Is there Such A Thing As Separation Of Church And State ?

[jasoncran]

uh what about the articles of confederation? and you forget that the president washington wasnt the first president of the united states.

and that was refeering the continental congress under the articles of confederation.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Lewis, I just covered all that in my last post.

Also, please explain how us forsaking science, running all non Christians out of this country, and forcing Christian rule will save our country?

 

[Lance_Iguana]

and that was refeering the continental congress under the articles of confederation.

Which failed, and the articles of confederation we're not under the constitution.

We are not under the articles of Confederation, we are under the Constitution of the People with a 3 tier system to keep the majority/ government from infringing on the rights of the people.

The main reason the Articles of Confederation failed was because it was Mob Rule.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

uh what about the articles of confederation? and you forget that the president washington wasnt the first president of the united states.

Because we are not based off the articles of Confederation, but on the Constitution. I dosen't matter if Washington was the first President, he was the first one under the system we run today. Though the 7 including Hanson where important.

 

[Lewis]

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892.
While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible.
Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth," Mason said.
James McHenry was a member of the Continental Congress, a state legislator, a soldier, and a signer of the Constitution...as well as the president of the first Bible Society in Baltimore. McHenry stated:

Neither...let it be overlooked, that public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures.
The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.
​

<table border="4" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Charles Cotesworth Pinckney also signed the Constitution, and served as a delegate to the national Constitutional Convention and an author of the Constitution of South Caroline. Pinckney was a statesman, soldier, planter, a brigadier general and a candidate for President and Vice-President. Like the rest of the signers of the Constitution, he too recognized the Sovereignty of God:

"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Saviour Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land."
​

<table style="width: 13px; height: 34px;" border="4" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td align="right">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> And, for those who fear this sort of Law breeds intolerance or disrespect for others, Patrick Henry boldly declared:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.
​

Likewise, the Constitution of the United States was drafted so as to be in accordance with the Scriptures, to be the legal foundation of a republican form of government based on that model which God had ordained for the children of Israel. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson even suggested that the national seal be a portrayal of "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night." Much of the Constitution and our American common law and organic law is also derived from the principles of the Magna Carta, which expressly forbade monarchial tyranny.

The Bible and the Constitution

​

 

[jasoncran]

Which failed, and the articles of confederation we're not under the constitution.

We are not under the articles of Confederation, we are under the Constitution of the People with a 3 tier system to keep the majority/ government from infringing on the rights of the people.

The main reason the Articles of Confederation failed was because it was Mob Rule.

no, it failed because of lack of a strong central govt.that was the reason.

and oddly i guess the old 50's book who taught me otherwise most be revisionist.

man i wish i kept that antique history book from the late 1800's. it went into that alot.

and what of entire fact that some states had a religion? ie mass and rhode island.

and uh so if our moral codes(laws) dont come from some world view where do they come from?

and btw the treaty of tripoli failed and we had to fight them muslims twice.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and that treaty was done in compromise in like manner as obama reached to the muslims with his statement about muslims.

that was the whole point as i said that in satire. as some future generation could also take that obama statement and make it to pro muslim nation

 

[Lance_Iguana]

no, it failed because of lack of a strong central govt.that was the reason.

and oddly i guess the old 50's book who taught me otherwise most be revisionist.

man i wish i kept that antique history book from the late 1800's. it went into that alot.

Can we keep this from becoming a thread where you put words in my mouth? thank you.

and what of entire fact that some states had a religion? ie mass and rhode island.

I did some research on this, and guess what. These State religions where established before the ratification of the constitution and when these states where still colonies. So, nope. A key part is that none of the States since the ratification had state religions.

and uh so if our moral codes(laws) dont come from some world view where do they come from?

Loaded statement. It came from a blending of multiple views, influenced by English common law, Rome, and the writings of John Locke. Deists, Atheists, Christians, and Unitarians.

and btw the treaty of tripoli failed and we had to fight them muslims twice.

Treaty of Tripoli - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So what if we had to fight "Muslim Pirates" again. The treaty is still treated as law. Would you also say that the revolution was a failure because we had to rework our government?

and that treaty was done in compromise in like manner as obama reached to the muslims with his statement about muslims.

Except that the treaty is US law that was accepted and ratified by our congress, and the other is just opinion given in an interview. Big difference.

that was the whole point as i said that in satire. as some future generation could also take that obama statement and make it to pro muslim nation

And those of us who know history well enough will be able to point to actual documentation in defense of the constitution.

 

[Lewis]

Our laws and our institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that it should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian." - United States Supreme Court, 1892.
While making certain not to endorse any denomination of religion over another, the founders of this nation made it emphatically clear that the principles upon which this Nation was built are based squarely upon the Bible.
Virtually every one of the 55 writers and signers of the United States Constitution were members of various Christian denominations: 29 were Anglicans, 16 to 18 were Calvinists, 2 were Methodists, 2 were Lutherans, 2 were Roman Catholic, 1 lapsed Quaker and sometimes Anglican, and 1 open deist--Dr. Franklin who attended every kind of Christian worship, called for public prayer, and contributed to all denominations.
George Mason is called the father of the Bill of Rights, for he insisted that the first ten amendments be added to the Constitution. The purpose for such an addition? "The laws of nature are the laws of God, whose authority can be superseded by no power on earth," Mason said.
James McHenry was a member of the Continental Congress, a state legislator, a soldier, and a signer of the Constitution...as well as the president of the first Bible Society in Baltimore. McHenry stated:

Neither...let it be overlooked, that public utility pleads most forcibly for the general distribution of the Holy Scriptures.
The doctrine they preach, the obligations they impose, the punishment they threaten, the rewards they promise, the stamp and image of divinity they bear, which produces a conviction of their truths, can alone secure to society, order and peace, and to our courts of justice and constitutions of government, purity, stability, and usefulness.
​

<table border="4" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td>
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> Charles Cotesworth Pinckney also signed the Constitution, and served as a delegate to the national Constitutional Convention and an author of the Constitution of South Caroline. Pinckney was a statesman, soldier, planter, a brigadier general and a candidate for President and Vice-President. Like the rest of the signers of the Constitution, he too recognized the Sovereignty of God:

"Blasphemy against the Almighty is denying his being or providence, or uttering contumelious reproaches on our Saviour Christ. It is punished, at common law by fine and imprisonment, for Christianity is part of the laws of the land."
​

<table style="width: 13px; height: 34px;" border="4" cellpadding="0"> <tbody> <tr> <td align="right">
</td> </tr> </tbody> </table> And, for those who fear this sort of Law breeds intolerance or disrespect for others, Patrick Henry boldly declared:

It cannot be emphasized too strongly that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded assylum, prosperity and freedom of worship here.
​

Likewise, the Constitution of the United States was drafted so as to be in accordance with the Scriptures, to be the legal foundation of a republican form of government based on that model which God had ordained for the children of Israel. Indeed, Thomas Jefferson even suggested that the national seal be a portrayal of "the children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day and a pillar of fire by night." Much of the Constitution and our American common law and organic law is also derived from the principles of the Magna Carta, which expressly forbade monarchial tyranny.

The Bible and the Constitution

​

You really need to read this Lance

 

[Lewis]

And you mean to tell me that nobody else knows anything about this important issue except Lance & Jason ?

 

[Elijah674]

I have always believed that the Church was to be the teacher of Christianity & Worship. Not State.

I full well know that if Christ is not IN the Church, then the church will go to the Government for its Christ/less POWER. But FORCE??? I think that Love is the Motive for Worship, not force!

We do recall Israel crying out... 'WE HAVE NO KING BUT CAESAR'. And USA? We as a 'LAMB' nation are just about there as a Christ/less 'dragon' like Government as 'i' see it. Rev. 13:11

Whatever, huh?? We will very soon now, know!

Then Rom. 13 being badly miaunderstood will be about worn out before it is all over with. And we will be PROVEN (Tested) throughly as to which Christ we Worship. Dan. 3:14-18 with verse 18 having these ones already having their mind made up, huh?

--Elijah

 

[Lewis]

What is the legal and moral role of the Bible and Christianity in the U.S.A.? Should God be separated from American government?

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="azure">

</td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" width="20">

</td> <td class="answerbody">

The Bible, and Christian principles in general, are being censored from our public schools—in fact, from the whole “public square.†Under the guise of adhering to the “separation of church and state doctrine,†judges and other government officials are disallowing Christianity in the growing number of arenas administered by the United States government.
The censorship is swift and complete, effectively compartmentalizing the church's influence in the world. As John Eidsmoe says,

“Those who object to Christian expression in public life frequently use the phrase as a code-word to mean, separation of church from reality. They say, ‘Christians can stay in church and pray and sing, but leave the real problems of the world to us’.â€
​

As Christians, we realize that the real problems of the world can only be solved with reference to Biblical Christian principles. But recently Christians have been told that such an attitude is “unconstitutional;†that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a clause that calls for the separation of church and state. Many people now espouse the belief that American government was designed to include “an impenetrable wall†separating church and state.
If this is true, then the Christian is violating the founding principles of our country when he or she calls for Christianity to be voiced in the public square. But is it true?
Absolutely not. The First Amendment does not include the phrase “separation of church and state.†It reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.â€
​

Nowhere does the First Amendment suggest that Christianity cannot be heard in the public square.
Robert L. Cord accurately describes the true intention of the religion clause in the First Amendment:

“[R]egarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit.â€
​

The founding fathers did not include the First Amendment in the Constitution to disallow Christianity from influencing state-established institutions; on the contrary, America's founding fathers expected our nation to be (on the whole) Christian, and our government to reflect that bias.
This appears to be a reasonable understanding of the First Amendment—far more reasonable than asserting that it erected an impenetrable wall of separation. And it becomes even more reasonable when one considers the words and actions of America's settlers, founders and leaders.
The first act of the United States Congress was to authorize the printing of 20,000 Bibles for the Indians. Further,

“When our first President, under the new Constitution, received the request of both Houses of Congress concerning a national declaration of a public day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, 'George Washington… issued a National Thanksgiving Proclamation' without any apparent concern that he might be mixing government and religion.â€
​

The men who founded our country clearly wedded it to Christian principles. “By today's standards,†as syndicated columnist Don Feder says, “the founding fathers were the religious right.â€

Author Tim LaHaye says that…

“This Christian consensus is easily verified by the fact that prior to 1789 (the year that eleven of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution), many of the states still had constitutional requirements that a man must be a Christian in order to hold public office.â€
​

This Christian consensus was understood by leaders long after the American Revolution, as well. Abraham Lincoln, in 1863, called for a “National Fast Day,†citing the fact that...

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven …But we have forgotten God.â€
​

When one examines history, one cannot avoid the conclusion that America was founded on Christian principles and the assumption that her citizenry would adhere to those same principles.
Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of the First Amendment ignores historical fact. Instead, it provides a convenient vehicle for Secular Humanism to achieve control over the public square.
The reason for this is simple: there is no such thing as a value-free society or institution—someone's values must prevail. Some worldview must “fill the vacuum†left by the eradication of the Christian worldview from public education, social services, courtrooms, etc. By distorting the First Amendment, the United States government has allowed Humanist values to prevail. As LaHaye points out,

“The true meaning of the first amendment has been turned on its head during the past fifty years: In this decade, those who practice the religion of Secular Humanism are able to use the power of the federal government to impose their religion on the vast majority of the population.â€
​

The danger of Secular Humanism prevailing in our society is quite simply, the oldest danger recorded in the Bible: men setting themselves up as God. The moral framework of our universe guarantees terrible consequences for the country that grants sovereignty to something other than God—because in such circumstances sovereignty ultimately becomes the property of the state.
“Man is a spiritual being;†says Benjamin Hart, “when one faith is eliminated, a new god will rush in to fill the spiritual void. Through out history, there has been a man-made god called the state.†When the state holds ultimate authority, government officials may commit whatever atrocities they like, because only the state may determine what is right and wrong.
America must choose. Either we ignore the intentions of our founding fathers and grant sovereignty to the state (clearing the way for Hitlers and Stalins to reign once again), or we bow humbly before the one true God, and—without establishing Christianity as the mandatory religion for all citizens—obey God's principles for justice.
True freedom can only exist in a land governed according to the principles set forth in Romans 13:3-4:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong-doer.â€
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - What is the legal and moral role of the Bible and Christianity in the U.S.A.? Should God be separated from American government? - ChristianAnswers.Net

​

</td></tr></tbody></table>

 

[jasoncran]

no lance that treaty was an agreement to pay off the pirates so that they wouldnt attack us. that is the reason it failed. as the treaty was signed in weakness and not from to equal parties wanting to avoid a conflict.

and really the treaty is that a law? legal document that bind us. do we pass domestic policies by this act.
and yes internation relations affect the domestic but you get the idea.
no, it merely states this. the GOVT isnt itself the church.

but it doenst say that about the populous.

and neither does it negate the fact the founders wanted christian input on the morees of society.

and i will now invoke the wrath of the aclu with this Photo. a govt purchased and owned mural in govt property and was in a chapel for 48 yrs in Germany.

 

[jasoncran]

here it is, and its my background and i took this pic and yes its huge.

 

[jasoncran]

now then its obvious to the believer who that is refering too. that was on a chapel in germany and moved to the patton museum at ft.knox.

is it that bad that the athiest and others are offended by this? keep in mind that the military like the public schools has persons from many backgrounds.

what is the difference as none here or in that chapel were coerced to be a christian. just that glass window was used in a chapel, paid for and used by the u.s. army.

in a room where muslims(if they were in at that time and most likely yes, and also the protestants and jews and christians).

yet? it stayed there till we closed that base.

 

[Lewis]

What is the legal and moral role of the Bible and Christianity in the U.S.A.? Should God be separated from American government?

<table border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="100%"><tbody><tr><td class="azure">

</td> <td bgcolor="#ffffff" width="20">

</td> <td class="answerbody">

The Bible, and Christian principles in general, are being censored from our public schools—in fact, from the whole “public square.†Under the guise of adhering to the “separation of church and state doctrine,†judges and other government officials are disallowing Christianity in the growing number of arenas administered by the United States government.
The censorship is swift and complete, effectively compartmentalizing the church's influence in the world. As John Eidsmoe says,

“Those who object to Christian expression in public life frequently use the phrase as a code-word to mean, separation of church from reality. They say, ‘Christians can stay in church and pray and sing, but leave the real problems of the world to us’.â€
​

As Christians, we realize that the real problems of the world can only be solved with reference to Biblical Christian principles. But recently Christians have been told that such an attitude is “unconstitutional;†that the First Amendment to the United States Constitution includes a clause that calls for the separation of church and state. Many people now espouse the belief that American government was designed to include “an impenetrable wall†separating church and state.
If this is true, then the Christian is violating the founding principles of our country when he or she calls for Christianity to be voiced in the public square. But is it true?
Absolutely not. The First Amendment does not include the phrase “separation of church and state.†It reads:

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.â€
​

Nowhere does the First Amendment suggest that Christianity cannot be heard in the public square.
Robert L. Cord accurately describes the true intention of the religion clause in the First Amendment:

“[R]egarding religion, the First Amendment was intended to accomplish three purposes. First, it was intended to prevent the establishment of a national church or religion, or the giving of any religious sect or denomination a preferred status. Second, it was designed to safeguard the right of freedom of conscience in religious beliefs against invasion solely by the national Government. Third, it was so constructed in order to allow the States, unimpeded, to deal with religious establishments and aid to religious institutions as they saw fit.â€
​

The founding fathers did not include the First Amendment in the Constitution to disallow Christianity from influencing state-established institutions; on the contrary, America's founding fathers expected our nation to be (on the whole) Christian, and our government to reflect that bias.
This appears to be a reasonable understanding of the First Amendment—far more reasonable than asserting that it erected an impenetrable wall of separation. And it becomes even more reasonable when one considers the words and actions of America's settlers, founders and leaders.
The first act of the United States Congress was to authorize the printing of 20,000 Bibles for the Indians. Further,

“When our first President, under the new Constitution, received the request of both Houses of Congress concerning a national declaration of a public day of Thanksgiving and Prayer, 'George Washington… issued a National Thanksgiving Proclamation' without any apparent concern that he might be mixing government and religion.â€
​

The men who founded our country clearly wedded it to Christian principles. “By today's standards,†as syndicated columnist Don Feder says, “the founding fathers were the religious right.â€

Author Tim LaHaye says that…

“This Christian consensus is easily verified by the fact that prior to 1789 (the year that eleven of the thirteen states ratified the Constitution), many of the states still had constitutional requirements that a man must be a Christian in order to hold public office.â€
​

This Christian consensus was understood by leaders long after the American Revolution, as well. Abraham Lincoln, in 1863, called for a “National Fast Day,†citing the fact that...

“We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven …But we have forgotten God.â€
​

When one examines history, one cannot avoid the conclusion that America was founded on Christian principles and the assumption that her citizenry would adhere to those same principles.
Unfortunately, the modern interpretation of the First Amendment ignores historical fact. Instead, it provides a convenient vehicle for Secular Humanism to achieve control over the public square.
The reason for this is simple: there is no such thing as a value-free society or institution—someone's values must prevail. Some worldview must “fill the vacuum†left by the eradication of the Christian worldview from public education, social services, courtrooms, etc. By distorting the First Amendment, the United States government has allowed Humanist values to prevail. As LaHaye points out,

“The true meaning of the first amendment has been turned on its head during the past fifty years: In this decade, those who practice the religion of Secular Humanism are able to use the power of the federal government to impose their religion on the vast majority of the population.â€
​

The danger of Secular Humanism prevailing in our society is quite simply, the oldest danger recorded in the Bible: men setting themselves up as God. The moral framework of our universe guarantees terrible consequences for the country that grants sovereignty to something other than God—because in such circumstances sovereignty ultimately becomes the property of the state.
“Man is a spiritual being;†says Benjamin Hart, “when one faith is eliminated, a new god will rush in to fill the spiritual void. Through out history, there has been a man-made god called the state.†When the state holds ultimate authority, government officials may commit whatever atrocities they like, because only the state may determine what is right and wrong.
America must choose. Either we ignore the intentions of our founding fathers and grant sovereignty to the state (clearing the way for Hitlers and Stalins to reign once again), or we bow humbly before the one true God, and—without establishing Christianity as the mandatory religion for all citizens—obey God's principles for justice.
True freedom can only exist in a land governed according to the principles set forth in Romans 13:3-4:

“For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. For he is God's servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God's servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrong-doer.â€
SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE - What is the legal and moral role of the Bible and Christianity in the U.S.A.? Should God be separated from American government? - ChristianAnswers.Net

​

</td></tr></tbody></table>

Lance this one is for you it is a special delivery. Just for you Lance, and well for anybody else who has something to say.

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Ok, let me step back and minute. I'm not going to argue this anymore because all this dose is show me that people are willing to do what ever they want to try and force their religion into society and stomp over every one else just so they can get their but pats.



Ok, Jason and Lewis, I'll say you win. What do you get? are we closer to world peace? Did we solves our ecconomy problem? Is Jesus back?

Nope, all you guys are saying is that the consituion only applies to you and every one eslse need to bow to you and your laws and stop bothering you.


America, where it only matters if you are a Christians.

 

[jasoncran]

really? i was jw when my school had prayer and posting of the ten commandments! that means i according to my faith couldnt celebrate thanksgiving and did do any plays for that, or do valentines.

in fact not even the pledge, donate blood, or say happy bday. the posting of the ten commandments was in a sense offensive as it didnt use the real name of the God, jehovah!

and when they prayed i didnt pray with them but for them. yet i respected their rights.

i hated all things christmas and even hannukah.

false gods and things of the devil. yet did i or those fellow jws go to the alcu and ask that they be removed, nope.

even mentioning july fourth was loathsome to me then.

so i was a minority as jw's cant serve in the military, be cops and do jury duty, vote and recite the pledge etc or sign the civil service card if a male, and also donate blood

 

[Lance_Iguana]

Yet today, you vote to keep other's rights suppressed and you keep bringing up your past to justify your new position.

You say you are for equal rights, unless there is a vote for it and you then use your religion to justify voting against equality.

Its easy to figure it out. Say one thing do another.

 

[jasoncran]

i see what you what you are talking about and i wont derail the thread on this.

who said that a muslim cant pray openly in school? i havent. and it really wouldnt bother me.

when i was in country i had to listen to them pray all day ever day, and we had a mosque built and paid for by the U.S. Govt that i risked my neck to defend along with you guys.

yet i wasnt even allowed in that thing just to observe what they actually do per general order #2.

and that didnt really bother me and i dont see any constitutional issue.

 

[Lewis]

Thank you so much Lance, I am writing up my speech now.