At the Ex-Christian Forum, I got involved in a debate about America, the Constitution, the separation of Church and State, and how this is related to the First Amendment. Someone said:
Clergicide wrote:It was recognizing the detrimental influence of the Christian religion on government that inspired the 1st Amendment. 1st one out of the box castrates our government's ability to endorse or sponsor any religion. Since Christianity was the only religion on our soil at the time..who do you think that was directed at?
This document by James Madison will show you just why the Founding Fathers weren't interested in having Christianity associated in any way to the new government. Make sure to read 7 and 11.
Creation on the Web wrote:In fact, the phrase 'separation of church and state' is taken from a letter from Thomas Jefferson (1743—1826) to the Danbury Baptists in 1802, 15 years after the Constitution was ratified. And Jefferson's meaning in context was diametrically opposed to the way the ACLU take it. That is, the Baptists of the day used a metaphor of the church as a 'garden', compared to the 'wilderness' of the outside world, with a 'wall' or hedge separating them. This came from Baptist Roger Williams (1603—1684), founder of Rhode Island, in a sermon called The Garden in the Wilderness (1644), where he said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will e'er please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.
Here the meaning is very clear: if this protective hedge or wall were broken down, then the wilderness would encroach into the garden and destroy it. So the whole point of the wall was to prevent the government from encroaching on the church, not to expunge the church from society.
To which he responded:
Clergicide wrote:Apparently you didn't bother to read that Madison document, which is the actual words of a Founding Father on the issue, and not some 'guest writer's' perspective on it.
I did take the time to read the mind-numb shash you posted, even though you responded to a historical document with a modern propoganda piece.
It is a popular misconception that the First Amendment of the American Constitution prohibits any religious reference in public places. In fact, the word 'establishment' had a very clear meaning at the time: the authors intended to prohibit an established church, i.e. an official national church endorsed by the new country of the United States of America, such as the Anglican or Church of England. This was mainly meant to eliminate any chance that non-favoured denominations could be persecuted by the state, but it has also made members of other religions safe from discrimination. So the Constitution prohibits the government from making one church into the official Church of America.
It's not a misconception that this clause prohibits religious reference in public places, and the reason is explained in the same paragraph. If you allow one reference in a public place, then you are favoring that denomination. If you want the 10 commandments displayed in court-houses, then you have to have icons from every other religion in the US represented, including the Church of Satan.
Do you understand this? No decision will empower any one religion.
No Christian has asked for a comparative theology course in public schools to represent all forms of belief. What they are being denied is the right to have only their beliefs heard, at the exclusion of all others. Which IS in violation of the 1st ammendment.
This was mainly meant to eliminate any chance that non-favoured denominations could be persecuted by the state
Wrong. It was to prevent non-favored denominations from being persecuted by the favored one. Religion persecutes religion. Funny how she fails to admit this, as if any Christian could never bring harm to another.
You've got some sound sources here, bub.
The whole point of the wall [of separation] was to prevent the government from encroaching on the church, not to expunge the church from society.
It was never meant to expunge the church from society. But the flip side of the coin is to prevent the church from encroaching on the government. It's a wall, not a slope.
Someone else brought up the Treaty of Tripoli:
Kurari wrote:Art. 11.As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
At the time that the federal constitution was written, it was understood that the states would have authority over issues such as this, and the federal government could not intefere with the state rights.
Acts 17:24-25 (NIV)
"The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. [25] And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else."
After I'd posted this, I noticed that the document by James Madison which he had linked to was a complete embarrassment for him! Listen to this, from par. 1 of Memorial and Remonstrance:
James Madison wrote:The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him. This duty is precedent, both in order of time and in degree of obligation, to the claims of Civil Society. Before any man can be considerd as a member of Civil Society, he must be considered as a subject of the Governour of the Universe.
'Subject of the Governour of the Universe' before being a member of Civil Society! And these guys are trying to prove that Madison and others were separating America and Christianity!
The Bible says they were "willingly ignorant". In the Greek, this means "be dumb on purpose". (Kent Hovind)
Great grasp of history.
