• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Founding Father’s did not want the Nation’s government to be run by religion

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
If we compare Government to all the religions in America, only the Government has the military, makes the laws, controls the justice system and has all the tax money. The religious are a loose confederation of citizen volunteers that meet once a week. The Government has the full over dog advantage. If the Government decided to play favorites or go no attack, they can use all that power to make it more than just a religious war. Government now wars against all religion, placing restrictions on religion such as displaying symbols. It adopted the Liberal Religion, with its weird Orthodoxy based on pronouns and godlessness.
This is precisely why religions must be separated from government: to keep the government from playing favorites--with the power of the military and justice system to back it up. Look at what the Puritans did to the Quakers: imagine how far they would have gone if they would have had the power of the military! It took the King of England and the power of the military to come in and stop the executions.
The Massachusetts Bay Colony of the New World was a Puritan theocratic state in the early 1650s. Puritan leaders did not have much tolerance for people of other religions, and as a result, the Puritan government often persecuted and banished religious outsiders who tried to enter and live in their Puritan towns. A fear was embedded in the Puritan society that if they started to admit outsiders, they would lose their political and religious control of the colony.
Beginning in 1656, members of the newly formed Religious Society of Friends (Quakers) started to arrive in the Massachusetts colony on ships from England, where Quakerism had recently emerged. The Quakers who arrived in Boston's harbor demanded that they be allowed to live in Massachusetts and practice their own religion freely. They were greeted by intense hostility and were often forced to board the next ship out.​
The first known Quakers to arrive in Boston and challenge Puritan religious domination were Mary Fisher and Ann Austin. These two women entered Boston's harbor on the Swallow, a ship from Barbados in July of 1656. The Puritans of Boston greeted Fisher and Austin as if they carried the plague and severely brutalized them. The two were strip searched, accused of witchcraft, jailed, deprived of food, and were forced to leave Boston on the Swallow when it next left Boston eight weeks later. Almost immediately after their arrival, Fisher and Austin's belongings were confiscated, and the Puritan executioner burned their trunk full of Quaker pamphlets and other writings. Shortly after they arrived in Boston, eight more Quakers arrived on a ship from England. This group of eight was imprisoned and beaten. While they were in prison, an edict was passed in Boston that any ship's captain who carried Quakers into Boston would be fined heavily. The Puritan establishment forced the captain, who had brought the group of eight Quakers to Boston, to take them back to England, under a bond of £500.​
Despite the intense persecution of Quaker newcomers by Massachusetts' Puritans, Quakers continued to come to Boston in increasing numbers and attempted to spread their message by whatever means possible. They came by ship from England and Barbados and by foot from Rhode Island, Pennsylvania and Virginia. Once in Massachusetts, they rose to speak following Puritan sermons and during trials and shouted from jail cell windows. They published pamphlets and held illegal meetings. They refused to pay fines to the Puritan government and refused to work in jail, with the latter often resulting in their jailers depriving them of food.​
The Massachusetts Puritan government soon passed other laws aimed at stopping Quakers from entering and disrupting their status quo. Ship captains, learning of the fines, often refused passage to Quakers intending to sail to Boston. One Englishman, Robert Fowler, from Yorkshire, however, felt called to build a ship to transport Quakers from England to Massachusetts. He built the Woodhouse and set sail from England with eleven Quakers. One of the eleven was Dorothy Waugh, a farm servant from Westmorland who said she had been called by the Lord to come to America and share the Quaker message.​
In all, from 1656 to 1661, at least forty Quakers came to New England to protest Puritan religious domination and persecution. During those five years, the Puritan persecution of Quakers continued, with beatings, fines, whippings, imprisonment, and mutilation. Many were expelled from the colony, only to return again to bear witness to what they believed. One of them, 60-year-old Elizabeth Hooten, returned to Boston at least five times. The Boston jails were full of Quakers, and four known executions of Quakers took place in Massachusetts during those five years.
As is evident, the Quakers were not a quiet group in Puritan New England. From their speeches in the courthouse, the church, and from jail cell windows, they attracted a number of supporters and converts. Locals would often give money to jailers to feed the otherwise starved inmates, and the Quakers' unflinching commitment to speaking their truth touched many. There is evidence to suggest that the Puritan hatred towards Quakers was not omnipresent within the Puritan community. For example, the law banishing Quakers from the colony on pain of death was only passed by a one-vote majority. John Norton was the most outspoken critic of the Quakers and is credited with spreading much of the anti-Quaker bias.​
Perhaps the most notable Quaker to be brutalized and eventually executed by the Massachusetts government for being a Quaker was Mary Dyer. Dyer originally came to Massachusetts in 1633 and settled there with her husband. In 1652, Dyer returned to England, where she was exposed to Quakerism and accepted Quaker ideals. Five years later, on her way to rejoin her family who had since moved to Rhode Island, she landed in Boston, along with two fellow Quakers, William Robinson and Marmaduke Stephenson. The three were at once jailed for being Quakers and were banished from the colony. Dyer left for her family in Rhode Island, but Robinson and Stephenson stayed. Two years later, in 1659, when Robinson and Stephenson were jailed again, along with several other Quakers, Dyer returned to Boston to visit them in jail. She was arrested upon entry and all were held for two months without bail. Upon their release, they were banished from the colony under penalty of death, but Robinson and Stephenson refused to leave.​
In October of that year, Dyer returned to Boston once again to visit another imprisoned friend. This time Dyer, Robinson, and Stephenson were all jailed and sentenced to death. On October 27, the three were led to the gallows, and Dyer watched as her two friends were hung. When it came to her turn, she was granted a last minute reprieve but refused to climb down from the scaffold until the law banning Quakers was changed. She had to be carried down and was forcibly removed from the colony.​
Dyer spent the winter in Rhode Island and Long Island but insisted on returning to Boston the following spring. On May 21, 1660, she entered Boston and was immediately jailed. She was quickly tried, and on June 1, 1660, she was hung on Boston Commons.​
It was not too uncommon that when a Quaker was being tried and prosecuted under threat of death, another Quaker would openly walk into the courthouse and disrupt the proceedings. Wenlock Christison did just this at the trial of William Leddra in 1661. Christison, himself, who had been banished from the colony under pain of death, burst into the courthouse crying out that for each “servant of God” that the Boston government hung, five more would rise up to take their place. Christison was arrested but never had to face the gallows.​
The citizens and magistrates of Boston began to grow tired of having to punish the Quakers and Leddra was the last Quaker to be executed by the Puritan government. A messenger had gone to England to ask for a missive from the king. King Charles II, a Catholic supporter, wanted to provide a missive for the Catholics of the New World who were also being persecuted. When a Quaker messenger came asking the king to also provide sanctuary for the Quakers, he agreed. The “King’s Missive” did stop the executions, but punishment of the Quakers by the Boston government still continued, though it was less harsh. As more diverse groups of people landed on the shores of the New World, the persecution of the Quakers by the Puritans gradually faded. By 1675, Quakers were freely and openly living and worshiping in Boston.
 
Last edited:

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
The eightfold path is too advanced for elementary school children. Adult have a hard time living it. The ten commandments is easier.
Not really. It would probably be beneficial to understand the jhana cycle so you can recognize it when you experience it. The rest are all pretty straightforward. (Notice the "no human trafficking--aka no dealing in slaves" part under right livelihood?)

Here's the wiki blurb with a short description of each:

Short description of the eight divisions​


The eight Buddhist practices in the Noble Eightfold Path are:​
  1. Right View: our actions have consequences, death is not the end, and our actions and beliefs have consequences after death. The Buddha followed and taught a successful path out of this world and the other world (heaven and underworld/hell).[33][34][35][web 1] Later on, right view came to explicitly include karma and rebirth, and the importance of the Four Noble Truths, when "insight" became central to Buddhist soteriology, especially in Theravada Buddhism.[36][37]
  2. Right Resolve (samyaka-saṃkalpa/sammā-saṅkappa) can also be known as "right thought", "right aspiration", or "right motivation".[38] In this factor, the practitioner resolves to strive toward non-violence (ahimsa) and avoid violent and hateful conduct.[37] It also includes the resolve to leave home, renounce the worldly life and follow the Buddhist path.[39]
  3. Right Speech: no lying, no rude speech, no telling one person what another says about him to cause discord or harm their relationship, no idle chatter.[40][41]
  4. Right Conduct or Action: no killing or injuring, no taking what is not given, no sexual misconduct, no material desires.
  5. Right Livelihood: no trading in weapons, living beings, meat, liquor, or poisons.
  6. Right Effort: preventing the arising of unwholesome states, and generating wholesome states, the bojjhagā (Seven Factors of Awakening). This includes indriya-samvara, "guarding the sense-doors", restraint of the sense faculties.[42][43]
  7. Right Mindfulness (sati; Satipatthana; Sampajañña): a quality that guards or watches over the mind;[44] the stronger it becomes, the weaker unwholesome states of mind become, weakening their power "to take over and dominate thought, word and deed."[45][note 2] In the vipassana movement, sati is interpreted as "bare attention": never be absent minded, being conscious of what one is doing; this encourages the awareness of the impermanence of body, feeling and mind, as well as to experience the five aggregates (skandhas), the five hindrances, the four True Realities and seven factors of awakening.[43]
  8. Right samadhi (passaddhi; ekaggata; sampasadana): practicing four stages of dhyāna ("meditation"), which includes samadhi proper in the second stage, and reinforces the development of the bojjhagā, culminating into upekkhā (equanimity) and mindfulness.[47] In the Theravada tradition and the vipassana movement, this is interpreted as ekaggata, concentration or one-pointedness of the mind, and supplemented with vipassana meditation, which aims at insight.

If you read the First Amendment, the wording restricts Congress, who makes all Federal Laws, but it does not restrict the people practicing any of these rights. It does not say free speech has to be politically correct. That was Government overreach. If I wanted to pray in school, with free speech, the Fed cannot endorse it or deny it. It has to butt out.
Agreed.
Those things not specifically specified as the role of Federal Government, such as your Religious war concerns, need to go back to the States. The States are closer to the people who live there. A nanny state can do something else. The Fed has no authority to do anything about this, but keeps trying to violate the Spirit of the Constitution.

Actually, the federal government keeps the States from doing what you fear the Federal government will do.

Amendment XIV, Section 1, Section 5

Section 1.​


All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.​
<...>​

Section 5.​


The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this article.​
The city of New Orleans in Louisiana, is divided into Parishes, which is how the Catholic Church broke down the neighborhoods. The majority rules in Democracies, correct. It not a just a few bureaucrats or whiny cry babies, that get to decide; That was Big Government overreach; kill Democracy and majority rule using the whiny baby defense.

The idea that all religions have to have the same rights undermines Democracy and majority rule. It would be like saying in the fall elections, if one side wins the popular vote and the electoral vote, but one person who lost whines, nobody can win. We need to get rid of future election. That one whiny baby means more, right. The adult work around is to find where you are part of a majority decision and live there. That way you are free and others are free and majorities can rule.
This is called Tyranny of the Majority, and citizens are protected from it by the 14th Amendment. It's not being a whiny cry baby to stand up for your Constitutional Rights.
What about the transgender pronouns and sex alternation orthodoxy. This is not backed by science. Gender disorders are considered pathology as are fixation with pronouns. This means since orthodoxy is not rational, it is imaginary like Atheism claims of all religion. The Department of Education may have to be disbanded and rebuilt from the bottom up, since it is very contaminated with sickness and lawlessness.
You are wandering off topic here.
Congress is suppose to make Laws, but Con Artists in Government and Congress are using the regulatory state, to illegally make laws, that they themselves are not authorized to make, as defined by the Constitution. The Congress cannot establish the religion of sex change.
It's not a religion, and the government is not forcing anyone to do it, unlike in Louisiana where you can find authorities forcing schools to post the 10 Commandments in all classrooms.
They handed that off to the Department of Education and Indoctrination. The Supreme Court has just ruled to place limits on the authority of the regulatory state, which allows Big Government overreach and deniability by Congress. For now on, Congress will have to stand up and be counted on such matters and be made vulnerable at election time. They will reduced some to one face, instead of having the two faced option of today; say you are, against, and then order others to make a law, for.

Louisiana did not so much establish a religion, as it learned to finally but out, in terms of the local freedom of religion, in their schools. There is a difference when people get back their rights, compared to them being stolen by shady lawyers and Big Government.
Read the 14th Amendment posted above.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
Yea they can remove "In God we Trust" since the USSR is essentially gone and dissolved now.
Occasionally reading the news does make me feel like we fell through a time loop and we're back to things when I was a little kid.
 
Top