars is not to support one religion or sect over the other or support belief over non-belief. Your religious rights and at the tip of your nose where the equal religious and secualr rights of everyone else begin.