Separation of Church and State

[Lazy Agnostic]

This is not a Christian Country...thank God. This is a pluralstic republic.

The Founders, most of whom called themselves Christian, knew that religious leadership is too often infected by hubris, avarice, and tyranny. They chose to take the reins of power out of the hands of Clergy, expecting them to lead by wisdom and example.

They have failed miserably.

The majority of Americans have never, in our history, been particularly religious beyond lipservice. Most carry their "Christian faith" as a get-out-of-jail-free card; like most scoundrels will, they become pious only in times of need or danger.

The Clergy know that if they inspire us to do noble things for the Poor, the Sick, and the Stupid, people will begin to feel good about themselves---they will no longer be drawn to the pulpit.

So they engage in demagoguery. They stir us to demand an audience for our public piety.

The government has NO OPINION on God. The ONLY prudent option for government settings is neutrality.

This country was founded on principles but Christians are going to have to summon the courage to admit there is no "One Way" which has a copyright on character and morality. Non-theists are not precluded from possessing and displaying a sense of such.

To assert otherwise is a contemptible lie.

I believe embracing Christianity can be a noble endeavor. Shed yourselves of the pharisees which infect Corporate Christianity and perhaps you'll be viewed as more than weak-minded dupes by those who aren't fearful of thinking for oneself.

Jesus would approve.

[Pilgrim]

Highly offensive bud. Your broad stroke definition of all clergy leaves much to be desired and you have presented no evidnce to support your claim that all clergy think they way you say they do.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 01:47 PM
Pilgrim:

Highly offensive bud. Your broad stroke definition of all clergy leaves much to be desired and you have presented no evidnce to support your claim that all clergy think they way you say they do.

Broad statements allow fof exceptions. That was my opinion. I leave it to the reader to dertemine how much rings true.

[Alden]

But without any kind of fact, how would anyone be able to do so?

[Lazy Agnostic]

Facts pertaining to what? The concepts are pretty clear.

[Ryokan]

concepts need facts to back them up. You back up your concepts, or your justing , which is EVIL!...!

[nc_noachide]

This is not a Christian Country...thank God. This is a pluralstic republic.

It depends on who has the role of President, right? Under most of the former presidents, religion has had only a small role in how they carried our their job. However, under Bush, he tries to make his administration out to be a theocracy and, as it is, he has persuaded many to believe his decisions are in accordance to the Will of G-d.

Of course, the money he's poured into the Fortune 500 Christian Coalition and the Christian Reich has given him the momentum to persuade the vast majority of Christians in this country in believing himself to be an earthly manifestation of the sublime G-dhead. It may be a slight exageration, but only slight.

The Founders, most of whom called themselves Christian

Most were actually Deists, which is not synynomous with Christianity- Protestant or otherwise- despite what most Americans are willing to believe. If they had seen what is going on in today's government, in the name of religion, the would have broadened the First Amendment to about three pages.

Shalom,
Phillip

[undead]

Today @ 03:43 PM
Lazy Agnostic:
This is not a Christian Country...thank God. This is a pluralstic republic.


All countries are Christian, in one sense, because Christ reigns over all, whether or not they acknowledge him, and in another, because Christian inluences have shaped government and laws in the past, though the modern trend is to reject Christian influence in favour of atheism, feminism, etc.

There is nothing inherently good about pluralism, except that it serves to mitigate religious fanaticism - but tben pluralism itself could be viewed as religious fanaticism, by its demand for the admission of gods, doctrines and philosophies that are clearly harmful, untrue and unreasonable.


The Founders, most of whom called themselves Christian, knew that religious leadership is too often infected by hubris, avarice, and tyranny. They chose to take the reins of power out of the hands of Clergy, expecting them to lead by wisdom and example.


The Founders set up Deism as the US National Religion and challenged the church to prevail over it.

http://www.deism.com/DeistAmerica.htm

Also,

"The grandest law that was ever written upon the Statute books of this or any other nation is the Statute of Religious Freedom which Jefferson drafted for the Virginia Constitution. Until the enactment of this provision for liberty of conscience, anyone who denied the existence of God, or the Trinity, or the Bible to be of Divine authority, was not permitted to hold civil or military office and was subjected to every penalty that an ignorant and vicious hierarchy could inflict. A father was even denied the custody of his own children."


From http://www.positiveatheism.org/hist/lewis/lewjeff.htm


They have failed miserably.


The true church could not prevail over the Deists, because it was weakened through being steeped in error brought about by its over indulgence in philosophy, including its adoption of the Roman Catholic concept of the trinity in preference to the biblical concept (God is biblically defined by reference to one person only, the Father - and everything else is in relation to the Father. Thus Christ pre incarnation/post resurrection is God because the fullness of the Father lives in him by the Father's command).

(Also http://www.libertymagazine.org/artic...view/247/1/30/ )


The majority of Americans have never, in our history, been particularly religious beyond lipservice. Most carry their "Christian faith" as a get-out-of-jail-free card; like most scoundrels will, they become pious only in times of need or danger.


Most Americans are thoroughly confused between Christianity and Deism, and cannot tell the difference. However, it is politically safer to call yourself a Christian, even if you clearly don't believe in biblical morality or historicity.


The Clergy know that if they inspire us to do noble things for the Poor, the Sick, and the Stupid, people will begin to feel good about themselves---they will no longer be drawn to the pulpit.

So they engage in demagoguery. They stir us to demand an audience for our public piety.


A major problem with many churches is the promotion and elevation of the hierarchy above the preaching of the gospel. The hierarchy will consider that failure to give it its tithe is the greatest sin of all and many churches will excommunicate you just for that. But they ought not to be regarded as formed after the pattern of biblical churches, and there are cogent biblical reasons for rejecting all tithing churches and other types which are plainly perceived to be dedicated to the elevation of the hierachy over the gospel.


The government has NO OPINION on God. The ONLY prudent option for government settings is neutrality.


An ambivalent attitude to God is impossible. One either hates God or loves God. The government has chosen to worship the golden calf and hates God, far more so that you will ever appreciate.


This country was founded on principles but Christians are going to have to summon the courage to admit there is no "One Way" which has a copyright on character and morality. Non-theists are not precluded from possessing and displaying a sense of such.


Quite incorrect. The "Christian" who purports to acknowledge there is no "one way" has by definition converted to Deism and ought to be excommunicated by the true church.


To assert otherwise is a contemptible lie.


In saying that you call Christ a contemptible liar, because Christ himself said there is only one way. There is an issue is that people should not necessarily be prosecuted under criminal law just because they have not found the one way, or walked very far along it, but nevertheless the limits of permissble deviation from it ought to be circumscribed by any reasonable society.

The limits of deviation tolerated by the modern US is an outrage to both God and men.


I believe embracing Christianity can be a noble endeavor. Shed yourselves of the pharisees which infect Corporate Christianity and perhaps you'll be viewed as more than weak-minded dupes by those who aren't fearful of thinking for oneself.

Jesus would approve.

I agree that "corporate religion" is presided over by Pharisees. But then the judicial pharisees are as bad and worse than the pharisees whom you see in the pulpit. Nevertheless, "seek and you will find" is what the bible commands, and there are some churches where Phariseeism is much less in evidence. You cannot judge all churches merely by your pentecostal experience.

[Lazy Agnostic]

Undead,
Now, I bet you are an interesting individual. I'm sure I'd like to read some of your essays.

Do you wish to “press the crown rights of Jesus Christ in all spheres of life” ?

[Alden]

Today @ 12:12 PM
Lazy Agnostic:

Facts pertaining to what? The concepts are pretty clear.

Something like cognitive dissonance is a concept. Most of what you have put forward in this thread are opinions and logical fallacies. Lack of fact is what makes them so.

[Socrates]

One day misotheistic Yanx might learn that "Separation of Church and State" is NOT in your consitution! :dufus: This comes from Thomas Jefferson, who talked about a "wall of separation between church and state" to stop the State from encroaching on the church (as happened with other countries with a state church), NOT to interfere with the Church’s role in society.

Many of the pilgrim fathers who founded the colonies in America were fleeing state church persecution or discrimination (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican). They aimed to have a country where all Christians could worship without such duress. They did NOT intend to make secular humanism the de facto national religion of America!

Rather, your first amendment reads ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ i.e. it’s a directive on Congress to keep them from interfering, not a directive against churches, and certainly not to exclude Christianity from public life as the ACLU bully boys and "Reverend" Barry Lynn desire.

To be consistent, return to British rule, because your Declaration of Independence states: ‘We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights’?

Another thing, as www.tektonics.org notes, it's amazing how the Founding Fathers were deists when formulating the Declaration and Constitution, but Bible-believing Christians when owning slaves

[GrayPilgrim]

Today @ 12:01 AM
Socrates:

Another thing, as www.tektonics.org notes, it's amazing how the Founding Fathers were deists when formulating the Declaration and Constitution, but Bible-believing Christians when owning slaves

If this were so true it would almost be funny.

GP

[Lazy Agnostic]

Today @ 12:01 AM
Socrates:


Many of the pilgrim fathers who founded the colonies in America were fleeing state church persecution or discrimination (Catholic, Lutheran, Anglican).

Then they promptly set about persecution and discrimination of those who didn't hold their particular "faith".

Rather, your first amendment reads ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ i.e. it’s a directive on Congress to keep them from interfering, not a directive against churches, and certainly not to exclude Christianity from public life as the ACLU bully boys and "Reverend" Barry Lynn desire.

The wall is established and embellished to keep the grubby paws of government off religion and the grubby paws of religion off government.

The problem lies not with the ACLU and Americans United but with the powermongering, avaricious Clergy who aren't satisfied with the right to tell us how we SHOULD live our lives; they covet the role of telling us how we're DAMN WELL GOING to live our lives.

Americans don't cotton to that.

[Socrates]

I wrote:

Rather, your first amendment reads ‘Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion …’ i.e. it’s a directive on Congress to keep them from interfering, not a directive against churches, and certainly not to exclude Christianity from public life as the ACLU bully boys and "Reverend" Barry Lynn desire.

The Agnostic lazily replied:

• The wall is established and embellished

Again, where is the wall in the Constitution?

• ... to keep the grubby paws of government off religion and the grubby paws of religion off government.

Once more, it says nothing about any obligations to "religion", but only a restriction on Congress.

• The problem lies not with the ACLU and Americans United but with the powermongering, avaricious Clergy who aren't satisfied with the right to tell us how we SHOULD live our lives; they covet the role of telling us how we're DAMN WELL GOING to live our lives.

More lazy generalization. Fact is, there is hardly anyone more intrusive and bullying than the ACLU and Loony Lynn. Note also, it's not a matter of imposing morality, but WHOSE morality is to be imposed. E.g. those bozos want money to be coerced from taxpayers to pay for evolutionary indoctrination and abortion. There's no one as illiberal as a liberal in power.

• Americans don't cotton to that.

And that is DEFINITELY a generalization!

[Lazy Agnostic]

Evolution is science; Adam and Eve and Noah are religious myth.

Do you want the Bible to be taught with taxpayer money?

Do you want biology and geology to be taught by Henry Morris, Kevin Ham, and Kent Hovind?