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:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Your source if accurate is irrelevant but I don't think (as my source showed) it's even close to being accurate.
You formatted what you responded to incorrectly and I have no idea what your response means."A premise"? "No conclusion"?
Have a nice day.
.
.
That so very clearly isn't how it was intended though, because Article 6, Section 3 of the very same document forbids religious tests of faith for holding public office, and that has been very broadly interpreted by the Supreme Court. And I don't think there is any grounds for assuming that Establishment Clause means the state can't create a religion. "Respecting an establishment of religion" just does not have the ability or room to have that read into it.
They aren't "random things," but rather how those such as James Madison and Thomas Jefferson spoke of the separation of church and state. And the Establishment clause means the government cannot favor one religion over another. This means they can't build crosses because a cross (or display a Nativity scene since that will probably be in the news before too much longer) because it establishes favor towards Christianity over other religions. It would just look bad to have a courthouse lawn stuffed and over crowded with the many different religious symbols and icons, so, to make things more simple and more fair, it is better that none at all be displayed.
It's accurate enough in that it does reflect the surge in religiousness around the time of the Civil War, which is also around the time when "In God We Trust" first appeared on our currency.
Great! Then we don't need crosses to remind us of a particular religion. We can tear it down tomorrow because who cares about two pieces of wood?
Jesus may not have, but that ideal didn't last long.
You're a Civil War historian and you don't understand what the Civil War was about? I don't care what the grunts believed. I care about the officials of the rebellion against the US and what THEY believed, and it was about slavery.
Oil is an objective moral value? Stealing land is an objective moral value? Genocide is an objective moral value? If you think the US is of God, then please explain the Native genocides and an unwillingness to let people have full civil rights. Hitler got the eugenics bug from US. We had entire conferences in the 20s about how to screw over every kind of "different" person (including people who weren't actually mentally or physically off but just kinda bugged everyone) and kill them off, which the Germans attended.
Which should've been unconstitutional and actually is. That previous generations didn't care about that isn't our problem.
I believe every period piece of evidence contradicts that view point.
I was not aware of that clause, good research on your part there. I would also agree with this since I have no idea what kind of test there could be. However I don't think this changes anything concerning the context of the first amendment.
They were random things when first mentioned by you. Now you have begun to specify what was once random. It's obvious your view on Jefferson is wrong:
I do not think it was your source, I thought that discussion was between me and SKWIM.
I agree that "simplistic" is an accurate way to describe that view.
Oh for the love of.......
No need to pretend, unless you are delusional to the point where you think Nixon's "southern strategy" was to bring southern white liberals into the GOP.
For you perhaps, but for people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians things have improved dramatically.
Your empty assertions are noted.
So let's assume your argument is true.....what is your solution? Eliminate all public benefits to single parents?
??????? You're not making any sense. Merely acknowledging the existence of people of color, members of the LGBTQ community, and non-Christians immediately makes them "special interest groups"?
Yes it is, especially among the younger generations....
Again, simply because a concept is not stated outright in a "founding document" does not mean it's legally non-existent. As I noted earlier, separation of powers is not stated outright in the Constitution yet the concept is central to our federal government.
For starters, the Declaration is a non-legal, non-binding document. All it did was say "no more." Also you can't assume they meant a personal deity, such as Jehovah, because to the likes of Washington, the most god did was create the universe and set things into motion (a deist "clockwork" model of sorts). "Nature's god" is reflected in the phrase "laws of nature," more of a pantheist approach than a religious one, such as Spinoza, Einstein, or Sagan.
That doesn't surprise me. And it's not called research, it's called being familiar with the most-high governing document of our land. The research part comes in with finding out what the Framer's wrote about such things. Such as when I pointed out the writings and actions of Madison, who felt very strongly that the state should not dictate religion and religion should not dictate the state, and left behind plenty of evidence to support his position and how it is reflected in the Constitution.
That's a very easy answer for anyone who has bothered to read it (and because it's a pretty short document, there isn't much of an excuse for having not done so): No. The only time it's even remotely mentioned in the Constitution is when the Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause, and Artilce 6 Section 3. And those don't mention god, but rather the state shall not respect the establishment of religion, the state shall not impede upon the rights of citizens to freely worship, and there shall be no tests of faith to hold public office or trust. Basically, worship whomever you want, but keep it out of the state.
No. Because even those such as Washington and Jefferson attended church, but they didn't believe in Jehovah, nor accept the divinity of Christ, with Jefferson having declared himself the "intellectual adversary of the clergy," and rewriting the Gospels to remove all references of divinity, miracles, and other supernatural happenings. And if you didn't live in the city (and we were much more rural then than we are now) church attendance was very inconsistent as it posed some difficulties in getting to one.
Exactly, and by erecting a cross, the government is showing preference towards Christianity, a preference suggesting it is the religion of the state over something such as Judaism or Buddhism.
You're either missing the point or avoiding it. Again, that a legal concept is not stated outright in the Constitution does not mean that it is non-existent.
I thought so.
Your posts are almost completely devoid of any.
I have....the consistent rulings of the federal court system, including the Supreme Court.
You should actually read some of the court rulings on these cases. You seem to be fairly ignorant of them.
Again, take the time to educate yourself.....read the rulings.
It's amazing how the person who insists that the founding fathers intended for us to be more of a theocracy is also completely unfamiliar with the part of the Constitution that forbids religious tests for public office.
It's something I've seen many, many times, and it's commonly interpreted that the Establishment clause and Free Excercise Clause work to keep the state out of the church but not the church out of the state, and typically they quote the Framers who did write something about Jesus, but never quoting other framers who put all the parts of the Constitution regarding religion in practice, such as how Madison made it painfully clear and obvious the state needs to not intervene in the church and the church needs to not butt in on the affairs of the state. Nor do they bring up the long history of problems that mixing church and state brought Europe, and how the most devoutly religious in America as well as the most ardent supporters of a secular state both wanted to avoid such things happening in America.
I believe the information in question was a inaccurate and irrelevant statistic which I have shown is just plain wrong using five sources. Even if it was accurate and even if they are relevant statistics are not conclusions. They are used to support conclusions.
We do not need it, nor do we need to tear it down.
Since Jesus is the author of Christian morality those who spread faith by force are not following Christianity. Therefor what they do says nothing about the faith it's self.
Nope, it began over whether the state or the federal government was sovereign. That is why southerners considered the civil war the second revolutionary war. Later on in 1862 slavery became an war time issue because it was a cause which was attractive. This is how weak the slavery issue was when it was introduced:
Nothing you listed is an objective moral value or duty unless God exists.
No government can create a moral fact just as they cannot create a mathematical fact. They can merely contradict or follow moral and mathematical facts.
Look at what? The soul indicates the supernatural.
It is not unconstitutional for the USO to hand out bibles, nor for the congress and military to have chaplains, nor for a bible to be used in swearing in public officials.
I didn't mean to suggest it was on that page. You aren't familiar with the persecutions Baptists suffered under the Anglicans?
Simplistic is a formatting Term that says nothing about quality. Using TV guides to illustrate moral decline is both simplistic and very accurate.
For pity's sake the KKK made up less than .01% of the population and were founded by southern domocrats.Oh for the love of.......
So George Wallace was a liberal? Strom Thurmond? The South was a liberal haven during the Jim Crow years? The KKK were a bunch of godless liberals?
Your dishonest (or clueless) attempt to flip history on its head is noted.
See the above.No need to pretend, unless you are delusional to the point where you think Nixon's "southern strategy" was to bring southern white liberals into the GOP.
So as long as the fringe's lot in life improves it does not matter that the morality in general has declined.
Your non-responses are noted.
What you responded to is a list of supporting facts not an argument. Since the secular revolution occurred things have declined in general. What to do about it is a whole other subject, one I am willing to discuss if we drop everything else. Pointing out the problem and providing a comprehensive solution is just too mush to take on when combined.
When you impose what the fringe wants onto the majority, then the fringe is called a special interest groups.
Good grief do you pay attention to politics at all? Christianity is the majority in the US, in that context we can't be a special interest. The term special means unlike others or in this context unlike the majority. If only 4% of the population were Christians (as is true of homosexuals) and we demanded crosses in every national park then we would be talking about special interest groups.
No it is not.
The Anglican's persecuted many denominations.
That's pretty close but do not see it as a digital issue of either 100% influence or 0% influence. I read it as an analogue where only minor influence is allowed. You literally can't put up a wall between church and state.
Since I agreed with you above you can see the rest of your post was based on a false presumption.
