Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 112 (8819 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 01-21-2018 1:13 PM
329 online now:
Coyote, PaulK, Percy (Admin), xongsmith (4 members, 325 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: danlovy
Post Volume:
Total: 825,982 Year: 805/29,783 Month: 805/1,849 Week: 13/324 Day: 13/16 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Author Topic:   A Closer Look at Pat Robertson
DorfMan
Member (Idle past 3733 days)
Posts: 282
From: New York
Joined: 09-08-2005


Message 136 of 160 (242501)
09-12-2005 11:25 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
08-26-2005 6:52 PM


I agree about Robertson
and that he is immoral, ludicrous in his attempts to speak for Christ, and his attempts to emulate him are a sick and sickening insult to the gentle Jesus and those who know him. He is a dupe with many dupees for supporting him, whether by word or deed.

Robertson is a plague upon the land. A self-satisfied baboon, a pharisee and hypocrite of the finest order.

He has his reward.

A Christian

>>>>>Hm, would Christ place him among the generation of vipers? I believe so.<<<<<<

By their deeds you shall know the vipers.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 6:52 PM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
MangyTiger
Member (Idle past 4005 days)
Posts: 989
From: Leicester, UK
Joined: 07-30-2004


Message 137 of 160 (242719)
09-12-2005 7:43 PM
Reply to: Message 135 by clpMINI
09-12-2005 11:13 AM


Re: Racist, con artist - who knows what else
From what I saw of the ABC story, first the director of Operation Blessing said that they never gave any money to CBN, but when confronted by the actually numbers, he said he wasn't going to talk about accounting practices.

That's right.

The 'explanation' I was refering to was given later in the piece (this is from the link to ABC News I gave):

A spokesman for Operation Blessing later told ABC News that the charity utilizes Robertson's television network as a conduit for delivering donations overseas, and that none of the money has been used for network activities.

I wouldn't particularly doubt that the money wasn't used for network activities - my guess is that it's in a location beyond the reach of the IRS and fiscal regulators - Switzerland, the Cayman Islands or somewhere like that.


I wish I didn't know now what I didn't know then
This message is a reply to:
 Message 135 by clpMINI, posted 09-12-2005 11:13 AM clpMINI has not yet responded

    
mick
Member (Idle past 2638 days)
Posts: 913
Joined: 02-17-2005


Message 138 of 160 (244932)
09-19-2005 1:24 PM
Reply to: Message 125 by Yaro
08-31-2005 7:00 AM


chavez kicks ass!
Just a note to the Chavez-bashers out there.

Chavez just announced that he will be shipping oil at below-market price to a Mexican-American community in Chicago starting in October; and he will be expanding the program to poor communities in Boston and New York in November. More information here

Why is he doing this? Part of the explanation was given in his recent address to the UN: He said "I believe one of the countries that require protection is precisely the United States. That was shown painfully with the tragedy caused by Hurricane Katrina; they do not have a government that protects them" (full text of his speech here (in Spanish at the top, English translation at the bottom). Another part of the explanation is in his leftist political ideology that "If you want to eliminate poverty, you have to empower the poor, not treat them as beggars".

This is a guy Americans want to assasinate???

Mick


This message is a reply to:
 Message 125 by Yaro, posted 08-31-2005 7:00 AM Yaro has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 139 by RAZD, posted 09-19-2005 11:21 PM mick has not yet responded

  
RAZD
Member
Posts: 19397
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004
Member Rating: 2.1


Message 139 of 160 (245058)
09-19-2005 11:21 PM
Reply to: Message 138 by mick
09-19-2005 1:24 PM


Re: chavez kicks ass!
Well,

It's not hard to be better than the Botch administration ... so the standard of measure is pretty low eh?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 138 by mick, posted 09-19-2005 1:24 PM mick has not yet responded

  
Dan Carroll 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2218 days)
Posts: 2904
From: Chicago, IL, USA
Joined: 04-04-2003


Message 140 of 160 (276470)
01-06-2006 5:07 PM


Continued from closed PR topic:

The Golfer writes:

Pat is liken to a watchman in the later days. Some of his comments should be taken from a biblical perspective.

So where in the "biblical perspective" does it justify funneling hurricane relief money into funding a TV network?

Seriously, I wanna know. If I can pull that kinda scam off, and keep it all kosher with the man upstairs, I'll be sittin' pretty.


"I fail to comprehend your indignation, sir. I've simply made the logical deduction that you are a liar."
-Spock
    
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 5681
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 141 of 160 (277466)
01-09-2006 6:56 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by crashfrog
08-26-2005 6:52 PM


Sorry for jumping late
What an idiot. I did not know all that about Pat.

I actually liked most of the things he has to say, but recently, he has put his foot in his mouth, and I think he is losing it. Maybe all that wealth and power is getting to him, as usual, this always happens with Christian leaders who gain too much.

I can't believe he owns a diamond mine, what a joke.

And I agree, why isn't there protests to ban this guy, why is he the best we got. Probably the whole network is corrupt.

Clearly this man is not a good representative of Christ, as are most TVangelists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by crashfrog, posted 08-26-2005 6:52 PM crashfrog has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2006 1:03 AM riVeRraT has responded

  
crashfrog
Inactive Member


Message 142 of 160 (277675)
01-10-2006 1:03 AM
Reply to: Message 141 by riVeRraT
01-09-2006 6:56 AM


Re: Sorry for jumping late
And I agree, why isn't there protests to ban this guy, why is he the best we got. Probably the whole network is corrupt.

Because more people watch his show than watch MSNBC.

That's right. More people watch Robertson than watch the news. That's some 800,000 people. That's why prominent conservatives appear on his show; that's why Karl Rove consults Robertson and Dobson about Bush's judicial nominees.

The Left Behind series is the most popular series of books among adults in the country. In what sense is Robertson not the representative of conservativism?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 141 by riVeRraT, posted 01-09-2006 6:56 AM riVeRraT has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 143 by riVeRraT, posted 01-11-2006 7:12 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 34 days)
Posts: 5681
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 143 of 160 (278008)
01-11-2006 7:12 AM
Reply to: Message 142 by crashfrog
01-10-2006 1:03 AM


Re: Sorry for jumping late

In what sense is Robertson not the representative of conservativism?

In what sense is conservatism a representative of Christ,,,,really,,,??

I do not how one could study Christ's word, and then say it is.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 142 by crashfrog, posted 01-10-2006 1:03 AM crashfrog has not yet responded

  
FreddyFlash
Inactive Member


Message 144 of 160 (289906)
02-23-2006 9:02 PM
Reply to: Message 70 by randman
08-27-2005 3:32 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
randman:

What is the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?"

Where can I find evidence that the term "separation of church and state" was coined by the Anabaptists, but was used as far back as the Donatists?

What exactly is "governmental participation of religious worship?"

What is "governmental establishment in the law?"

What was the role of the Congressional Chaplains during the First U. S. Congress?

Where can I find evidence that the First U. S. Congress opened with prayer?

Which founders said that religion and politics should be inextricable?

Whatwas the founders fundamental principle of religious freedom?

Fred


This message is a reply to:
 Message 70 by randman, posted 08-27-2005 3:32 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 145 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 12:51 AM FreddyFlash has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 145 of 160 (289922)
02-24-2006 12:51 AM
Reply to: Message 144 by FreddyFlash
02-23-2006 9:02 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Freddy, some of this in terms of my knowledge comes from resources, books, stuff I learned in college and seminary, and so is not easily linked to on the web. So what I would do if I were you is to do some research on your own. I will google some items for you to what web verification material is out there for some questions, but you should also take some time to educate yourself.

One book I would highly recommend to anyone to get started with a deeper understanding of these ideas stemming from the Reformation is:

"The Reformers and Their Stepchildren" by Learnurd Verduin, who had a Fulbright scholarship to do some research in the 50s and spent a lot of time poring over original source material, some of which had been locked away. He quotes the original players in these things themselves, from Swingli, Luther, etc,....and from older documents. He gives a necessary historical balance to story of the Anabaptist tradition even though he comes from a different theological perspective, Reformed.

What is the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?"

You would have to define what "traditional Christian" means? What it means to me may be different than what you think. The traditional concept, imo, is set forth by Jesus in making compulsion to his teachings voluntary, to envisioning soceity consisting of divided religious loyalties between his followers and the world, and exemplified by his statement to "give to Ceaser what is Ceaser's" and to God, what is His.

Separation of Church and State however does not mean separation of God from the State. Paul refers to both as under God, but separate, one a minister of the gospel and another of justice, and reading his writings more fully, he goes as far as to advocate separate voluntary courts for the Church so as to not entangle the Body of Christ before the law, something Jesus also talks about.

Where can I find evidence that the term "separation of church and state" was coined by the Anabaptists, but was used as far back as the Donatists?

I would recommend googling the phrase, and then searching in the found results Anabaptists and Donatists.

"Anabaptists", are many groups who adopted many of the beliefs of Zwingli, but later would fight him, and adopt many of the Calvin's theories.

- With "Grebel" (1920), they started saying that the Reforms of Luther didn't went far enough, keeping the baptism of children and the other sacraments... so, the first thing was to "re-baptize" all the children by immersion at older age, and to leave the Eucharist only as a "symbol".

... The "born-again" experience, is one distinguishing mark of the Anabaptists, giving emphasis upon the emotional, mystical experience, of having born-again at the moment of the Baptism by immersion at adult age.

... "A complete separation of church and state" to protect the liberty of the church, is another feature of the Anabaptists.

- Hoffman tried to erect a "kingdom of God" in Munster, without success.

- Anabaptists are of the "congregational" type, where each local church is autonomous... there is no Pope!... but now each congregation has its own self-named "little Pope", not the successor of Peter, but more demanding!.

- Another group, with Menno Simons, founded the "Mennonites" (after Menno) in Holland, who later went to Pennsylvania in 1653... the Hutterine Brethren", also went to Pennsylvania...

- A fourth group, the "Amish", led by the stern disciplinarian, Amman, went to Ohio, Illinois...

- The "American Baptists", are also heirs of the Anabaptist tradition, with congregational type of churches, but repudiate such a label, because of the pejorative connotations of Anabaptists...

- The same goes for the "English Separatists or Congregationalists", who took many tenets from Calvin... many were persecuted by the Puritans as heretics, fled to Holland for religious freedom and safety, and some of these "heretics" would end up in the USA on the "Mayflower", as the Pilgrim fathers of America.

- Other groups: "German Baptists" or Dunkars, went to America in 1723; the German Moravians, became the United Brethren Church in 1735.

http://religion-cults.com/Christianity/Protestant/P-Denominations-1.htm

Zwingli and the Zurich City Council reacted against the so-called Anabaptists with a program of intense persecution. The persecution in Zurich and other parts of Switzerland drove many Anabaptists to the neighboring northern and eastern areas--Alsace, the Palatinate, Tyrol, Moravia and the Netherlands. A number of Anabaptists gathered in Moravia in 1528, organized along communal lines and took their name from Jacob Hutter who joined the group in 1529.4 Thus began the Hutterian Brethren. In the Netherlands (Holland) a Catholic priest, Menno Simons, after some deep inner turmoil, joined the Anabaptist movement in 1536. In time he became the leader of the Dutch Anabaptists (Doopesgezinde). His followers were soon referred to as "Menists" and finally as "Mennonites".5

The Anabaptists gave considerable emphasis to the ideas presented in the following paragraphs:
....
Concept of the Church. To understand the Anabaptist concept of the church one must remember that they rejected the monolithic totalitarian view of society where the state and Christian church were united as one coterminous unit, and replaced it with two spheres: the church and the world.19 This concept of a voluntary church within a larger society set the Anabaptists apart from the Roman Catholic church and the Protestant reformers, Luther, Zwingli, and Calvin. A head-on clash between these concepts was inevitable between those who focused upon the realization of a pure church, and those who concentrated upon a monolithic society.

The Anabaptists aimed at the establishment of a church based on the pattern of the church in the New Testament; i.e., the visible body of Christ composed of regenerated individuals. This they viewed in two dimensions. In its vertical relationship, the church was the body of Christ of which He was the living head. Viewed horizontally, the church was a voluntary fellowship of believers.20

The ideal spiritual objective of the early Anabaptists was to actualize the true body of Christ on earth, the church as presented in the New Testament.

...
The concept of separation from secular society led the Anabaptists to insist on separation of church and state. They looked upon the state as ordained of God and as the instrument of God in the non-Christian world; but since Christians lived in the Church, they were to have no positive relationship with an institution created for sinners.26 Separation of church and state meant rejection of the civil arm in matters of religion, and was a factor in the strong stress on religious liberty.27 Rejection of the state in matters of religion and the stress on religious liberty, coupled with the concept of non-resistance, resulted in the concept of the suffering church.

There were, however, two notable exceptions to separation from the world. The first was a strong missionary program, and the second was a vigorous critique of the social order.28

http://www.swissmennonite.org/history/history.html

In 1612 John Smyth wrote, "the magistrate is not by virtue of his office to meddle with religion, or matters of conscience". That same year, Thomas Helwys wrote that the King of England could "command what of man he will, and we are to obey it," but concerning the church -- "with this Kingdom, our lord the King hath nothing to do." In 1614, Leonard Busher wrote what is believed to be the earliest Baptist treatise dealing exclusively with the subject of religious liberty. Baptists were influential in the formation of the first civil government based on the separation of church and state in what is now Rhode Island. Anabaptists and Quakers also share a strong history in the development of separation of church and state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baptists#Separation_of_church_and_state

Perhaps we can take up these questions and the others on a different thread?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 144 by FreddyFlash, posted 02-23-2006 9:02 PM FreddyFlash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 146 by FreddyFlash, posted 02-24-2006 10:19 AM randman has responded

  
FreddyFlash
Inactive Member


Message 146 of 160 (290050)
02-24-2006 10:19 AM
Reply to: Message 145 by randman
02-24-2006 12:51 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
randman:

If the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state" does not mean separation of God from the State, then what does it mean exactly? What is the fundamental principle?

Was the First Amendment intended to express the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?” Which one of the framers was the most ardent and articulate champion of the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?"

What exactly is it that we should we render unto Caesar, and what to God? Is it a giving to Caesr what belongs to God if we obey the Ten Commandments because the government recommends that we should?

Should we listen to advice and recommendations from the Government regarding the duty which we owe to the Creator? Shouldn't we listen only to God regarding religious matters? Does God alone rule the conscience of man or does the Almighty share that authority with the government?

Should Eve have listened to the religious advice of the Serpent?

Where does the government obtain the moral authority to recommend that we should obey the Ten Commandments or a belief in “one Nation under God?”

Where did Jesus talk about separate voluntary courts for the Church and what was the purpose of these courts?

Please cite one good source to back up your claim that the term "separation of church and state" was coined by the Anabaptists, but was used as far back as the Donatists. I know the concept goes back at least to the 1500’s with the Baptists, but you are talking about the term?

Does Paul's concept that God is the civil and religious authority conflict with Christ's concept that "My Kingdom is not of this world" and "Render unto Caesar only that which does not belong to God?"

Why didn't Christ, when he was on trial, claim authority over the civil govenment and Pilate? Was the civil government included in the Kingdom of Christ?

Fred


This message is a reply to:
 Message 145 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 12:51 AM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 12:46 PM FreddyFlash has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 147 of 160 (290098)
02-24-2006 12:46 PM
Reply to: Message 146 by FreddyFlash
02-24-2006 10:19 AM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
If the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state" does not mean separation of God from the State, then what does it mean exactly? What is the fundamental principle?

The principle is based on the concept that the Church consists of regenerate (born-again) people that of their own free will decide to follow Jesus. The idea is that the State has no right to compel anyone to follow Christ, as that perverts the whole principle of people voluntarily making that choice.

Before Christ, people thought there had to be a common sacral rite, some commonality in religion, in order for society to function. Even the Old Testament reflects this, although the believer would argue by God's intention. The idea that a soceity could successfully function while being religiously divided was seen as ludicrous in the ancient world and even as late as the founding of the American colonies. Mainstream opinion was that only fools like the Quakers thought they could be successful in allowing religious liberty, and they thought Pennsylvania's experiment in that regard would not work well.

But it did work well.

The Christian idea is that both the Church and State are responsible and accountable to God, but that both have different and separate spheres of authority. The Church deals with ecclesiastical and spiritual matters, and the State is forbidden to intervene or involve itself there. The State though has a legitimate God-given function administering justice, keeping the peace, etc,....The traditional Christian idea thus places restrictions on kings and the State not found before.

Moreover, the Christian idea is that the individual and his conscience constitute an internal government respected by God in the sense that God ordains that men must be true to their conscience, and thus should never be compelled for force to sin against their own conscience.

Was the First Amendment intended to express the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?”

Yes.

Which one of the framers was the most ardent and articulate champion of the traditional Christian concept of "separation of church and state?"

First off, I think you need to recognize the concept originated and was placed into prominent practice in the colonies, or some such as Rhode Island and Pennsylvania, long before any of the framers were born. The framers were not then originating anything new in that regard, and were greatly influenced by men like Isaac Backus who lobbied them hard.

But the truth is many framers went along with the establishment clause as much to protect state's rights and official state churches as to ordain religious liberty. Massuchusetts was not required to give up having an official religion and religious requirements for office-holders. So the idea was to keep Congress out of picking an official church because some colonies had state religions, some had state religions but in name only, and some believed in religious liberty and separation of Church and State.

The free exercise clause, imo, is the stating essentially the same purpose. The reason not to have an established church is so that religious expression and freedom would not be hindered.

The term "separation of Church and State" is not in the Constitution of course, and the Supreme Court quoting Jefferson in a decision I believe some decades ago does not amply illustrate that Jefferson wrote to the Baptists and was thus using their term. In fact, the "wall of separation" language simply echoes Roger Williams theology when he helped found Rhose Island, which in turn is based explicitly on Anabaptist theology.

What exactly is it that we should we render unto Caesar, and what to God?

Jesus referred to taxes, but I think though there are areas perhaps that are challenging to parse, the general idea is that civil matters and spiritual and ecclesiastical matters can be separated and dealt with by different institutions and groups.

Should we listen to advice and recommendations from the Government regarding the duty which we owe to the Creator?

What country are you referring to that does that? The simple answer is that regardless of who says something, if it is true, we should abide by it, and if not and it involves a duty to God, we should not abide by it. God comes first, not the State.

Where does the government obtain the moral authority to recommend that we should obey the Ten Commandments or a belief in “one Nation under God?”

I have virtually no idea what the heck are you talking about. The Ten Commandments? Does the anyone try to codify the whole Decalogue into law?

Where did Jesus talk about separate voluntary courts for the Church and what was the purpose of these courts?

Jesus says if your brother offend you, first go to him yourself, then take another brother and then bring it before the whole Church, and Paul advises the believers to pick out a wise among them to decide matters so we don't have believers appearing before the heathen for judgment. I am quite busy, but if you don't find these references, maybe tonight or this weekend, I can look them up for you.

Please cite one good source to back up your claim that the term "separation of church and state" was coined by the Anabaptists, but was used as far back as the Donatists. I know the concept goes back at least to the 1500’s with the Baptists, but you are talking about the term?

If the concept was the same, then it doesn't matter, does it? But here ya go.

All those who hold the idea of a free church and freedom of religion (sometimes called separation of church and state) are greatly indebted to the Anabaptists. When it was introduced by the Anabaptists in the 15th and 16th centuries, religious freedom independent of the state was a radical idea, and unthinkable to both clerical and governmental leaders. Religious liberty was equated with anarchy and Peter Kropotkin traces the birth of anarchist thought in Europe to these early Anabaptist communities. ("Anarchism" from The Encyclopaedia Britannica, 1910 By Peter Kropotkin)

According to Estep, "Where men believe in the freedom of religion, supported by a guarantee of separation of church and state, they have entered into that heritage. Where men have caught the Anabaptist vision of discipleship, they have become worthy of that heritage. Where corporate discipleship submits itself to the New Testament pattern of the church, the heir has then entered full possession of his legacy."

also

The present concept and idea of Anabaptism or rebaptism has existed at least since the 2nd century, and some Anabaptists also point to the 1st century example of the Apostle Paul in Acts chapter 19. Montanus, the Montanists, and Tertullian (2nd and 3rd centuries) denied infant baptism, practiced believer's baptism, and rebaptized those baptized by heretics. The Donatists (4th century) re-baptized those who had been baptized by bishops who were traditors, or who were from churches stained by fellowship with traditors[1]. Anabaptists (rebaptizers) were made criminals under the code of Justinian (A.D. 529). With anti-trinitarianism, it was one of two 'heresies' or schisms, punishable by death because of its political implications.

Their enemies and opposers gave Anabaptists their name; it is a term that means "rebaptizers." Nevertheless, the Anabaptists did not think of believer's baptism as "rebaptism". They did not recognize infant baptism as properly administered the first time. Though the main Anabaptist groups disagreed with few important Protestant doctrines, even the Protestants called them heretics. Zwingli called them Wiedertäufer (Dutch, Wederdooper; Latin, Anabaptistae), Täufer (Dutch, Dooper or Doopsgezinden), and Catabaptistae (drowners[2]). Luther called them Schwärmer (fanatics, enthusiasts). They have also been known as Bolsheveki and "Stepchildren of the Reformation". The most common names the Anabaptists used for themselves were brethren, believers and Christians.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabaptist

Note that the Wiki article does not deal with the Donatists specifically advocating "separation of Church and State" due to it's brevity, but it does mention the Donatists sharing a similar Anabaptist vision of the Church, and everything else flows out of that. The New Testament Christians and every restitutionist group such as the 16th century Anabaptists held to the view that the Church and the world are seperated spiritually. The Catholics introduced the concept that everyone in a geographic area in Christendom was Christian, and so the State should be allowed to enforce religion.

The Donatists rejected Catholicism. The reason they rebaptized was so that when a person of age committed to the Lord, their baptism could be of their own volition. If you understand the theology, then you can see that rebaptism and separation of Church and State must of necessity go hand in hand, except one can be for religious liberty and not for rebaptism, but not the other way around and be fully consistent in their theology.

Note as well that this theology goes further back than the Anabaptists.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 146 by FreddyFlash, posted 02-24-2006 10:19 AM FreddyFlash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 148 by FreddyFlash, posted 02-24-2006 3:01 PM randman has responded

  
FreddyFlash
Inactive Member


Message 148 of 160 (290144)
02-24-2006 3:01 PM
Reply to: Message 147 by randman
02-24-2006 12:46 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Hey randman:

Does the government have the authority to use reason and persuasion to convince some one to follow Christ or some other religious authority?

What is the solution if the King who is God’s authority on earth in both civil and religious matters, confounds his civil authority with his religious power?

If God ordains that men must be true to their conscience, then shouldn’t the government respect God’s exclusive authority over religion matters and avoid making laws that recommend religious opinions such a belief in “one Nation under God?”

Shouldn’t the government stay completely out the subject of whether or not this is “one Nation under God?” If God wants this to be “one Nation under God” do you really believe he needs or wants the government to assist him in promulgating that proposition?

In 1789, only three states of the thirteen had any lawful authority to establish religion that they would have been motivated to preserve. Seven State had banned establishments of religion altogether by 1789, one State Maryland) had the power “on paper” but it was never exercised, Georgia did away with its wimpy establishment of religion (although it is hard to prove it every really had one) a month before the First Amendment was framed; and South Carolina’s even wimpier establishment was shot dead before the Great Amendment was out of diapers.

Why wouldn’t the seven States that had already established a Separation of Church and State by 1789, and the three that would soon do so, not have wanted to protect the Separation of Government and Religion by stripping the federal government of all power over the duty that is owed to the Creator, just as the ten State governments were stripped of such authority?

How do you explain the fact that the Federalist’s “no establishment of a national church like the Church of England” interpretation of the establishment clause was not the prevailing view during the Early Years of the Republic; and that James Madison’s “Total Separation of Religion and Government” interpretation prevailed in every dispute over the meaning of the establishment clause during the Early Years of the Republic?

Name one dispute over the establishment clause during the Early Years of the Republic where Madison's view did not prevail?

Fred


This message is a reply to:
 Message 147 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 12:46 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 3:15 PM FreddyFlash has responded

  
randman 
Suspended Member (Idle past 2551 days)
Posts: 6367
Joined: 05-26-2005


Message 149 of 160 (290147)
02-24-2006 3:15 PM
Reply to: Message 148 by FreddyFlash
02-24-2006 3:01 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
Does the government have the authority to use reason and persuasion to convince some one to follow Christ or some other religious authority?

What is the solution if the King who is God’s authority on earth in both civil and religious matters, confounds his civil authority with his religious power?

Freddy, I have already answered you. What don't you understand?

If God ordains that men must be true to their conscience, then shouldn’t the government respect God’s exclusive authority over religion matters and avoid making laws that recommend religious opinions such a belief in “one Nation under God?”

Shouldn’t the government stay completely out the subject of whether or not this is “one Nation under God?” If God wants this to be “one Nation under God” do you really believe he needs or wants the government to assist him in promulgating that proposition?

How does that affect someone's conscience? Sorry, but just because someone is offended does not mean we need to disallow public praise or mention of God or the Creator. People should not be forced to convert or believe, but the government can and should give thanks to God. If someone does not like that, he or she can just not participate in the thanksgiving or whatever. The idea is religious freedom, and that includes freedom for public officials and the State to acknowledge God, provided it is non-sectarian and non-coercive.

How do you explain the fact that the Federalist’s “no establishment of a national church like the Church of England” interpretation of the establishment clause was not the prevailing view during the Early Years of the Republic

First off, separation of Church and State was the prevailing view of most states, as you just admitted to. But some like Massachusetts did have official state churches. Moreover, right from the beginning, we had separation of Church and State in Rhode Island and Pennsylvania very early on.

So I am not sure what you are getting at.

You mention Madison's view as if you have a point, but don't specify. For example, was it Madison's views that Congressional chaplain be hired? I think Madison was actually oppossed to that one.

Read Washington's inaugural address. He flat out makes a large point to give thanks to the Creator who had divinely blessed this nation, and says it is an official act. Doesn't sound too concerned with how that generic thanks to God could entangle the government with religion.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 148 by FreddyFlash, posted 02-24-2006 3:01 PM FreddyFlash has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 150 by FreddyFlash, posted 02-24-2006 4:22 PM randman has responded

  
FreddyFlash
Inactive Member


Message 150 of 160 (290153)
02-24-2006 4:22 PM
Reply to: Message 149 by randman
02-24-2006 3:15 PM


Re: the wiki article seems bogus
My Dear Friend Randman:

I shall assume that you believe the government has the authority to use reason and persuasion to convince some one to follow Christ or some other religious authority.

I still am not clear on the solution in the event the King confounds his civil authority with his religious power?

How can an abstract concept like the government give thanks to God? Only individuals can give thanks to God.

How do we distinguish between a public official or the government acknowledging God and establishing a duty to God? Was Roy Moore simply acknowledging God with his Ten Commandments monument? What about the law recommending a daily recital of belief in “one Nation under God?”

Why did God give man a conscience?

Is it the right to the free exercise of relgion according to the dictates of God, or according to the advice of the government?

Does “public praise for God” include praise prompted by the government? Are we to praise God as prompted by God, or as prompted by the government, or do they share that power?

What is the difference between a government mention of God and an establishment of of the duty to believe in God?

Do you know that the Chaplains to the First U. S. Congress were paid less than messengers and janitors and that all they ever did for the First Congress in two years was perform one prayer service in a church?

Have you ever read George Washington's second inaugural address? http://www.bartleby.com/124/pres14.html

Why do you suppose the Great General toned it down so much the second time around? Do you suppose the tall tale about James Madison and T. J. kicking Washington’s butt into line on the Separation of Church and State, is really true?

Are you familiar with Elisha Williams?

Fred


This message is a reply to:
 Message 149 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 3:15 PM randman has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 151 by randman, posted 02-24-2006 5:08 PM FreddyFlash has responded
 Message 153 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-24-2006 6:34 PM FreddyFlash has responded

  
Prev1
...
6789
10
11Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018