Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Separation of church and state:

Mharman
Posts: 1,105
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/8/2017 5:19:32 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 4/29/2016 12:55:38 AM, reece wrote:
Is it equivalent to the Jim Crow laws?

No, but it is an oft misunderstood phrase.
With Liberty and Justice for all!
Looncall
Posts: 617
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 10:50:09 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 4/29/2016 12:55:38 AM, reece wrote:
Is it equivalent to the Jim Crow laws?

Whose church/mosque/synagogue/coven ... would you have run the state?

A problem with theocratic rule is that the rulers have unmerited respect that gives them free rein. For example, one cause of the abuses of the residential school system for first nations children in Canada was that they were run by churches (what idiot thought that was a good idea?). For another, recall the present widespread corruption in Iran.

Another is that rule would not be based on information and reason, but on superstition.
The metaphysicist has no laboratory.
PureX
Posts: 2,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 11:30:02 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
The separation of "church and state" is really about the separation of ideology and state authority.

The point of such separation is to allow every citizen to chose and to hold to his own philosophical and theological ideology while protecting him from the ideological imperatives and behaviors of others, and them, from his.

Sadly, we have lost our understanding of this essential protection, and of why it is required in a nation of citizens determined to be "free and equal".
coldlandlord
Posts: 14
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 12:50:30 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
Religion should have zero influence in the state. It still baffles me that religious institutions are still tax exempt even though they are a business. A worryingly wealthy industry at that.

They sell a product, they receive vast sums of money and in tern are able to intervene in the state and politics.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 24,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 6:21:04 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 4/29/2016 12:55:38 AM, reece wrote:
Is it equivalent to the Jim Crow laws?

Christ separated Church and State 2 millennia ago, his followers should do the same if they wish him to call them followers.

John 17:15,16
15 "I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.

As Jesus prayed to his father there, his followers cannot be taken out of Satan's world because there is nowhere else for them to live, but they can, and must, be no part of it, just acting like foreigners in a strange land as Abraham was instructed to do.
Mark Twain had the right idea when he said:

"There is something fascinating about science; you get such a wholesale amount of speculation from such a trifling amount of fact".

Galatians 5:18 "Furthermore, if you are being led by spirit, you are not under law."
Harikrish
Posts: 12,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/9/2017 8:10:55 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/9/2017 6:21:04 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 4/29/2016 12:55:38 AM, reece wrote:
Is it equivalent to the Jim Crow laws?

Christ separated Church and State 2 millennia ago, his followers should do the same if they wish him to call them followers.

John 17:15,16
15 "I do not request that you take them out of the world, but that you watch over them because of the wicked one. 16 They are no part of the world, just as I am no part of the world.

As Jesus prayed to his father there, his followers cannot be taken out of Satan's world because there is nowhere else for them to live, but they can, and must, be no part of it, just acting like foreigners in a strange land as Abraham was instructed to do.

Actually God instructs people to respect Government. Jesus was praying for his disciples safety and not against the institutions that God gave authority to.

Romans 13

Submission to Governing Authorities
13 Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2 Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves.
Rondonmon
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.
Rondonmon
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 7:55:24 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
As per Jesus giving us Separation of Church and State, that's a joke, by people who do not understand the Holy Word.

Give unto Cesar that which is Cesar and unto God that which is God has to be understood in the manner it was uttered.

The Pharisees hated, and wanted Jesus dead, so they set a trap, but you can't really trap the all-knowing God. They knew if they asked Jesus this question, that if he said God, they would betray him to the Romans for subversion. If Jesus said Rome, they knew they could turn the people away from him, maybe even hos followers, in their mind. They could cause his fame to cease in their minds they could RUIN HIM whatever he said. Jesus knowing their minds astounded them with his answer, now let me explain why, because you guys evidently Missed it !!

Jesus knows all is Gods and nothing is Cesar's/Romes.

Jesus also knows the Pharisees know this, because they were learned in the Holy Scriptures like none other, even though they knew not God in reality, they knew His word.

So Jesus did not fall for their trap. He said "Give unto Cesar what is Cesar's and unto God what is Gods."

The Pharisees were astounded because they knew, Jesus Knew, that THEY KNEW all was Gods, them being learned in the Holy Scriptures.

So basically Jesus told them ALL IS GODS !! Because he knew that they knew, NOTHING IS CESAR'S !!

The scriptures can't not be understood by men without the Holy Spirit.

Give your lives to Christ and receive the Holy Spirit. Give up that angry spirit.
Stronn
Posts: 398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.
Rondonmon
Posts: 60
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 5:33:51 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

So we should maintain the same social sensibilities they had in the late 18th century? That's not a great argument, but we do live in a country where black people have had equal rights under the law for less than 60 years, and where women haven't been able to vote for a century. What kind of argument is that?

So you would support having an official Imam of Congress, too, and have Congress take a break so its muslim members can observe their prayer rituals?

There isn't a rule that religious people have to stay out of government, that's entirely untrue. No one bars religious people from doing anything except infringing on the civil liberties of anyone else.
Harikrish
Posts: 12,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 5:41:47 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

Trouble in paradise/heaven began before creation. That Satan is still around is proof of God's incompetence.

" Satan was created as a powerful angel. However, he rebelled against the Lord and was removed from his position. Even so, he is still allowed temporary access to God's presence in heaven at certain times by God's choosing. And he is allowed to operate on the earth. Satan is a liar and the father of lies (John 8:44), and will be expelled from God's presence completely at the midpoint of the tribulation, after which he will pursue God's people on earth until his defeat at Armageddon (Revelation 19) and final judgment (Revelation 20)."

80% of Americans claim to be Christians. Where there is religion there is hypocrisy. It is unfortunate that America has so much of it.
cedertree
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 6:10:39 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.
Please research the history of the Constitution and other Western documents before it. Every document from the magna carta to the articles of confederation had clearly appealed to the Christian God. The constitution did NOT. This was no miner overnight. It was deliberately done. There was a great amount of weeping and gnashing of teeth from the pulpits because it did not mention God as every other document had.
Our nation is largely Christian by culture. That much is true. However, our laws are secular. If this changes do not be too confident that it will be your brand of Christianity that gets to call the shots. I dread the idea of being forced to live in a Puritan type society. Make no mistake this is what dominionist such as Michele bachmann and Rick Perry want.
Is this what you want?
PureX
Posts: 2,245
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 6:19:51 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/9/2017 12:50:30 PM, coldlandlord wrote:
Religion should have zero influence in the state. It still baffles me that religious institutions are still tax exempt even though they are a business. A worryingly wealthy industry at that.

They sell a product, they receive vast sums of money and in tern are able to intervene in the state and politics.

You're being hyperbolic.

Churches are essentially not-for-profit private clubs. As such they should be tax-exempt in terms of income, in my opinion, but they should not be exempt from paying property taxes. Property taxes fund the public services that enable and protect property and their owners and users, and there's no reason that the taxes of other citizens should have to be used to cover those costs for private clubs like churches.
cedertree
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 8:00:11 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 6:19:51 PM, PureX wrote:
At 3/9/2017 12:50:30 PM, coldlandlord wrote:
Religion should have zero influence in the state. It still baffles me that religious institutions are still tax exempt even though they are a business. A worryingly wealthy industry at that.

They sell a product, they receive vast sums of money and in tern are able to intervene in the state and politics.

You're being hyperbolic.

Churches are essentially not-for-profit private clubs. As such they should be tax-exempt in terms of income, in my opinion, but they should not be exempt from paying property taxes. Property taxes fund the public services that enable and protect property and their owners and users, and there's no reason that the taxes of other citizens should have to be used to cover those costs for private clubs like churches.
I did not know that churches did not have to property taxes.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 8:04:20 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 8:00:11 PM, cedertree wrote:
At 3/10/2017 6:19:51 PM, PureX wrote:
At 3/9/2017 12:50:30 PM, coldlandlord wrote:
Religion should have zero influence in the state. It still baffles me that religious institutions are still tax exempt even though they are a business. A worryingly wealthy industry at that.

They sell a product, they receive vast sums of money and in tern are able to intervene in the state and politics.

You're being hyperbolic.

Churches are essentially not-for-profit private clubs. As such they should be tax-exempt in terms of income, in my opinion, but they should not be exempt from paying property taxes. Property taxes fund the public services that enable and protect property and their owners and users, and there's no reason that the taxes of other citizens should have to be used to cover those costs for private clubs like churches.
I did not know that churches did not have to property taxes.

It isn't JUST the traditional churches. It's anything that's classified as pastoral property / estates. So not just the standard church, would could be 1M square feet, sitting on land that can be discounted because it's being sold to a church, but then that church's pastor can build himself a mansion that so long as it hosts the occasional church activity (so it can have a spaghetti dinner once a year in its huge garage), that's not a house: it's a pastoral center and thereby not subject to the same property taxes as the home I live in. Laws vary from place to place, but any other private club would be paying property taxes out the wazoo.
Goldtop
Posts: 470
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 8:20:38 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 8:00:11 PM, cedertree wrote:
At 3/10/2017 6:19:51 PM, PureX wrote:
At 3/9/2017 12:50:30 PM, coldlandlord wrote:
Religion should have zero influence in the state. It still baffles me that religious institutions are still tax exempt even though they are a business. A worryingly wealthy industry at that.

They sell a product, they receive vast sums of money and in tern are able to intervene in the state and politics.

You're being hyperbolic.

Churches are essentially not-for-profit private clubs. As such they should be tax-exempt in terms of income, in my opinion, but they should not be exempt from paying property taxes. Property taxes fund the public services that enable and protect property and their owners and users, and there's no reason that the taxes of other citizens should have to be used to cover those costs for private clubs like churches.
I did not know that churches did not have to property taxes.

True, and your local municipality who is starving for tax dollars will simply increase your property tax to subsidize them.
Ludofl3x
Posts: 420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 8:22:16 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 8:20:38 PM, Goldtop wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:00:11 PM, cedertree wrote:
At 3/10/2017 6:19:51 PM, PureX wrote:
At 3/9/2017 12:50:30 PM, coldlandlord wrote:
Religion should have zero influence in the state. It still baffles me that religious institutions are still tax exempt even though they are a business. A worryingly wealthy industry at that.

They sell a product, they receive vast sums of money and in tern are able to intervene in the state and politics.

You're being hyperbolic.

Churches are essentially not-for-profit private clubs. As such they should be tax-exempt in terms of income, in my opinion, but they should not be exempt from paying property taxes. Property taxes fund the public services that enable and protect property and their owners and users, and there's no reason that the taxes of other citizens should have to be used to cover those costs for private clubs like churches.
I did not know that churches did not have to property taxes.

True, and your local municipality who is starving for tax dollars will simply increase your property tax to subsidize them.

Without consideration if you're a member of that faith or sect or not.
Stronn
Posts: 398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/10/2017 8:46:05 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.


It's a grossly inaccurate to say that the courts are mandating that religious people stay out of government. Such would be a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause. What is prohibited is the use of state authority to support or endorse a particular faith.

Historically the vast majority of judges, including most Supreme Court Justices, have been Christians, mostly Protestants. One can hardly accuse them of seeking to undermine their own religion. No, they simply are bright enough and educated enough to recognize that the best way to ensure religious freedom is to keep government secular.

It's almost laughable how American evangelicals paint themselves as victims when they are not allowed to use government to spread their faith.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

God in general. Not Jesus, notably. There is quite a difference between deism and theism.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 12:29:32 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/10/2017 8:46:05 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.


It's a grossly inaccurate to say that the courts are mandating that religious people stay out of government. Such would be a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause. What is prohibited is the use of state authority to support or endorse a particular faith.

Historically the vast majority of judges, including most Supreme Court Justices, have been Christians, mostly Protestants. One can hardly accuse them of seeking to undermine their own religion. No, they simply are bright enough and educated enough to recognize that the best way to ensure religious freedom is to keep government secular.

It's almost laughable how American evangelicals paint themselves as victims when they are not allowed to use government to spread their faith.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

God in general. Not Jesus, notably. There is quite a difference between deism and theism.

And what would that be?
Stronn
Posts: 398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 2:25:28 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/11/2017 12:29:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:46:05 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.


It's a grossly inaccurate to say that the courts are mandating that religious people stay out of government. Such would be a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause. What is prohibited is the use of state authority to support or endorse a particular faith.

Historically the vast majority of judges, including most Supreme Court Justices, have been Christians, mostly Protestants. One can hardly accuse them of seeking to undermine their own religion. No, they simply are bright enough and educated enough to recognize that the best way to ensure religious freedom is to keep government secular.

It's almost laughable how American evangelicals paint themselves as victims when they are not allowed to use government to spread their faith.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

God in general. Not Jesus, notably. There is quite a difference between deism and theism.

And what would that be?

Deism is the view that the Creator exists, but is an impersonal being who does not intervene in the universe. Theism is the view that the the Creator intervenes, especially in the affairs of humans, that it is possible to have a relationship with the Creator, to know what the Creator wants, and that specific events were the Creator intervening.
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,616
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 4:02:00 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/11/2017 2:25:28 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/11/2017 12:29:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:46:05 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.


It's a grossly inaccurate to say that the courts are mandating that religious people stay out of government. Such would be a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause. What is prohibited is the use of state authority to support or endorse a particular faith.

Historically the vast majority of judges, including most Supreme Court Justices, have been Christians, mostly Protestants. One can hardly accuse them of seeking to undermine their own religion. No, they simply are bright enough and educated enough to recognize that the best way to ensure religious freedom is to keep government secular.

It's almost laughable how American evangelicals paint themselves as victims when they are not allowed to use government to spread their faith.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

God in general. Not Jesus, notably. There is quite a difference between deism and theism.

And what would that be?

Deism is the view that the Creator exists, but is an impersonal being who does not intervene in the universe. Theism is the view that the the Creator intervenes, especially in the affairs of humans, that it is possible to have a relationship with the Creator, to know what the Creator wants, and that specific events were the Creator intervening.

Well, not everyone would agree with your use of the term 'Theism'.
For example, this source discusses the philosophical use of 'Theism', and says Deism is a type of Theism. The more classical use of Theism does not require the revelation of a personal God.
http://philosophyterms.com...

Some sources do take your position.
However your statement that "There is quite a difference between deism and theism." Is an overstatement.
Some experts say Deism is a type of Theism, some experts say the two are separate, and distinct.
Some experts say Theists do not believe in the trinity. Thus, most Christians are not Theists, according to this source:
"A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation."
http://www.infoplease.com...

Here is an Atheist site that says: "WHAT IS THEISM?
Theism is a belief in the existence of at least one god - nothing more, nothing less. It does not depend upon how many gods one believes in. It does not depend upon how "god" is defined. It does not depend upon how a believer arrives at their belief. It does not depend upon how the believer defends their belief. That theism simply means "belief in a god" and no more can be hard to understand because we rarely encounter theism in isolation."
https://www.thoughtco.com...

When the experts disagree on issues, it is a false claim to say "there is quite a difference".
There may be a difference, there can be a difference, but there is not quite a difference.
Stronn
Posts: 398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 8:56:12 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/11/2017 4:02:00 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/11/2017 2:25:28 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/11/2017 12:29:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:46:05 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.


It's a grossly inaccurate to say that the courts are mandating that religious people stay out of government. Such would be a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause. What is prohibited is the use of state authority to support or endorse a particular faith.

Historically the vast majority of judges, including most Supreme Court Justices, have been Christians, mostly Protestants. One can hardly accuse them of seeking to undermine their own religion. No, they simply are bright enough and educated enough to recognize that the best way to ensure religious freedom is to keep government secular.

It's almost laughable how American evangelicals paint themselves as victims when they are not allowed to use government to spread their faith.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

God in general. Not Jesus, notably. There is quite a difference between deism and theism.

And what would that be?

Deism is the view that the Creator exists, but is an impersonal being who does not intervene in the universe. Theism is the view that the the Creator intervenes, especially in the affairs of humans, that it is possible to have a relationship with the Creator, to know what the Creator wants, and that specific events were the Creator intervening.

Well, not everyone would agree with your use of the term 'Theism'.
For example, this source discusses the philosophical use of 'Theism', and says Deism is a type of Theism. The more classical use of Theism does not require the revelation of a personal God.
http://philosophyterms.com...

Some sources do take your position.
However your statement that "There is quite a difference between deism and theism." Is an overstatement.
Some experts say Deism is a type of Theism, some experts say the two are separate, and distinct.
Some experts say Theists do not believe in the trinity. Thus, most Christians are not Theists, according to this source:
"A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation."
http://www.infoplease.com...

Here is an Atheist site that says: "WHAT IS THEISM?
Theism is a belief in the existence of at least one god - nothing more, nothing less. It does not depend upon how many gods one believes in. It does not depend upon how "god" is defined. It does not depend upon how a believer arrives at their belief. It does not depend upon how the believer defends their belief. That theism simply means "belief in a god" and no more can be hard to understand because we rarely encounter theism in isolation."
https://www.thoughtco.com...

When the experts disagree on issues, it is a false claim to say "there is quite a difference".
There may be a difference, there can be a difference, but there is not quite a difference.

In the context of the discussion, I was referring to the deism of the founding fathers. which has its roots in the Enlightenment, as opposed to the theistic religions of the time.

Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Deism is a philosophical position which posits that a god does not interfere directly with the world. It also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe."

"Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Typically, these had been raised as Christians and believed in one God, but they had became disenchanted with organized religion and orthodox teachings such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy, and the supernatural interpretation of events, such as miracles. Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions."

Theism (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"...when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of god(s) that is found in the monotheistic and polytheistic religions; a belief in a god or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism."

So yes, there is quite a difference between them.
MadCornishBiker
Posts: 24,523
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 2:51:29 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/11/2017 8:56:12 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/11/2017 4:02:00 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/11/2017 2:25:28 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/11/2017 12:29:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:46:05 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.


It's a grossly inaccurate to say that the courts are mandating that religious people stay out of government. Such would be a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause. What is prohibited is the use of state authority to support or endorse a particular faith.

Historically the vast majority of judges, including most Supreme Court Justices, have been Christians, mostly Protestants. One can hardly accuse them of seeking to undermine their own religion. No, they simply are bright enough and educated enough to recognize that the best way to ensure religious freedom is to keep government secular.

It's almost laughable how American evangelicals paint themselves as victims when they are not allowed to use government to spread their faith.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

God in general. Not Jesus, notably. There is quite a difference between deism and theism.

And what would that be?

Deism is the view that the Creator exists, but is an impersonal being who does not intervene in the universe. Theism is the view that the the Creator intervenes, especially in the affairs of humans, that it is possible to have a relationship with the Creator, to know what the Creator wants, and that specific events were the Creator intervening.

Well, not everyone would agree with your use of the term 'Theism'.
For example, this source discusses the philosophical use of 'Theism', and says Deism is a type of Theism. The more classical use of Theism does not require the revelation of a personal God.
http://philosophyterms.com...

Some sources do take your position.
However your statement that "There is quite a difference between deism and theism." Is an overstatement.
Some experts say Deism is a type of Theism, some experts say the two are separate, and distinct.
Some experts say Theists do not believe in the trinity. Thus, most Christians are not Theists, according to this source:
"A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation."
http://www.infoplease.com...

Here is an Atheist site that says: "WHAT IS THEISM?
Theism is a belief in the existence of at least one god - nothing more, nothing less. It does not depend upon how many gods one believes in. It does not depend upon how "god" is defined. It does not depend upon how a believer arrives at their belief. It does not depend upon how the believer defends their belief. That theism simply means "belief in a god" and no more can be hard to understand because we rarely encounter theism in isolation."
https://www.thoughtco.com...

When the experts disagree on issues, it is a false claim to say "there is quite a difference".
There may be a difference, there can be a difference, but there is not quite a difference.

In the context of the discussion, I was referring to the deism of the founding fathers. which has its roots in the Enlightenment, as opposed to the theistic religions of the time.

Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Deism is a philosophical position which posits that a god does not interfere directly with the world. It also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe."

"Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Typically, these had been raised as Christians and believed in one God, but they had became disenchanted with organized religion and orthodox teachings such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy, and the supernatural interpretation of events, such as miracles. Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions."

Theism (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"...when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of god(s) that is found in the monotheistic and polytheistic religions; a belief in a god or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism."

So yes, there is quite a difference between them.

Deism may well be popular with men, but is it popular with God?

The Bible says NO!
Mark Twain had the right idea when he said:

"There is something fascinating about science; you get such a wholesale amount of speculation from such a trifling amount of fact".

Galatians 5:18 "Furthermore, if you are being led by spirit, you are not under law."
Harikrish
Posts: 12,482
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 3:19:44 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 3/11/2017 2:51:29 PM, MadCornishBiker wrote:
At 3/11/2017 8:56:12 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/11/2017 4:02:00 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/11/2017 2:25:28 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/11/2017 12:29:32 AM, Welfare-Worker wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:46:05 PM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 4:56:26 PM, Rondonmon wrote:
At 3/10/2017 8:28:45 AM, Stronn wrote:
At 3/10/2017 7:41:58 AM, Rondonmon wrote:
There is no Separation of Church in State in the constitution, that's a fabricated lie by the leftists of course. The Constitution has been subverted by the same commies that gave us abortion and perverted marriage, via fiat.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

So what does this even mean ? Well in England they had an official Church of England, of course the other Churches in England felt threatened, and this caused much bad deeds. Likewise in Italy they had the Roman Catholic Church.

The framers of the constitution did not want the State creating an "Official State Church" in this manner. Thus they stated Congress shall not RESPECT AN ESTABLISHMENT of Religion of course meaning they were not to Respect ONE ESTABLISHMENT over all others. We know exactly what they meant by their actions.

They created a Day of Thanksgiving unto God !! They hired a PREACHER for Congress !! And of course they Prayed in the First Congress continually, without ceasing. They taught the bible in public Schools.

Now anyone trying to tell me Congress meant NO RELIGION in Gov. but then they did all of these things they just OUTLAWED, has already lost the argument. Of course the lefties love to place commie judges on the court to subvert our constitution.

Given that it was Thomas Jefferson who coined the phrase "separation of church and state," one can hardly argue that it was not the intent of the Establishment and Free Exercise clauses. The founders quite rightly recognized that, when religion is allowed a foothold in government, religious freedom suffers. The only way to guarantee religious freedom is through a secular government.

Congressional prayers and the like were intended as a cultural observance, not an official government endorsement of a particular religious faith. Public schools were locally controlled. The federal government never mandated that the Bible be taught in them.

No they wren't, they hired a preacher, and PRAYED IN CONGRESS continually. Then they see aside a day of Thanksgiving to God.

They clearly wanted the Gov. not to endorse a Religion. They did not intend for future liberal judges to rule that Religious peoples had to stay out of the functions of Gov.


It's a grossly inaccurate to say that the courts are mandating that religious people stay out of government. Such would be a flagrant violation of the Free Exercise clause. What is prohibited is the use of state authority to support or endorse a particular faith.

Historically the vast majority of judges, including most Supreme Court Justices, have been Christians, mostly Protestants. One can hardly accuse them of seeking to undermine their own religion. No, they simply are bright enough and educated enough to recognize that the best way to ensure religious freedom is to keep government secular.

It's almost laughable how American evangelicals paint themselves as victims when they are not allowed to use government to spread their faith.

That is why they prayed in Congress. And set aside a day of thanksgiving to GOD IN GENERAL.

God in general. Not Jesus, notably. There is quite a difference between deism and theism.

And what would that be?

Deism is the view that the Creator exists, but is an impersonal being who does not intervene in the universe. Theism is the view that the the Creator intervenes, especially in the affairs of humans, that it is possible to have a relationship with the Creator, to know what the Creator wants, and that specific events were the Creator intervening.

Well, not everyone would agree with your use of the term 'Theism'.
For example, this source discusses the philosophical use of 'Theism', and says Deism is a type of Theism. The more classical use of Theism does not require the revelation of a personal God.
http://philosophyterms.com...

Some sources do take your position.
However your statement that "There is quite a difference between deism and theism." Is an overstatement.
Some experts say Deism is a type of Theism, some experts say the two are separate, and distinct.
Some experts say Theists do not believe in the trinity. Thus, most Christians are not Theists, according to this source:
"A theist believes there is a God who made and governs all creation; but does not believe in the doctrine of the Trinity, nor in a divine revelation."
http://www.infoplease.com...

Here is an Atheist site that says: "WHAT IS THEISM?
Theism is a belief in the existence of at least one god - nothing more, nothing less. It does not depend upon how many gods one believes in. It does not depend upon how "god" is defined. It does not depend upon how a believer arrives at their belief. It does not depend upon how the believer defends their belief. That theism simply means "belief in a god" and no more can be hard to understand because we rarely encounter theism in isolation."
https://www.thoughtco.com...

When the experts disagree on issues, it is a false claim to say "there is quite a difference".
There may be a difference, there can be a difference, but there is not quite a difference.

In the context of the discussion, I was referring to the deism of the founding fathers. which has its roots in the Enlightenment, as opposed to the theistic religions of the time.

Deism (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"Deism is a philosophical position which posits that a god does not interfere directly with the world. It also rejects revelation as a source of religious knowledge with the conclusion that reason and observation of the natural world are sufficient to determine the existence of a single creator of the universe."

"Deism gained prominence among intellectuals during the Age of Enlightenment, especially in Britain, France, Germany, and the United States. Typically, these had been raised as Christians and believed in one God, but they had became disenchanted with organized religion and orthodox teachings such as the Trinity, Biblical inerrancy, and the supernatural interpretation of events, such as miracles. Included in those influenced by its ideas were leaders of the American and French Revolutions."

Theism (https://en.wikipedia.org...)
"...when contrasted with deism, the term often describes the classical conception of god(s) that is found in the monotheistic and polytheistic religions; a belief in a god or in gods without the rejection of revelation as is characteristic of deism."

So yes, there is quite a difference between them.

Deism may well be popular with men, but is it popular with God?

The Bible says NO!

The bible also says Jesus was crucified for what he taught and believed.
Quadrunner
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/11/2017 5:22:45 PM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
At 4/29/2016 12:55:38 AM, reece wrote:
Is it equivalent to the Jim Crow laws?

Your neutral education, and your freedom to live to your own conviction is necessary to your liberty as far as the state is concerned. They should only be worried where you start to affect others.
CosmoJarvis
Posts: 322
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/12/2017 1:07:52 AM
Posted: 2 weeks ago
The Jim Crow laws were laws that protected and enforced segregation in the south.
According to the First Amendment of our Constitution, religious institutions cannot create or repeal laws.

Not the same. If anything, giving churches the right to influence society politically might increase segregation of other religions, races, sexes, and people of different sexual preferences. In fact, there have been recent bills, though eventually put down, that were drafted to give business owners the right to fire or deny service to people because of their sexual preference (even though there isn't any law that deems these actions illegal) for the "preservation of religious ideals."
"A gentleman is one who never hurts anyone's feelings unintentionally."
-Oscar Wilde