A Closer Look at Pat Robertson

Theodric, I am not wrong. Read my posts, and take some time to study where the term came from.Have you ever even heard of Anabaptism, or the various streams of theology involving the issue of Church/State marriage?If you had, you would not exactly what I am talking about and know that I am telling the truth.No Christian minister I have met in the US is against the original concept of separation of Church and State, but the concept has become twisted in modern times a means of seeking to denigrate religion and religious voices in areas of public policy and in areas of public worship, and that is contrary to the Constitution which forbids "the free exercise thereof" of religion.PR does not want to use the government to regulate and coerce religion, and fully wants to maintain separation in that sense.

LOL. You obviously know nothing of how the Constitution and Bill of Rights evolved. Take some time to educate yourself because you sound foolish here.When the Colonies were being established, there were 2 colonies that initially were founded on Anabaptist theology of separation of Church and State. Keep in mind that when I and they use that term, they are using in the original context, not probably what you think of as some sort of attempt to banish religious leaders from influencing public policy or banning public ackowledgement of God.The 2 colonies were Pennsylvania, founded by the Quakers, and Rhode Island. William Penn was, in fact, laughed at by conventional thinkers in England. No one really considered that you could have freedom of religion in a society and have a cohesive society.The Baptists founded Rhode Island, and Isaac Backus was a major player for pushing for no state establishment of religion and had a major influence on the founders. They also went the way of the 1st amendment due to the fact some states, like Mass, had an official establishment of religion, and they did not want to get into disputes over that, which is why the 1st amendment permitted states to have an official establishment of religion.One reason the Baptists pushed so hard over this issue is that sometimes, and this happened in VA, the State would refuse to accept as legal the marriage not performed by the Anglicam church, for example, and this was used to deny inheritance rights to the family.Well, eventually people began to see Anabaptist theology as more viable than they considered before. Colonies that permitted religious freedom did quite well, and so there was a strong impetus within Protestantism to begin to recognize freedom of religion as normative theology, which early Protestantism did not.That is how the idea came to be. Before that, there were centuries of Christians martyred for their faith, particularly in this area, by the Catholic church and early Protestants too, that denied freedom of religion and Jesus' teachings in that area.You owe your freedom in large part to these Christian martyrs.Now, it is true that the Enlightenment helped too, but people have a mistaken idea about this at times. Anti-religious people like Thomas Paine were totally discredited in the eyes of the public, and more religious thinkers like Washington, who could arguably be considered an Enlightenment thinker as well, were applauded.So it wasn't hostility towards religion that produced the 1st amendment.Furthermore, the term "separation" that Jefferson used in a letter to the Baptists was an example of his using their term. They had been lobbying him and wanted to make sure that there was a wall of separation, not hostility as we see today, but they wanted their religious freedom protected.So those, like Jefferson, that were not that favorable to religion in general had their own motives to agreeing with the efforts of the Baptists and others, but it was a long fight, and led by the group of Christians that favored freedom of religion. They first got it incorporated into some colonies and then the entire nation.

If you don't know what happened between Washington and Paine, take some to educate yourself and then get back to us. What do you mean by religion and government "mixing"? I have never argued for that.

You're being silly. Quit dodging the issue. What you seem to be saying is that religioys values are not an acceptable basis for laws, and that's where you are wrong. The Constitution does not ban religious values or religion from influencing secular laws.What the Constitution bans is for the government to pass ecclesiastical laws pertaining to religious doctrine or church affairs.

Crash, you are the one that brought up separation of Church and State, not me. I suggest you take your own advice, but if you are going to make wild, unfounded accusations based on ignorance, then you should expect some folks to correct you.

Um, crash, you do realize that is a factual statement. The term "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution. Are people not within the government? Basically, you are ignoring the fact that the prohibition is not towards government participation, but government legislation.If what you are saying is true, then Congressional chaplains should be unConstitutional, right? And you agree with that, right?But here's your problem. The people that ratified the Constitution are the same ones that instituted Congressional chaplains. Evidently, they didn't think it was unConstitutional.Maybe what's occuring is that you have a false idea on what the 1st amendment says? I respectfully submit this is the case, and moreover, that we should interpret the establishment and free exercise clause with it's original intention, not some concept borne out of claims of the Constitution being a living document. No, he just thinks in an ideal situation we should only vote for Christians and Jews for elected office. That's not the same as passing laws to create a theocracy. You and libs in typical fashion overstate the case. He has some views to one side, but he's not advocating a theocracy as you claim.What you fail to realize is the 1st amendment guarantees the rights of someone like PR to hold contrary views. He thinks religious people are the only ones to be trusted with power.Well, guess what, I've heard others say the opposite, that no seriously devoted religious person should be trusted with power.In America, you get to have the opinions you want.

I guess if you are thoroughly beaten, you start resorting to claiming others repudiating your claims are off-topic.Gotta go.Faith, I was glad to help out. Have a good evening.

"Congress shall pass no law...."I suggest you read the Constitution first before making yourself look foolish here.

Read the whole thing. "Congress shall make no law respecting en establishment of religion."

In typical fashion you totally misrepresent others. Clearly, I said he believes in the original meaning of the term, true separation of Church and State, but not the modern definition, which no one should, because it's merely a mask for denigrating religion and religious values and ideas.

What are you talking about? Who is talking about using the government to make Christianity the preeminent religion?

Theodric, I know of no Christian minister in the country that wants to see a marriage of Church and State.What Robertson and many are oppossed to are bogus concepts that use the phrase "separation of Church and State" but really are nothing but attempts to codify anti-religious bigotry. Specifically, these anti-religionists argue it is wrong to allow people to use religious values to influence legislation.Under the false concept termed "separation" but really is joining of the State with a certain ideology of secularism, someone like Martin Luther King was wrong because he sought and did use his religious values to influence legislation. Of course, the liberals making these bogus claims which have become accepted even in the courts to a degree, don't bash MLK, jr. for the most part. You might could find some atheists that do, but overall they really want to use the argument to denigrate religious conservatives and suggest they are wrong to try to see their values used as a basis for governmental legislation.Their claims are in effect that the government is to have a secular ideology that is hostile towards religious values.But the government is not suppossed to substitute a marriage of Church and State with a marriage of Ideology and State. It's not suppossed to be "secular" in that sense. It's suppossed to not pass laws to establish an official religion, whether religious or secular, and the reason is that the law should not be used to coerce people in religious affairs.

What do you think is unsubstantiated? You really think PR and other Christians want a marriage of Church and State so they can force people to be Christians?That's very sad if you are so deluded.As far as George Washington and Thomas Paine, where should I start? I have no idea what your knowledge is so how can I substantiate what you do not know if you are so lacking in knowledge of the era.I assume you know Washington was the first president?Are you aware of his inaugural addresses? They both are religious in nature and reflect a man that was a religious thinker in many respects.So that's your substantiation. Go and read them for yourself, if you don't believe me.Concerning Thomas Paine. Are you aware of the disagreement between Paine and Washington? Do I have to start at the beginning? Do you even know who Paine was and what his beliefs towards religion were?This message has been edited by randman, 08-28-2005 03:46 AM

This is what I said. You could, if you would spend a little time learning, discover why Paine was eventually scorned by American soceity. http://www.media-visions.com/tompaine.htmlThomas Paine, a key American founder and Deist, was totally rejected and ostracized, whether right or wrong, for his attack on religion.Washington was a Deist, or was at one point, but was also very religious, attending church, and in his first inaugural address, says this: 2022 Convocation Program | OU LawWashington in effect repudiates the secularism of the French Revolution and Thomas Paine, and calls to mind the need for "supplication" to the "Almighty Being.... whose providential aids can supply every human defect."

Pat Robertson made a very stupid comment, especially considering his position, and the upshot of this is Jesse Jackson gets to be a statesman.Amazing, and well worth the entertainment value, almost as much as the realization that Jesse brought his pregnant mistress to the White House with him when he came to "counsel" Clinton on his adultery and marriage.In all seriousness though, Jesse might do some good with Chavez.