The Fiction Of Church And State

[The Baron]

“A brick tower higher than the Pyramids (paganistic enemy buildings which were not cast down), or modern skyscrapers? nah.” – black wolf

And your evidence would be…?

“…several of the inscriptions on the supposed tower foundation clearly state that it was completed.” – black wolf

And your evidence would be…?

“Egyptians on zombie horses (they were killed by God before the exodus, remember) in hot pursuit but not reaching the Hebrews for 17 miles (width of Red Sea)? nah.” – black wolf

And your evidence would be…?

“Wheels? Wyatt's 'evidence' (which I presume you are alluding to)…” – black wolf

No.

I was referring to Grant Jeffery whom I clearly credited in my post.

Reading is a wonderful pastime. Perhaps you’ll learn how one day.

“Josephus confirmed no miraculous events, only what Jesus' disciples purported. Apart from that, modern scholars of history view Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, which mentions Jesus, as an altered version of an unknown original text, either abridged, decorated or containing inserted unoriginal material.” – black wolf

Josephus said about Jesus just exactly what my post referenced and not the “altered version” that some historians have suspected was edited by early Christians.

If, however, you were anywhere as intelligent as you seem to think you are you would have recognized so immediately.

And black wolf, allow me to point out to you the obvious since you failed to recognize it on your own that scourge99, albqowl and myself we’re actually having a civil and intelligent conversation prior to your unwelcome and insulting intrusion.

Please feel free to join us if you have something intelligent to offer, however, I sincerely believe that an intelligent thought from you would be asking far more than you are capable.

 

[rivrrat]

I read this book once about places that can be proven to exist, during a war that can be proven to have happened, that included a people that can be proven to have existed in the place where the book said they did. There were many historical accuracies in said book.

The story, however, was purely fictional.

Proving that some things happened in the bible doesn't prove - in any way - that anything else happened in the bible. Particularly when you're talking about mythical BS. Most stories take place in places that actually exist and often include reference to people that actually exist. This doesn't give the fictional tales any more merit.

 

[The Baron]

“Proving that some things happened in the bible doesn't prove - in any way - that anything else happened in the bible.” - rivrrat

I see you missed the point I was making entirely.

Imagine that!

 

[black wolf]

“A brick tower higher than the Pyramids (paganistic enemy buildings which were not cast down), or modern skyscrapers? nah.” – black wolf

And your evidence would be…?

“…several of the inscriptions on the supposed tower foundation clearly state that it was completed.” – black wolf

And your evidence would be…?

“Egyptians on zombie horses (they were killed by God before the exodus, remember) in hot pursuit but not reaching the Hebrews for 17 miles (width of Red Sea)? nah.” – black wolf

And your evidence would be…?

“Wheels? Wyatt's 'evidence' (which I presume you are alluding to)…” – black wolf

No.

I was referring to Grant Jeffery whom I clearly credited in my post.

Reading is a wonderful pastime. Perhaps you’ll learn how one day.

“Josephus confirmed no miraculous events, only what Jesus' disciples purported. Apart from that, modern scholars of history view Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum, which mentions Jesus, as an altered version of an unknown original text, either abridged, decorated or containing inserted unoriginal material.” – black wolf

Josephus said about Jesus just exactly what my post referenced and not the “altered version” that some historians have suspected was edited by early Christians.

If, however, you were anywhere as intelligent as you seem to think you are you would have recognized so immediately.

And black wolf, allow me to point out to you the obvious since you failed to recognize it on your own that scourge99, albqowl and myself we’re actually having a civil and intelligent conversation prior to your unwelcome and insulting intrusion.

Please feel free to join us if you have something intelligent to offer, however, I sincerely believe that an intelligent thought from you would be asking far more than you are capable.

The Tower (Ziggurat) was built of bricks, which is mentioned in the Bible and is consistent with other archaeological findings from the time. The Ziggurat was about 300 feet in height. It is a few centuries younger than the Great Pyramid, which was originally 146.6 meters high. As there also were different languages before Babel, not much sense creating more to quench human ambition. An earthquake is a plausible explanation for the Tower's downfall.
Inscription on the Tower base: "I have completed its magnificence with silver, gold, other metals, stone, enameled bricks, fir and pine. The first which is the house of the earth’s base, the most ancient monument of Babylon; I built and finished it." - King Nebuchadnezzar II, around 600 B.C.
The words "without order expressing their words" in the inscription imply that Nebuchadnezzar believed that the original builders left their work due to confused communication among each other, or that they didn't give comprehensible reasons for doing so. It does not mean that there was a sudden miraculous disturbance of speech, or that this was in fact the Tower meant in the Bible.
The Red Sea is 17 miles wide at its narrowest point. The Bible states that the Hebrews saw the Egyptian army approaching. Warriors on horseback and in chariots would have reached the Hebrews long before they could have crossed the distance.
Exodus 9:3 - "behold, the hand of the LORD will come {with} a very severe pestilence on your livestock which are in the field, on the horses, on the donkeys, on the camels, on the herds, and on the flocks. "
They wouldn't have had the horses to field an army.
Are there datings on the found chariot wheels, or any evidence that they are in fact chariot wheels? I'm asking because I couldn't find any pictures or accounts apart from those of Jeffrey and Wyatt. Their evidence seems to be interdependant.
Josephus confirms that there was a man named Jesus with a great reputation, who did wonderful things. I'm not at all disputing the existence of such a man, or his reputation. As Josephus was not an eyewitness to the relevant events, he relies on accounts from others. Most scholars agree that the text is partially authentic. Therefore, we have no confirmation of miraculous events, or that the extant versions of the Greek, Arabic and modern translations are accurate in every aspect.
I regret that I have appeared as insulting, and hope hereby to clear things up a bit.

 

[tryreading]

“It used to be in this country that abortion was legal and not the issue it is today.” – tryreading

If your contention is that abortion used to be “no big deal” then I am afraid that you are sadly mistaken.

“The care of human life and not its destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” - Thomas Jefferson, to Maryland Republicans, 1809, regarding abortion

Abortion was not the big deal it is now. In Jefferson's time it was legal.

 

[tryreading]

“The care of human life and not its destruction is the first and only legitimate object of good government.” - Thomas Jefferson, to Maryland Republicans, 1809, regarding abortion[/SIZE][/FONT]

Is it you, or some religious site that is saying this speech is about abortion?

TO THE REPUBLICAN CITIZENS OF WASHINGTON
COUNTY, MARYLAND, ASSEMBLED AT HAGERSTOWN
ON THE 6TH INSTANT.
MONTICELLO, March 31, 1809.

The affectionate sentiments you express on my retirement from the high office conferred upon me by my country, are gratefully received and acknowl*
edged With thankfulness. Your approbation of the various measures which have been pursued, cannot but be highly consolatory to myself, and
encouraging to future functionaries, who will see that their honest endeavors for the public good will receive due credit with their constituents. That the great and leading measure respecting our foreign intercourse was the most salutary alternative, and preferable to the submission of our rights as a free
and independent republic, or to a war at that period, cannot be doubted by candid minds. Great and good effects have certainly flowed from it, and
greater would have been produced, had they not been, in some degree, frustrated by unfaithful citizens. If, in my retirement to the humble station of a private citizen, I am accompanied with the esteem and approbation of my fellow citizens, trophies obtained by the blood-stained steel, or the tattered
flags of the tented field, will never be envied. The care of human life and happiness, and not their destruction, is the first and only legitimate object
of good government. I salute you, fellow citizens, with every wish for your welfare, and the perpetual duration of our government in all the purity of its republican principles.

 

[scourge99]

It is more than just proving that people mentioned in the Bible actually existed. It is also demonstrating that actual events happened such as finding the base of the Tower of Babel and an inscription stating that work on the tower ceased as nobody could understand one another or finding Egyptian chariot wheels as the bottom of the Red Sea (Grant Jeffery, The Signature of God).

My point is simply that if such peoples, events, etc. that are found in the Bible are true, then we can have a great deal of confidence that the other things stated in the Bible are also true (i.e. Jesus walked on water).

Yes it may give more confidence that other things in the Bible MAY be true. However, there are parts of the Bible that do just the opposite too. Such is true with the conflict of evolution and the Garden of Eden (creation of man).

 

[The Baron]

“Yes it may give more confidence that other things in the Bible MAY be true. However, there are parts of the Bible that do just the opposite too.” – scourge99

Yes, it does give us more confidence and when you begin to consider all of the evidence--and it is substantial--then we can begin to consider the preponderance of the evidence and its ramifications.

“Such is true with the conflict of evolution and the Garden of Eden (creation of man).” – scourge99

WOW! You had to go and pick a big one first time out, huh?

Yes, the Creation / evolution debate is a tremendous controversy. But please consider that regardless of what you may believe about Creation, evolution is only a theory and one that keeps “evolving” as it’s various tenets and evidences keeps being disproved.

However, this is such a large issue it really deserves its own thread if the topic is to be done justice.

“Is it you, or some religious site that is saying this speech is about abortion?” - tryreading

It was actually an anti-abortion site which I have been looking for but have been unable to find again (I don’t remember my original search criteria).

I will, however, thank you for finding the true context of the quote I provided in error. I apologize for having posted it as you have revealed that its actual context had nothing to do with abortion. I should have been more diligent and checked the context of the quote before posting it. Thank you, again.

“Abortion was not the big deal it is now. In Jefferson's time it was legal.” – tryreading

Quite true as it was universally condemned as evil--thus the lack of controversy--as evidenced by the fact that it was subsequently outlawed.

 

[scourge99]

“Yes it may give more confidence that other things in the Bible MAY be true. However, there are parts of the Bible that do just the opposite too.” – scourge99

Yes, it does give us more confidence and when you begin to consider all of the evidence--and it is substantial--then we can begin to consider the preponderance of the evidence and its ramifications.

So, just like the theory of evolution, the theory that Jesus was divine isn't proven, it just has evidence to suggest it MAY be true. Which is why I said you can't logically/empirically prove the Christian religion (divinity of the characters and the divinity of the events in the Bible) anymore than you can disprove it, at least for the moment.

 

[The Baron]

“So, just like the theory of evolution, the theory that Jesus was divine isn't proven, it just has evidence to suggest it MAY be true.” – scourge99

Except that we have the eyewitness testimony of His disciples regarding His deity.

Remember these were men who were martyred (except for John) because of their beliefs.

A man will die for the truth.

But he will not die for something that he knows is a lie.

Andrew
Andrew preached the Gospel in Macedonia, Greece, Scythia, Asia Minor, Russia and other countries in Asia.
Acts of Andrew, a small book from the 3rd century says that he was crucified at Patras (Greece) in AD 60. He suffered on the cross for 2 days, while preaching and encouraging the people gathered around him. Before his death, as the Lord came for him, he was surrounded by heavenly light and afterwards gave out the ghost.

Bartholomew
Bartholomew preached the Gospel in many countries, but mostly in India and Armenia.
He died in Albanopolis, Armenia, where he was beaten, then flayed alive, afterwards crucified and lastly beheaded.

James the Son of Alphaeus
He preached in Persia.
There are two views concerning his death. According to the first view, he was beaten and stoned to death by the Jews at the age of ninety-four; and finally had his brains dashed out with a fuller's club. The second version says that he was crucified in Persia.

James the Son of Zebedee
James is believed to be the first Christian missionary to Spain.
James became the first martyr among the apostles when King Herod Agrippa ordered his execution around AD 43 (Acts 12:2). According to Clement, as he was led to the place of his execution, his accuser, seeing James’ extraordinary courage, repented and asked for his forgiveness. This man became a Christian and asked to be martyred together with James. They were both beheaded at the same time.

John
He preached the Gospel in Palestine and Asia Minor. His emblem is an eagle.
After the death of Domitian, John was freed from the Island of Patmos and lived till his death in Ephesus, where Mary was burried. John was the only apostle who died a natural death in c AD 98–100, when he was about 100 years old.

Judas (Not Iscariot)
He preached the Gospel in Mesopotamia and Persia.
One tradition says that magicians killed him with clubs and stones in Persia; according to another one he was crucified in Edessa, Turkey, in AD 72.

Matthew
John Foxe states in his Book of Martyrs, that Matthew preached in Egypt and Ethiopia.
He was martyred with a spear in the city of Nadabah, Ethiopia, in AD 60.

Philip
According to tradition, he preached in France, southern Russia and Asia Minor.
It is believed that he was martyred in Hierapolis, a city in today's Turkey.

Simon Peter
Peter is the author of two books: The First and the Second Epistle of Peter.
According to the Church History of Eusebius, Peter preached in Pontus, Galatia, Bithynia, Cappadocia, and Asia.
According to John Foxe's Book of Martyrs, after hearing Nero's intention to kill Peter, the Christians convinced him to flee Rome. “But coming to the gate, he saw the Lord Christ come to meet him, to Whom he, worshipping said, 'Lord, whither dost Thou go?' To whom He answered and said, ' I am come again to be crucified.' By this, Peter, perceiving his suffering to be understood, returned back into the city.” [3] He was then killed in Rome at the order of Nero around AD 68, one of thousands of Christians martyred during this emperor's reign. According to Tertullian and Origen, he was crucified head downwards at his request. He said he was unworthy to be crucified the same way as Jesus Christ.

Simon Zelotes
He preached the Gospel in Egypt, Mauritania, Africa, Libya and Britain.
He was crucified in Britain in AD 74.

Thomas
Thomas preached the Gospel in India and to Parthians, Medes, Persians and other nations.
He was martyred with a spear in India. It is said, that he is buried in Mylapore, a suburb of Madras.

Matthias
Matthias was stoned to death and then beheaded by the Jews in Jerusalem.

The Apostles

 

[scourge99]

“So, just like the theory of evolution, the theory that Jesus was divine isn't proven, it just has evidence to suggest it MAY be true.” – scourge99

Except that we have the eyewitness testimony of His disciples regarding His deity.

Remember these were men who were martyred (except for John) because of their beliefs.

A man will die for the truth.

But he will not die for something that he knows is a lie.

Testimony isn't empirical evidence now is it. And you gravely mistaken if you do not think people lie or exaggerate, for one reason or another. And yes, people will martyr themselves, for a lie, for money, for fame, for delusional thinking or for no logical reason at all (I am NOT stating that I know why the disciples said the things they did, that is not the point).

 

[The Baron]

“Testimony isn't empirical evidence now is it.” – scourge99

empirical
- derived from or guided by experience or experiment.
- depending upon experience or observation alone, without using scientific method or theory, esp. as in medicine.
- provable or verifiable by experience or experiment.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/empirical

Well...

“And yes, people will martyr themselves, for a lie, for money, for fame, for delusional thinking or for no logical reason at all (I am NOT stating that I know why the disciples said the things they did, that is not the point).” – scourge99

Please list all of the famous people that have died for a lie.

Sorry, but it just doesn’t happen (and I don’t mean people who died for a lie believing it to be true--the Nazis come to mind).

You are talking about men who were with Jesus for the three years of His ministry. They knew the truth about Him.

And instead of renouncing Him, they were all martyred (except John, once again).

And while a person may lie for money, fame, delusional thinking or no logical reason at all, these were men who left their families (not abandoned, but left for periods of time) to risk their lives and ended up losing their lives.

And you really think they did all of this for something they all knew to be a lie?

 

[tryreading]

It was actually an anti-abortion site which I have been looking for but have been unable to find again (I don’t remember my original search criteria).

I will, however, thank you for finding the true context of the quote I provided in error. I apologize for having posted it as you have revealed that its actual context had nothing to do with abortion. I should have been more diligent and checked the context of the quote before posting it. Thank you, again.

Anytime.

Quite true as it was universally condemned as evil--thus the lack of controversy--as evidenced by the fact that it was subsequently outlawed.[/SIZE][/FONT]

I don't think so. If abortion had been that thoroughly condemned at that time, there would have been laws against it. But if you can prove it was, I'll agree in advance to stand corrected.

 

[scourge99]

Please list all of the famous people that have died for a lie.

Sorry, but it just doesn’t happen (and I don’t mean people who died for a lie believing it to be true--the Nazis come to mind).

You are talking about men who were with Jesus for the three years of His ministry. They knew the truth about Him.

And instead of renouncing Him, they were all martyred (except John, once again).

And while a person may lie for money, fame, delusional thinking or no logical reason at all, these were men who left their families (not abandoned, but left for periods of time) to risk their lives and ended up losing their lives.

And you really think they did all of this for something they all knew to be a lie?

Well lets put it this way, if you believe your religion is true then that probably means you believe other religions are false. Therefore, the people worshiping false religions must be dying for a lie, delusional thinking, etc. And there are plenty of people who have died due to delusional thinking; Scientologists come to mind.

Note: empirical means "provable or verifiable by experience or experiment" and/or "derived from or guided by experience or experiment."

 

[AlbqOwl]

Well lets put it this way, if you believe your religion is true then that probably means you believe other religions are false. Therefore, the people worshiping false religions must be dying for a lie, delusional thinking, etc. And there are plenty of people who have died due to delusional thinking; Scientologists come to mind.

Note: empirical means "provable or verifiable by experience or experiment" and/or "derived from or guided by experience or experiment."

Perhaps in the interest of dragging this thread back to approximating being on topic, two people can profoundly disagree without either being evil or even necessarily wrong; nor does one have to necessarily be judged right. (I suspect Baron and Scourge, as well as myself, when we find ourselves in the hereafter, are going to be very much surprised at how much we got wrong re religion and beliefs we have chosen to hold.)

I would point out that the principle behind the religion clause in the First Amendment was that diversity in belief was a fundamental and unalienable human right. It reflects the differences in opinion held by the Founders who knew they did not all agree on individual tenets of religious faith. For that reason the Founders were determined that no one religious group would be able to impose its beliefs upon another and that the government would not be able to impose on anyone what s/he must or even should believe.

Therefore, the posting of the Ten Commandments in a school, or the image of Moses or any other religious icon or symbol on a public building or in a public place or the recitation of a prayer, so long as there is no implication that people MUST participate or believe in these things, in no way violates the First Amendment. Further to allow such things is what the First Amendment was all about--to allow free exercise of religion by those who do believe. It also follows the sensible path of recognizing religious influences, history, and importance along with everything else that makes up the American culture and/or is important to the people.

There was NEVER any intention to separate Church and State. There was intention to ensure that neither would have effective power to dictate to the other.

 

[Cold Highway]

I would point out that the principle behind the religion clause in the First Amendment was that diversity in belief was a fundamental and unalienable human right. It reflects the differences in opinion held by the Founders who knew they did not all agree on individual tenets of religious faith. For that reason the Founders were determined that no one religious group would be able to impose its beliefs upon another and that the government would not be able to impose on anyone what s/he must or even should believe.

And yet the Religious Right think they have that right to force their religious and moral code onto the masses by using the Republicans to make laws that reflect their dominion agenda but thats ok according to its defenders like you.

Therefore, the posting of the Ten Commandments in a school, or the image of Moses or any other religious icon or symbol on a public building or in a public place or the recitation of a prayer, so long as there is no implication that people MUST participate or believe in these things, in no way violates the First Amendment. Further to allow such things is what the First Amendment was all about--to allow free exercise of religion by those who do believe. It also follows the sensible path of recognizing religious influences, history, and importance along with everything else that makes up the American culture and/or is important to the people.

Im sure if a Koran or a Budda statue was up in a school or other public building conservatives would have the same type tolerance for that right? :roll: Give me a break

There was NEVER any intention to separate Church and State. There was intention to ensure that neither would have effective power to dictate to the other.

Explain the Treaty of Tripoli and how it was stated that the United States is not a Christian nation and everyone ratified it. Face facts people want religion force down their throats like your heroes Dobson, Robertson, Perkins and the other scum try to do. You want a country that is governed by religion go to the Vatican oh wait Catholics arent true Christians never mind.

 

[scourge99]

I would point out that the principle behind the religion clause in the First Amendment was that diversity in belief was a fundamental and unalienable human right. It reflects the differences in opinion held by the Founders who knew they did not all agree on individual tenets of religious faith. For that reason the Founders were determined that no one religious group would be able to impose its beliefs upon another and that the government would not be able to impose on anyone what s/he must or even should believe.

I agree

Therefore, the posting of the Ten Commandments in a school, or the image of Moses or any other religious icon or symbol on a public building or in a public place or the recitation of a prayer, so long as there is no implication that people MUST participate or believe in these things, in no way violates the First Amendment. Further to allow such things is what the First Amendment was all about--to allow free exercise of religion by those who do believe. It also follows the sensible path of recognizing religious influences, history, and importance along with everything else that makes up the American culture and/or is important to the people.

kind of agree. As long as the religious items fall under the category of art and history I have no problem with public money being used for their creation and upkeep. It is when the items are used to proselytize that I have issues. As an extreme example, I don't think Christians would find it appropriate if a statue of Muhammad was made showing him slaying Christians which sends them to hell while he guides Muslims into heaven. This is an extreme "what-if" example but it effectively proves my point.

There was NEVER any intention to separate Church and State. There was intention to ensure that neither would have effective power to dictate to the other.

There was never any intention to separate church and state for the individual. There was intention to seperate church and state for the government as a whole.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I kind of agree. As long as the religious items fall under the category of art and history I have no problem with public money being used for their creation and upkeep. It is when the items are used to proselytize that I have issues. As an extreme example, I don't think Christians would find it appropriate if a statue of Muhammad was made showing him slaying Christians which sends them to hell while he guides Muslims into heaven. This is an extreme "what-if" example but it effectively proves my point.

Thank you very much for your reasoned and thoughtful response. (I hope ChevyDriver is watching so that he (she?) might learn how that is done.)

Agree that any 'taught' religion must be within the context of religious history, influence, and artistic expression as it is represented within the culture of the people. I would think a statue of anybody consigning anybody to hell would be offensive and inappropriate except within a strict historical construct. For instance, a museum exhibit of religious art and artifacts might very well appropriately depict Christians and Muslims locked in mortal combat during the crusades and/or the Pope Leo X excommunicating Martin Luther would not only be appropriate as art but would be historically factual. "Your" status of Muhammed could be equally appropriate within this context if he had in fact slain Christians and consigned them to hell. (He didn't, but I know you were using that as a rhetorical illustration only.). Any promotion of Christianity as superior to Islam or Catholicism as superior to Lutheranism, however, would be inappropriate.

Historical references to Christianity, Judaiism, etc. religious symbols, or generic prayers said at any occasion etc. etc. etc. were not taboo anywhere when I was a kid, but I can't tell you the religious affiliation or the personal beliefs of a single one of my teachers. Or their political affiliation for that matter. They taught their subjects using real substance and, other than basic disciplines re personal hygiene, courtesy, respect for authority, the law of the land, etc., there was no indoctrination of any ideology of any kind imposed on us kids.

Objection to such indoctrination, in my opinion, would be time much beter spent by the missionary minded zealots who denigrate all religious expression and want to shut down all public display or acknowledgement of religion everywhere.

There was never any intention to separate church and state for the individual. There was intention to seperate church and state for the government as a whole.

I gently disagree. There was intent that the Church not have the power to dictate what government did and that government not have the power to dictate what the Church must preach or teach. There was always the expectation that those in goverment would be religious men and women who would freely express their religious convictions.

Thomas Jefferson himself regularly attended the worship services held in the halls of Congress itself. His view was that as long as these were purely voluntary with no reward or consequences for any member who chose to attend or not attend, they were entirely constitutional. All congressional sessions and committee meetings started with prayer as most do to this very day. I do think he would have objected to the House and Senate paying a chaplain more than six figures from the public treasury to say those prayers and minister to the members of Congress, however. I think he would have considered that a violation of the First Amendment as well as a violation of the public trust. He would have approved the members paying for a chaplain out of their own pockets, however, or enlisting voluntary support from area clergy.

 

[scourge99]

I guess we have come to an agreement but what did you mean by this?

There was intent that the Church not have the power to dictate what government did ...

Just unsure about how a church would go about dictating what the government does?

 

[AlbqOwl]

I guess we have come to an agreement but what did you mean by this?
Just unsure about how a church would go about dictating what the government does?

From Constantine of Rome to Medieval times up through the Renaissance and Reformation, the Pope, his chief cardinals, and the reigning king/queen through the various regions of Europe, including England, served almost as co-monarchs. No Monarch dared serously offend the Church under threat of excommunication and the two worked hand and hand to increase their mutual benefits and fortunes, all mostly to the detriment of the peasantry of course. After the Reformation, the various new church entities pushed and pulled for power. The King/Queen of England did not dare seriously offend the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Calvinists in Switzerland and in the British Isles pretty well called the shots, and even in America, the new colonies imported their religious beliefs and quite freely imposed those on others. Elsewhere, a strong monarchy could enforce severe consequences on believers who did not toe the line.

Our Founders were extremely intelligent and wise men who saw the detriment and dangers in such systems. They wrote a Constitution to ensure that it could not happen here. And to date, it has not.

 

[scourge99]

From Constantine of Rome to Medieval times up through the Renaissance and Reformation, the Pope, his chief cardinals, and the reigning king/queen through the various regions of Europe, including England, served almost as co-monarchs. No Monarch dared serously offend the Church under threat of excommunication and the two worked hand and hand to increase their mutual benefits and fortunes, all mostly to the detriment of the peasantry of course. After the Reformation, the various new church entities pushed and pulled for power. The King/Queen of England did not dare seriously offend the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Calvinists in Switzerland and in the British Isles pretty well called the shots, and even in America, the new colonies imported their religious beliefs and quite freely imposed those on others. Elsewhere, a strong monarchy could enforce severe consequences on believers who did not toe the line.

Our Founders were extremely intelligent and wise men who saw the detriment and dangers in such systems. They wrote a Constitution to ensure that it could not happen here. And to date, it has not.

How does this apply to the constitution? Is it unconstitutional for the pope to become the elected president (assuming the pope was born in the US)? Is it unconstitutional for the president to seek advice from the Pope? I don't believe either are.

 

[AlbqOwl]

How does this apply to the constitution? Is it unconstitutional for the pope to become the elected president (assuming the pope was born in the US)? Is it unconstitutional for the president to seek advice from the Pope? I don't believe either are.

You didn't ask about the Constitution. You asked "what did you mean by this? Just unsure about how a church would go about dictating what the government does?" I was giving you examples of how the church would go about doing that--facts that our Founders were certainly quite familiar with.

If the Pope was chosen from an American born cardinal, he would have as much right to be elected president as any other native born citizen. And the President can legally seek advice from anybody he chooses.

Our Constitution, however, does not allow the Pope to dictate to the President or any other elected, appointed, or hired government official any matter related to governance of the United States. Further our Constitution provides checks and balances that even if the Pope was elected President, he would not be able to impose Catholicism on any part of government or on the people of the United States.

Our Founders astutely and carefully ensured that the Church could not impose its views on the government; nor can the government dictate what views the Church will hold.

That is not the same thing as Christians or Jews or any other religious group petitioning the government to have their views heard as much as any union or lobby or PAC or any other special interest group has right to petition their government to be heard. They don't park their credentials and rights as citizens of the United States at the door just because they are religious. That is a whole different thing from being able to DICTATE laws or policy.

 

[scourge99]

Further our Constitution provides checks and balances that even if the Pope was elected President, he would not be able to impose Catholicism on any part of government or on the people of the United States.

It was my understanding they could impose as much Catholicism on any part of the government they wished as long as they obeyed the constitution.

 

[AlbqOwl]

It was my understanding they could impose as much Catholicism on any part of the government they wished as long as they obeyed the constitution.

Well, I don't have a clue how they could impose anything related to religion and also obey the Constitution since the Constitution expressly forbids that.

 

[scourge99]

Well, I don't have a clue how they could impose anything related to religion and also obey the Constitution since the Constitution expressly forbids that.

That was kind of my point. Its difficult to pass religious agendas because the specifics of the law they wish to pass is against the constitution. It is not unconstitutional for a religious institution to try/support passage of a law.