Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,808 Year: 3,065/9,624 Month: 910/1,588 Week: 93/223 Day: 4/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Separation of Church and State
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 1 of 305 (265225)
12-03-2005 11:06 AM


In the thread {A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents} Faith said some things about the Separation of Curch and State that just are not true, and this quickly derailed the thread from the topic discussion and resulted in the thread being closed for a while.
To recap this is where it started (excerpt):
A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents, msg 3, Faith writes:
About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous. The First Amendment, which supposedly codifies this principle of separation, says in its first clause that CONGRESS may not MAKE A LAW that ESTABLISHES a State Religion, that's all. We have no state religion. Congress has not made a law establishing one. The amendment has not been violated and the public schools cannot violate it because they are not Congress.
Also, a state religion in the time of the Constitution meant a Christian denomination.
Also, some public schools in early America taught their students from the Bible and from various Christian catechisms and confessions. If this were forbidden by the First Amendment it would have been prohibited at the time.
But the second clause of the First Amendment says that CONGRESS may [also] NOT MAKE A LAW THAT PROHIBITS THE FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION.
Well, an argument could be made that the Supreme Court's interpretation of the First Amendment to prohibit all teaching of religion in the public schools is really a violation of the Amendment, as they are interpreting the law made by Congress in the Amendment itself in such a way as to prohibit the free exercise of religion by ordinary citizens in the public schools. I believe this is in fact what has been happening.
So I believe you have the false revisionist understanding of the idea of separation of church from state that in fact reverses its meaning and produces the very government tyranny against Christians it was intended to prevent.
.
A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents, msg 6, RAZD writes:
About the Separation of Church from State, this is SO misunderstood these days it seems hopeless to rescue it. The idea that religion can't be taught in the public schools on account of this principle is utterly ridiculous.
Faith, there is no restriction from teaching courses like comparative religion at any level, nor are there restrictions about teaching about the historical relevance of various religions to the couse of history.
What you cannot teach is that the {precepts\concepts\beliefs} of any religion are necessarily true, what you cannot do is give precedence for any one religion over all the others.
What you cannot do is presume to teach that any religious {precept\concept\belief} has the same value in science class as science theory and the validation process of science, because they are fundamentally different (the main point of your thread I believe?).
As a historical note, although I only have anecdotal evidence of it, the california schools tried to teach comparative religious classes, but christian fundamentalist parents stopped it.
Sorry to see your thread closed, as I had more to say. May have to do that PNT to get there. That would also allow me to pursue Phats comments further too.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.
< !--UE-->
.
A Test for Intelligent Design Proponents, msg 10, Faith writes:
Faith, there is no restriction from teaching courses like comparative religion at any level, nor are there restrictions about teaching about the historical relevance of various religions to the couse of history.
Obviously I mean TEACHING religion itself, and preaching it, not teaching ABOUT religions. Certainly that was obvious enough.
What you cannot teach is that the {precepts\concepts\beliefs} of any religion are necessarily true, what you cannot do is give precedence for any one religion over all the others.
And this is what I discussed is the totally wrong result of the current misinterpretation of the First Amendment, as religion WAS taught this way in the public schools in early America. As I said.
Parents and a community should certainly determine curriculum it seems to me, but this only works against religion in practice it seems, not for parents who are FOR religious instruction in the schools.
This message has been edited by Faith, 11-27-2005
.
Very obviously you cannot have the teaching and preaching of any one religion in a public school as if that religion were true.
The reason is that once you select one, you place it above all the others. That specifically contravenes the constitution.
(It is also logically false to teach and preach more than one as true.)
... as religion WAS taught this way in the public schools in early America.
Past failures to comply with the intent of the constitution do not make them legal or binding or in any way more valid than now. That this occured in some areas (NOT in all) is neither here nor there on the issue of whether the constitution allows it. Racial discrimination also occurred in many places after it had been specifically excluded by the constitution.
The ONLY way you can teach about religion that I am aware of that is in compliance with the constitution is in a comparative religion class or in historical classes -- social studies on the impacts of various religions on the history and development of culture and knowledge.
Our founding fathers were well aware of the failures of the theocratic colonies to establish any kind of government that allowed for the equal freedom of others. By the time of the constitution each one of these colonies had stopped being a theocratic style government and had converted to a secular govenment.
Faith in message 3 says:
So I believe you have the false revisionist understanding of the idea of separation of church from state that in fact reverses its meaning and produces the very government tyranny against Christians it was intended to prevent.
The revisionists are the fundamental christians that keep trying to make America something it was not. It was NOT a "Christian Nation" and it was NOT designed to favor christianity over any other religion.
This "tyranny against Christians" concept is just plain ridiculous and false to anyone that looks at it with open eyes: there is no discrimination against Christians, or the practice of their religion within any corner of the USof(N)A. NONE.
The only "tyranny" is that you are not allowed to impose your faith on others, just as they are EQUALLY prevented from imposing theirs on you.
The only "tyranny" is that you are not allowed to impose a tyranny of christianity on others, either in government, or in schools, or in public places.
That is what freedom is about. That is what America is about.

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 11:07 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 4 by macaroniandcheese, posted 12-04-2005 1:19 AM RAZD has not replied
 Message 5 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:03 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-04-2005 2:23 AM RAZD has replied
 Message 64 by Hangdawg13, posted 12-13-2005 11:00 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 198 by FreddyFlash, posted 06-08-2006 1:39 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 225 by riVeRraT, posted 06-29-2006 6:27 AM RAZD has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 305 (265228)
12-03-2005 11:07 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 11:06 AM


coffee house

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 11:06 AM RAZD has not replied

AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 3 of 305 (265231)
12-03-2005 11:12 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

macaroniandcheese 
Suspended Member (Idle past 3927 days)
Posts: 4258
Joined: 05-24-2004


Message 4 of 305 (265387)
12-04-2005 1:19 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 11:06 AM


*coughs*
fourteenth amendment.
congress doesn't have to make a law anymore. state and local governments (including school boards) are bound to the federal constitution by the fourteenth amendment. therefore, they cannot institute the teaching of a religion.
i appreciate that you made the distiction between teaching religion and teaching about religion. there needs to be more teaching about religion... both in general (mob psychology) and in particular.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 11:06 AM RAZD has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 5 of 305 (265390)
12-04-2005 2:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 11:06 AM


You need to reread your history books.
Our founding fathers were well aware of the failures of the theocratic colonies to establish any kind of government that allowed for the equal freedom of others. By the time of the constitution each one of these colonies had stopped being a theocratic style government and had converted to a secular govenment.
That's not at all accurate. First off, both Rhode Island and Pennsylvania were established by Christians with the religious liberty codified into law. The primary reason people became aware that religious liberty could work in soceity is due to those branches of Christianity that preached that and put it into practice, and did so long before any more secular thinkers considered advocating such a thing.
Massuchessets at the time of the Constitution was not a secular colony and required all office-holders be members of one of 2 specific churches and hold specific beliefs, at least on paper, well into the middle of the 19th century. They did not believe in religious liberty in the same way as other colonies and states, but to call them theocratic is nonsense. They had a state religion, sure, but they were not theocratic.
Georgia, I believe, began as a penal colony. The Baptists lobbied Jefferson and Madison and others so hard in Virginia because at times Anglican dominance in the colonies was used to try to defraud heirs by claiming marriages outside the established church were unlawful, but considering that the head of the Church of England was officially the Monarchy, it is not surprising to see some move away from that church.
But one thing is clear. The colonies were never theocratic, not even Massuchusetts, the most restrictive colony in religious affairs, and the colonies served as great experiments to put Christian Anabaptist theology into practice in mandating religious freedoms.
This message has been edited by randman, 12-04-2005 02:04 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 11:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2005 10:26 AM randman has replied
 Message 16 by coffee_addict, posted 12-04-2005 11:59 PM randman has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 6 of 305 (265395)
12-04-2005 2:23 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by RAZD
12-03-2005 11:06 AM


Very obviously you cannot have the teaching and preaching of any one religion in a public school as if that religion were true.
Well, it was once done in America and it wasn't treated as a violation of the First Amendment.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by RAZD, posted 12-03-2005 11:06 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2005 10:30 AM Faith has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 7 of 305 (265423)
12-04-2005 10:26 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by randman
12-04-2005 2:03 AM


Re: You need to reread your history books.
That's not at all accurate....
and then you go on to substantiate my point, that in each case, where the colonies were originally founded on theocracies, that they had moved away from it to more open forms of government.
LOL.
The founding fathers KNEW it didn't work.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:03 AM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:38 PM RAZD has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 8 of 305 (265424)
12-04-2005 10:30 AM
Reply to: Message 6 by Faith
12-04-2005 2:23 AM


Doesn't matter.
Well, it was once done in America and it wasn't treated as a violation of the First Amendment.
This is irrelevant. What is relevant is that when it came before the Supreme Court it was judged to be unconstitutional.
Because something was done does not make it legal or give it any validity at all.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by Faith, posted 12-04-2005 2:23 AM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:38 PM RAZD has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 9 of 305 (265469)
12-04-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by RAZD
12-04-2005 10:26 AM


Re: You need to reread your history books.
1. No colonies were founded on theocracies. You keep saying that but offer no substantiation, and it's patently an absurd claim.
Is England a theocracy, for example? They are more of a theocracy than any of the colonies.
2. On the question of religious liberty, I gave you 2 colonies, RI and PA, that were specifically founded on the concept of separation of Church and State from the very beginning, and keep in mind this was long before Jefferson or Madison were even born.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2005 10:26 AM RAZD has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 10 of 305 (265470)
12-04-2005 2:38 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by RAZD
12-04-2005 10:30 AM


Re: Doesn't matter.
It shows that they didn't see it as UnConstitutional.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2005 10:30 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 12-04-2005 2:48 PM randman has replied
 Message 12 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2005 2:50 PM randman has not replied

nwr
Member
Posts: 6408
From: Geneva, Illinois
Joined: 08-08-2005
Member Rating: 5.1


Message 11 of 305 (265479)
12-04-2005 2:48 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
12-04-2005 2:38 PM


Re: Doesn't matter.
It shows that they didn't see it as UnConstitutional.
They didn't see slavery as unconstitutional, either.
This message has been edited by nwr, 12-04-2005 01:48 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:38 PM randman has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:50 PM nwr has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 12 of 305 (265482)
12-04-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 10 by randman
12-04-2005 2:38 PM


Re: Doesn't matter.
It shows that the supreme court didn't see it as unconstitutional?

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 2:38 PM randman has not replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 13 of 305 (265483)
12-04-2005 2:50 PM
Reply to: Message 11 by nwr
12-04-2005 2:48 PM


Re: Doesn't matter.
That's because it wasn't unConstitutional, but a great many did see it as against the ideals the nation was founded on, and we almost started out as 2 nations, or one nation and some colonies, over the issue of slavery.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by nwr, posted 12-04-2005 2:48 PM nwr has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1404 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 14 of 305 (265542)
12-04-2005 7:50 PM


From the other thread ... {Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance}
This is to move this discussion to the proper forum. Edited to be just the 1st ammendment and separation of church and state issues.
randman, msg 18 writes:
Wrong, the whole concept of separation of Church and State is a Christian concept preached by Christians for hundreds of years prior to any more secular-minded person advocating the idea, and so the idea of religious and ideological liberty upon which the 1st amendment is founded stems from Christianity, not secularism.

RAZD, msg 22 writes:
msg 18 writes:
Wrong, the whole concept of separation of Church and State is a Christian concept preached by Christians for hundreds of years prior to any more secular-minded person advocating the idea, and so the idea of religious and ideological liberty upon which the 1st amendment is founded stems from Christianity, not secularism.
Care to substantiate that the 1st amendment is so founded? Perhaps some documents by Thomas Jefferson or the others in their discussion of the 1st amendment? Some kind of link eh? or is this just another bald randman assertion?

randman, msg 28 writes:
Care to substantiate that the 1st amendment is so founded? Perhaps some documents by Thomas Jefferson or the others in their discussion of the 1st amendment?
Admin has requested we take this to the other thread, but I will say I've substantiated this a number of times. Jefferson did not originate the first amendment, nor the concept; nor did Madision. The idea of not having a religious establishment originated with the Baptists of Rhode Island and the Quakers with Pennsylvania and other Christians. That's just a basic historical fact which you could easily look up.
They were following Anabaptist theology.
Perhaps you should have paid more attention in history and read the classic debates between Roger Williams and Cotton Mathers, or perhaps it was a different Cotton. Williams alludes to Anabaptist theology as opppossed to what Reformed theology had to say, but Reformed theology was eventually swayed by the Anabaptist concept of separation of Church and State, a term coined by them or revived by them. It was used by the Donatists as early as the 4th century.
That's where Jefferson and Madison and those guys got the idea. Try googling Isaac Backus.



Randman, I don't disagree that concepts of separation of church and state originated much earlier in general, nor specifically with the establishment of colonies like the one Roger Williams founded, that was not my point.
My point was rather that they are not the only source and not the only basis of the policy, nor did they define it as it was incorporated into the 1st amendment. This was the "Age of Enlightenment" where a number of liberal ideas were being embraced by large sectors of the population.
This is where your logic breaks down: you assign the only source of these views to the anabaptists, that no one could come to the same conclusion from other sources, nor that the views could be extended to apply to more general conditions before being incorporated within the 1st amendment, especially by people that are known for more general, open, creative thinking on subjects like this. This last part is the most telling and applicable part. I asked you for specific reference to the 1st amendment and its framing, you have not provided that. So let's cover that deficiency eh?
From What The Founders Believed About Separation Of Church And State (click):
We think that the results of this investigation will demonstrate that most of the important founders wanted and intended separation of church and state. We suspect that most of those who didn't agree with the separation principle ended up either opposing the Constitution, or publicly disagreeing with the separationist provisions of that document.

As far as the "other early Americans" they list
  • Isaac Backus (your reference)
  • John Leland (another baptist minister)
  • Roger Williams (1st governor of what becomes Rhode Island, also a preacher, one who knew both sides of the issue?)

... ie - while these people can be thought of as influencing public opinion on this issue they are not the ones who wrote the 1st amendment, nor is the list confined to these people, they are listed as "other early Americans that influenced the separation debate" -- and that doesn't mean they defined it in it’s final form as used in the 1st amendment (which is what I asked for).
Let's follow that link above to what "the most important founders" believed about separation of church and state:
James Madison on Separation of Church and State
James Madison (1751-1836) is popularly known as the "Father of the Constitution." More than any other framer he is responsible for the content and form of the First Amendment. His understanding of federalism is the theoretical basis of our Constitution. He served as President of the United States between 1809-1817.
Madison's most famous statement on behalf of religious liberty was his Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which he wrote to oppose a bill that would have authorized tax support for Christian ministers in the state of Virginia.
Madison's summary of the First Amendment:
Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform (Annals of Congress, Sat Aug 15th, 1789 pages 730 - 731).
Madison was a religious man and he was unconditionally against any encroachment of religion into government functions. From "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments" linked above come these quotes:
We maintain therefore that in matters of Religion, no man's right is abridged by the institution of Civil Society and that Religion is wholly exempt from its cognizance.
Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?
Above all are they to be considered as retaining an "equal title to the free exercise of Religion according to the dictates of Conscience." Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us.
That last line clearly can refer equally to a person of no faith as it can refer to one of a different faith. He also is clearly concerned, not just about the establishment of specific sect of Christianity, nor of a {general Christianity} but about "any other establishment in all cases whatsoever" ... including, of course, other religions.
George Mason's views on Separation of Church and State
Few men had more influence on the shaping of our Constitution than George Mason (1725-1792). As a member of Constitutional Convention, Mason was an outspoken advocate for federalism and limited government. As a member of the Virginia ratifying convention, he proposed a set of amendments that later served as a model for our Bill of Rights.
Of particular interest is Mason's commitment to religious liberty. Mason seems to have been a lifelong advocate of the rights of conscience, and worked diligently to end religious establishment in Virginia.
Similarly, Mason played a key role in opposing Patrick Henry's 1785 Bill for the Support of the Teachers of the Christian Religion. In response to Henry's bill, Mason encouraged James Madison to author his famous Memorial and Remonstrance, then circulated copies of the Memorial throughout Virginia at his own expense.
Mason's separationist commitments carried over to his advocacy of a Bill of Rights. In particular, his proposed amendments to the federal Constitution contain a provision that is closely modeled after the religious freedom provision in the Virginia Declaration of Rights, and which explicitly mentions both "free exercise" and "establishment," the key subjects of the religion clauses of the First Amendment:
That Religion, or the Duty which we owe to our Creator, and the Manner of discharging it, can be directed only by Reason and Conviction, not by Force or Violence, and therefore all Men have an equal natural and unalienable Right to the free Exercise of Religion, according to the Dictates of Conscience, and that no particular religious Sect or Society ought to be favored or established by Law, in Preference to others (Robert A. Rutland, The Papers of George Mason, Vol. 3, p. 1071, 1119 (footnote).
Thomas Jefferson on Separation of Church and State
Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826) was the principle author of the Declaration of Independence, the third President of the United States, and a primary architect of the American tradition of separation of church and state. Like many of the founders, Jefferson was a prolific writer and frequently commented on both religion and Constitutional Law. Jefferson authored the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom, one of the most important separationist documents of the eighteenth century.
Constitution gives no power over religion to the federal government:
Believing that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their Legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State (Letter to the Danbury Baptists, 1802).
On the benefits of religious liberty:
"...(O)ur rulers can have no authority over such natural rights, only as we have submitted to them. The rights of conscience we never submitted, we could not submit. We are answerable for them to our God. The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no god. In neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg" (Notes on Virginia, 1785).
From the "Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom" Section II:
WE the General Assembly of Virginia do enact that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.
These thoughts clearly move to a broad and general application of the separation of church and state, very much in line with the current interpretation embodied in the constitution by the Supreme Court. This is really no surprise, as the Supreme Court made specific reference to the concepts expressed by the founding fathers in reaching their decisions.
An overall view of religious liberty as defined by U.S. Supreme Court cases
http://fact.trib.com/1st.religion.html
The Establishment Clause has generally come to mean that government cannot authorize a church, cannot pass laws that aid or favor one religion over another, cannot pass laws that favor religious belief over non belief, cannot force a person to profess a belief. In short, government must be neutral toward religion and cannot be entangled with any religion.
The Free Exercise Clause has generally come to mean that one may believe anything, but that religious actions and rituals can be limited by laws that are passed for compelling government reasons. A law passed that is aimed at a particular religion or religions in general have been considered unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. Laws must be neutral in regard to religions.
The fact remains that your interpretation of the 1st amendment is false and based on false premises.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by randman, posted 12-04-2005 10:27 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 190 by FreddyFlash, posted 05-20-2006 8:19 PM RAZD has replied

randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 4898 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 15 of 305 (265576)
12-04-2005 10:27 PM
Reply to: Message 14 by RAZD
12-04-2005 7:50 PM


Re: From the other thread ... {Fully 100% American vs divided allegiance}
You keep changing your positions and as such it's a waste of time talking with you. I never dismissed the fact that the Christians won over more secular-minded people, though not secular by today's standards, and thus helped usher in the Enlightenment. You are the one denying that, not me, and then you turn around and pretend you do acknowledge the fact religious liberty was first codified into law by religious minded people.
Well, which is it?
Were the colonies theocracies that gave way to the Enlightenment as you sometimes claimed, which is totally false by the way, or did the concepts of separation of Church and State originate and become codified into law by Christians?
Which one was it?
The simple fact is all of the liberties in the Bill of Rights were well-established before Madison and Jefferson were even born, and the entire Constitution in that area was based on what the colonies or states had already passed. There was nothing new added, except the division of powers and even that has it's origins elsewhere, though it shows some intelligence to adopt it.
Moreover, the framers were somewhat weak on the idea of separation of Church and State whereas the Christians advocating it felt very strongly it was the only godly way for the government and Church to behave. The framers though let states have official establishments of religion, and dodged the issue really.
But regardless, they at least passed limits on having a federal religion codified into law, though no restrictions on things like Congressional chaplains despite a few not liking it.
The bottom line is the primary people originating and advancing the notion of religious liberty did so and established it here in the New World long before the Enlightenment. The battles were fought intellectually in the 15th centuries and prior, and in the New World, there was a chance to put the ideas into practice. The Enlightenment had nothing to do with that.
The Enlightenment came after the concept of religious liberty was well-established in most of the colonies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 14 by RAZD, posted 12-04-2005 7:50 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by RAZD, posted 12-05-2005 9:47 PM randman has not replied
 Message 189 by FreddyFlash, posted 05-20-2006 7:54 PM randman has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024