Non-separation of church and State.

[weaver2]

Sir, I am calling you a piece of shit once more in attempt to be banned so i no longer have respond. Yoy, a socialist, are a threat, along with all of your comrades. Those who reject historically proven evidence of God are a threat. Theocracy means morals, something you lack. You call God a monster when that is what you are.

And this is why separation between church and state is a really good idea. Thanks founding fathers.

 

[rahl]

Sort of kind of.

nope. very specifically and unequivocally.

 

[pinqy]

There is no such thing as Christian culture.

There’s no such thing as European culture????? In the worldview of the 18th century, when pretty much every country in Europe had an official religion of one or another Christian denomination, and no other part of the world had a Christian majority, Christian and European were interchangeable, just as Mahommeten and Middle East were.

So at the time, European was understood to mean Christian as a default, and when applied to a group or culture, Christian meant European.

I will retract my statements if you can show me any example from the 18th century that contradicts my claim that this was the general usage of these terms.

I ignored the rest of your post because it seemed clear you were ascribing positions to me that I don’t hold and blatantly ignoring what I explicitly said about my personal opinion. Stating what people back then believed does not imply in anyway approval or support for those beliefs or that they have any relevance in modern times

 

[Lisa]

There’s no such thing as European culture????? In the worldview of the 18th century, when pretty much every country in Europe had an official religion of one or another Christian denomination, and no other part of the world had a Christian majority, Christian and European were interchangeable, just as Mahommeten and Middle East were.

So at the time, European was understood to mean Christian as a default, and when applied to a group or culture, Christian meant European.

I will retract my statements if you can show me any example from the 18th century that contradicts my claim that this was the general usage of these terms.

I ignored the rest of your post because it seemed clear you were ascribing positions to me that I don’t hold and blatantly ignoring what I explicitly said about my personal opinion. Stating what people back then believed does not imply in anyway approval or support for those beliefs or that they have any relevance in modern times

How can we all have equal religious rights to believe or not believe as we wish from any of the 2000 different regions if we are living in a Christian-centric culture?

What is gained by your idea of a Christian-centric culture instead of a secular society with equal religious rights for all people, regardless of their belief or lack thereof?

The fact that the 17-18th century was an era of enlightenment, Deism, and humanism where the power of the Christian churches was being rejected in favor of secular ideas, or aren't we supposed to know that?

 

[pinqy]

nope. very specifically and unequivocally.

Do I really have to trot out out all the state constitutions that mention God, limit civil rights to Christians? The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because Connecticut was so heavily controlled by the Congregationalist Church that there was no practical difference between church officials and civil officials…they were the same.

At the National level, for the Federal government and inter-state relations, yes the U.S. was technically secular but overwhelming controlled by Protestant denomination to the point that Justice Iredell, as I quoted, considered it absurd to think that atheists Muslims or pagans would ever be elected to any office.

So yes, religious freedom did exist at the Federal level. The US as a whole was not controlled by religion. But many of the states did not have religious freedom for all, and the majority religion was dominant.

Unfortunately, there are too many people who want to go back to that situation or worse.

 

[rahl]

Do I really have to trot out out all the state constitutions that mention God, limit civil rights to Christians?

If you want. It doesn't change reality. The US has always been, by specific and deliberate design, NOT a christian nation or any other religion. It's specifically precluded by the constitution.

 

[Lisa]

Do I really have to trot out out all the state constitutions that mention God, limit civil rights to Christians? The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because Connecticut was so heavily controlled by the Congregationalist Church that there was no practical difference between church officials and civil officials…they were the same.

At the National level, for the Federal government and inter-state relations, yes the U.S. was technically secular but overwhelming controlled by Protestant denomination to the point that Justice Iredell, as I quoted, considered it absurd to think that atheists Muslims or pagans would ever be elected to any office.

So yes, religious freedom did exist at the Federal level. The US as a whole was not controlled by religion. But many of the states did not have religious freedom for all, and the majority religion was dominant.

Unfortunately, there are too many people who want to go back to that situation or worse.

What secular or religious rights of any sect of Christians are being limited in the USA?

 

[Scrabaholic]

Sir, I am calling you a piece of shit once more in attempt to be banned so i no longer have respond. Yoy, a socialist, are a threat, along with all of your comrades. Those who reject historically proven evidence of God are a threat. Theocracy means morals, something you lack. You call God a monster when that is what you are.

No self control - he just has to respond unless he's banned,

 

[bomberfox]

NO, they are not the source of US law. The Framers were very clear on this, Our government was designed to be absolutely secular for the protection of the rights of all people equally.

The Ten Commandments and American Law | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: The Ten Commandments and American Law at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

Hes been thoroughly bullied off the forum to the point he got himself banned, tough talkers usually do when they are beaten.

 

[pinqy]

What secular or religious rights of any sect of Christians are being limited in the USA?

Currently? I’m not aware of any. The most recent SCOTUS case I can think of was Santa Fe v Doe in 2000, where the Santa Fe Texas school policy of allowing prayer before football games was structured so that only the Baptist majority would ever have the right to lead prayers. The parents of Catholic, Mormon, and Jewish students sued, and in the briefs cited instances of hostility towards the minority religions.

I’m not sure why you asked me though. I have no idea what you think that has to do with anything I wrote.

 

[pinqy]

What secular or religious rights of any sect of Christians are being limited in the USA?

Ah, I think I see your confusion now. I wrote that some state constitutions “mention God, limit civil rights to Christians?” I suspect you interpreted that as “limit the civil rights of Christians,” when what I meant was that in some state constitutions non-Christians did not have certain civil rights and only (some) Christians did.

For example: Arkansas Constitution, Article 19, section 1 “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”
That is still in the constitution, though it has not been enforceable since 1961.

Some state constitutions other late 18th and early 19th centuries were even more restrictive.

 

[Lisa]

Ah, I think I see your confusion now. I wrote that some state constitutions “mention God, limit civil rights to Christians?” I suspect you interpreted that as “limit the civil rights of Christians,” when what I meant was that in some state constitutions non-Christians did not have certain civil rights and only (some) Christians did.

For example: Arkansas Constitution, Article 19, section 1 “No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.”
That is still in the constitution, though it has not been enforceable since 1961.

Some state constitutions other late 18th and early 19th centuries were even more restrictive.

Those laws can not be enforced, so why bother discussing them? Unless you have a legally sufficient argument to repeal the incorporation doctrine of the 14th they are irrelevant and have been for 100 years. The US Constitution also has the No religious test clause (Article VI, clause 3) that made them irrelevant. A state constitution cannot ignore or override the federal constitution because of the US Supremacy clause.

How would they matter to you or your church?

 

[pinqy]

Those laws can not be enforced, so why bother discussing them?

Because I was talking about the ideas of state and religion at the time of the constitution, when they were enforceable.

Unless you have a legally sufficient argument to repeal the incorporation doctrine of the 14th they are irrelevant and have been for 100 years. The US Constitution also has the No religious test clause (Article VI, clause 3) that made them irrelevant.

Article VI religious test clause has never been ruled to apply to the states. Torasco v Watkins (1961) relied on the 1st and 14th amendments.

A state constitution cannot ignore or override the federal constitution because of the US Supremacy clause.

Of course not. But some parts of the constitution only apply to the Federal government. The Bill of Rifhts did not apply to the states until the 14th amendment, and even that has been on a piecemeal basis with different SCOTUS rulings affirming incorporation of rights over the last 150 years.

How would they matter to you or your church?

What church? Perhaps it would be easier on us all if you summarized what you think my position here is. I’m absolutely certain you’ve completely misunderstood it, but I’m not sure what you think it is. many of your questions and statements seem to be coming out of left field and I have no idea what you think the relevance is. That makes it difficult for me to answer.

My first thought is you are confusing descriptive statements as being normative. I’m stating how things were, not how I think they should be or currently are.

 

[Somerville]

Do I really have to trot out out all the state constitutions that mention God, limit civil rights to Christians? The Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson because Connecticut was so heavily controlled by the Congregationalist Church that there was no practical difference between church officials and civil officials…they were the same.

At the National level, for the Federal government and inter-state relations, yes the U.S. was technically secular but overwhelming controlled by Protestant denomination to the point that Justice Iredell, as I quoted, considered it absurd to think that atheists Muslims or pagans would ever be elected to any office.

So yes, religious freedom did exist at the Federal level. The US as a whole was not controlled by religion. But many of the states did not have religious freedom for all, and the majority religion was dominant.

Unfortunately, there are too many people who want to go back to that situation or worse.

It wasn't simply control of civil institutions in Connecticut that caused the Danbury Baptists to write to TJ, it was their taxes being used to support the Congregational Church that angered them. Just before the Revolution, only Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island did not use tax funds to support a church. By 1790, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia had adopted constitutional provisions prohibiting the establishment of religion.

Far More Support Than Oppose Separation of Church and State​

The First Amendment to the United States Constitution states that the country shall have no official religion.

Some Americans clearly long for a more avowedly religious and explicitly Christian country, according to a March 2021 Pew Research Center survey. For instance, three-in-ten say public school teachers should be allowed to lead students in Christian prayers, a practice that the Supreme Court has ruled unconstitutional. Roughly one-in-five say that the federal government should stop enforcing the separation of church and state (19%) and that the U.S. Constitution was inspired by God (18%). And 15% go as far as to say the federal government should declare the U.S. a Christian nation.

On the other hand, however, the clear majority of Americans do not accept these views. For example, two-thirds of U.S. adults (67%) say the Constitution was written by humans and reflects their vision, not necessarily God’s vision. And a similar share (69%) says the government should never declare any official religion. (Respondents were offered the opportunity to reply “neither/no opinion” in response to each question, and substantial shares chose this option or declined to answer in response to all of these questions, suggesting some ambivalence among a segment of the population.)

Perhaps not surprisingly, the survey finds that Christians are much more likely than Jewish or religiously unaffiliated Americans to express support for the integration of church and state, with White evangelical Protestants foremost among Christian subgroups in this area.

". . . even among White evangelical Protestants and highly religious Christians, fewer than half say the U.S. should abandon its adherence to the separation of church and state (34% and 31%, respectively) or declare the country a Christian nation (35% and 29%)."

Good to see that some who post here on DP are in the minority of Americans

 

[weaver2]

". . . even among White evangelical Protestants and highly religious Christians, fewer than half say the U.S. should abandon its adherence to the separation of church and state (34% and 31%, respectively) or declare the country a Christian nation (35% and 29%)."

Unfortunately though, the leaders of these churches believe very strongly that there should be no separation. They believe in a Christian state.

“Evangelicals believe that government is a gift from God for the common good. Good governance creates the conditions in which human beings fulfill their responsibilities as God’s image bearers and as stewards of God’s creation.” (Mission statement of the National Association of Evangelicals)

"God has ordained all social institutions, including the government, for the benefit of mankind and as a reflection of His divine nature. The Supreme Court's imposition of the doctrine of separation of church and state distorts the Founding Father's recognition of our unequivocally Christian nation and the protection of religious freedom for all faiths." (Focus on the Family position statement on Church and State)


When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”
"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context." Paul Weyrich

The Real Origins of the Religious Right

They’ll tell you it was abortion. Sorry, the historical record’s clear: It was segregation.

www.politico.com

Christian duty is to “restore once again to America a biblically based legal system that protects all human life from conception to natural death,” (Cultural Impact Team Resource Manuel)


"We will maintain a constant barrage of criticism against the Left. We will attack the very legitimacy of the Left. We will not give them a moment's rest. We will endeavor to prove that the Left does not deserve to hold sway over the heart and mind of a single American. We will offer constant reminders that there is an alternative, there is a better way. When people have had enough of the sickness and decay of today's American culture, they will be embraced by and welcomed into the New Traditionalist movement."
"We must reframe this struggle as a moral struggle, as a transcendent struggle, as a struggle between good and evil. And we must be prepared to explain why this is so. We must provide the evidence needed to prove this using images and simple terms.."
Excerpted from "The Integration of Theory and Practice: A Program for the New Traditionalist Movement," by Paul Weyrich

 

[Lisa]

It wasn't simply control of civil institutions in Connecticut that caused the Danbury Baptists to write to TJ, it was their taxes being used to support the Congregational Church that angered them. Just before the Revolution, only Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Rhode Island did not use tax funds to support a church. By 1790, Maryland, New York, North Carolina, South Carolina and Virginia had adopted constitutional provisions prohibiting the establishment of religion.



". . . even among White evangelical Protestants and highly religious Christians, fewer than half say the U.S. should abandon its adherence to the separation of church and state (34% and 31%, respectively) or declare the country a Christian nation (35% and 29%)."

Good to see that some who post here on DP are in the minority of Americans

What possible benefit is gained by allowing the state and the church to intermingle? Did these people not learn the lessons of the Islamic wars in the middle east between Shia and Sunni, the relgious wars in Europe of the 15-16th century and "The Troubles" in northern Ireland when Protestants and Catholics fought for control of the government and then attacked, arrested and killed the citizens who believed differently?



These people seem to want Christian Sharia law and a Christian equivalent of ISIL.

There is far too much mixing of religion in the affairs of the state right now.

 

[pinqy]

How can we all have equal religious rights to believe or not believe as we wish from any of the 2000 different regions if we are living in a Christian-centric culture?

With great difficulty. It took a very long time for non-Christians, even non-Protestants to get even close to real equality.... and still, in many parts of the country, fundies are trying to push their religious beliefs, specifically anti-science, anti-abortion, and anti-LGBTQ, in schools and in law.

What is gained by your idea of a Christian-centric culture instead of a secular society with equal religious rights for all people, regardless of their belief or lack thereof?

My idea? Certainly not my idea or preference. Are you that ignorant of history and current politics to think that atheists and minority religions enjoy full and equal rights in practice? In some parts of the country, maybe. In the Bible Belt? You're pretty much a social pariah if you're out as an atheist.

 

[Lisa]

With great difficulty. It took a very long time for non-Christians, even non-Protestants to get even close to real equality.... and still, in many parts of the country, fundies are trying to push their religious beliefs, specifically anti-science, anti-abortion, and anti-LGBTQ, in schools and in law.

My idea? Certainly not my idea or preference. Are you that ignorant of history and current politics to think that atheists and minority religions enjoy full and equal rights in practice? In some parts of the country, maybe. In the Bible Belt? You're pretty much a social pariah if you're out as an atheist.

I am an athiest (Humanist) so I am wondering why you want to weaken the seperetion of church and state. Yours claims have been all over the map, so I am woidnering where your argument is going and what is the ultimate goal.

That strict separation of church and state should be absolute at all levels of the government. Nothing good ever comes out of religious belief and political power or tax dollars being intermingled. I would heavily fine them whenever they even mention/fund political stances or candidates.

 

[pinqy]

I am an athiest (Humanist) so I am wondering why you want to weaken the seperetion of church and state.

I don’t. I want them strengthened. I have no idea how you got the idea that I want them weakened. I can’t see anything in posts that I would think could lead to that conclusion.

Yours claims have been all over the map, so I am woidnering where your argument is going and what is the ultimate goal.

My claims have been that at the time the constitution was written, the 1st amendment did not apply to the individual states, so that while at the Federal level and under Federal law, all religions and non-religions were officially equal, this was not true of the individual states. At least three had official religions, more had religious tests for office. The point being that it is inaccurate to say that the U.S. had real religious freedom for all it’s history. And while the 14th amendment extended religious protections to the state and local level, it was decades before this was put in practice and even now discrimination against atheists and religious minorities continues.

Another point I was making was that the phrase “Christian Nation” has changed over the centuries. Up until the 29th century, the word Christian was synonymous with White, European, and Civilized in common usage. So contemporary references in the 18th and 19th century to the U.S. being Christian did not necessarily refer to religion as such, as much as general culture.

In the U.S. Christianity has long dominated and has been considered the default assumption until very recently. It is disingenuous to imply that just because the Federal government has always been officially neutral that the country as a whole has ever been.

That strict separation of church and state should be absolute at all levels of the government. Nothing good ever comes out of religious belief and political power or tax dollars being intermingled. I would heavily fine them whenever they even mention/fund political stances or candidates.

I agree. But in practice, this has been the exception and not the reality.

 

[MaryP]

That seems like something Jesus would say.

 

[Mircea]

America should be purely Christian. This is what the country was founded on....

The US wasn't founded on anything.

The first colony was Jamestown. The people came here to make money. That flies in the face of the pronouncements by the Jesus-thing that you have sell everything/give everything away to be saved and one of his followers.

The second colony was Plymouth.

The Pilgrims banned birthday celebrations, banned Christmas, banned New Year's (which wasn't celebrated on January 1 until 1752) and banned all other holidays.

They also had some differently twisted beliefs that they tried to force on the 99.9% of the people who were x-tians.

Their repeated and continual attempts to force their differently twisted thinking on the other 99.9% of x-tians is what led to their so-called "persecution" (snicker).

My refusal to do what a teeny-tiny faction of people want me to do is not persecution, but it is common sense.

Because 99.9% of x-tians refused to do what the Pilgrims wanted them to do, the Pilgrims took their toys and left.

That's what happened.

If Pilgrims were running the show, there wouldn't be a Black Friday because there wouldn't be a Christmas.

You might wanna think about that.

and if we get away from that we will all be in for one hell (literally) of a ride from God.

You're already condemned to Hell.

Pope Leo in the papal bull Humanus Genus condemned all Americans to Hell for all Eternity because Americans have the bodacious audacity to elect their Presidents instead of letting Pope Leo and other popes appoint kings for us.

The Popes might have some leniency on Americans if Americans would at least consult with the Popes before electing a President and send us to Purgatory for a few lifetimes before we get to go to Heaven and put on a white tupa and sing, "Holy, holy, holy is the Lamb!" for all Eternity, which is just about as fun as watching grass grow.

But none of that matters, because most likely you are descended of someone from the British Isles which means you are a descendant of either Gomer or Gog and your fate is already sealed.

You will die an agonizing fiery death and then go to Hell and there ain't a damn thing you can do about it.

So, you might as well have some fun.

 

[Bezukhov]

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.

Yes, but does God trust us? It's a two way street.

 

[weaver2]

A law passed by the 84th Congress (P.L. 84-140) and approved by the President on July 30, 1956, the President approved a Joint Resolution of the 84th Congress, declaring IN GOD WE TRUST the national motto of the United States.

It never entered the naive minds of the average American that the replacement of "e pluribus unum" with "in God we trust" was the opening salvo in a conservative Christian cultural war for the political power to change a democratic republic into a theocracy

"When political power is achieved, the moral majority will have the opportunity to re-create this great nation.”
"We are talking about Christianizing America. We are talking about the Gospel in a political context."
Paul Weyrich

 

[prometeus]

Pope Leo in the papal bull Humanus Genus condemned all Americans to Hell for all Eternity because Americans have the bodacious audacity to elect their Presidents instead of letting Pope Leo and other popes appoint kings for us.

It is the second time that you are asserting that, in recent times. Can you quote the relevant passage?

 

[pinqy]

.

Pope Leo in the papal bull Humanus Genus condemned all Americans to Hell for all Eternity because Americans have the bodacious audacity to elect their Presidents instead of letting Pope Leo and other popes appoint kings for us.

It is the second time that you are asserting that, in recent times. Can you quote the relevant passage?

No, he cannot. There is no Papal bull called “Humanus Genus.” So there’s nothing to quote from.

Perhaps he meant Humanum Genus Encyclical of Pope Leo XII on Freemasonry, but there is no mention in that document of America, elections, presidents, or the necessity of a pope to appoint kings. It strongly condemns naturalists, Freemasons, communists, socialists, secular education, and separation of church and state