Air Force Academy creates worship area for Pagans, Druids, and Wiccans

It doesn't OVERRIDE it, it INTERPRETS it, it gives context to it. Otherwise you read your own contemporary prejudices about the meaning of the words into it. The opinion of a founder of the nation ought to count for a great deal.Some quotes from John Adams’ first State of the Union addressJohn Adams' First State of the Union Address - Wikisource, the free online library : The above has an indirect statement of thanks to God (the source of benevolence) and a reference to our moral and religious principles, which rather does identify the entire nation with whatever he thinks those are. And this is said in a context that includes a reference to injustice and violence at sea which of course refers to the piracy which was the occasion of the Treaty of Tripoli. Here we have a statement of his view of the morally degenerated condition of France which strongly implies the importance in his mind of a strong sense of moral and religious obligations and of public faith and national honor as the source of any trustworthy agreement between the two nations.Hardly a recommendation of the French Revolution or any of its designers by the way.I’m reading these documents with an eye to demonstrating his religious views but it’s also interesting to note that he also goes on to mention foreign influence on the Indians against the U.S. I don’t think I’d ever run across this before.His second State of the Union addressJohn Adams' Second State of the Union Address - Wikisource, the free online library : Acknowledgment of Divine Providence in both the sufferings, including from diseases, and blessings of the nation, with gratitude for the latter. The third State of the Union address: The fourth: For context to his statements about religion and morality:Adams was a Unitarian and not a traditional Christian and had many ideas about religion that a Bible believing Christian would disagree with, but he nevertheless strongly endorsed general Christian principles. The Wikipedia article about him has: Just for some background about another founder: In public addresses Washington also did not specifically refer to Christian beliefs but said such things as this from his farewell speech to the nationhttp://www.access.gpo.gov/...ss/senate/farewell/sd106-21.pdf : But what he meant by his terms becomes more specifically Christian when you read some other quotes by and about Washington: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Unfortunately some did. Much later, though, in and after the Reformation, and in Luther's case he regretted having any part in it. Calvin seems to have retained too much of the Catholic idea that it's right to persecute heretics, and that spirit has erupted from time to time since, quite true, but in brief limited events against which soberer minds soon prevailed, nothing like the Inquisition.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

That simple direct language means something different to you than it meant to them. You have a modern secularist idea of all these things. They never ever thought in terms of government or life without God -- this is even true of the least religious of the founders, Jefferson and Franklin -- and the God they all refer to in their private correspondence is always the God of the Bible. I didn't say he believed that in those terms. I don't think he contradicted himself. You might if you give a different meaning to the Treaty's words than he does. But he clearly considered the U.S. to be founded on Christian PRINCIPLES and required these of the citizenry to guarantee our freedoms. See above. That's because it is not based on the Christian religion per se but on principles derived from it, and it is shot through with these. Seeing this takes understanding the historical context of the time and I don't claim to know a great deal about it myself but I have no doubt encountered more information about that era that supports my views than you have. It isn't a "Christian state" in the sense you are using the term. That is WHY the Constitution outlawed an established religion and religious tests. I could argue that they expected too much of their citizenry (although they did warn against our losing our republic if we failed to maintain our moral heritage) as we have lost everything they took for granted in those days about the moral and religious nature of the population the government was designed for. They knew we live in a fallen world and they didn't want to compel anyone to accept anything against his or her conscience, and they did guarantee freedom of religion for all in that sense.But at the same time you have to reckon with the fact that they DID open Congress with prayer, and prayer in the name of Jesus Christ yet, and I believe I remember that as late as 1920 new members of Congress were welcomed in the name of Jesus Christ, and that many Presidents, notably Lincoln, even Presidents without the most traditional Christian beliefs, called on God in their speeches, and even called for times of fasting and prayer for the nation.You find all that contradictory with your nonreligious understanding of the Treaty of Tripoli and the Constitution, because you can only think in terms of religion or nonreligion, you don't have a Christian culture in mind that was shot through with Christian principles that permeated every aspect of the thinking in those days. But that's what Christians have in mind when we talk about the Christian character of this country. It was more Christian than any other nation on this earth had ever been, not only in the beliefs of its population but in the principles on which the government and the laws were founded.DeToqueville witnessed to the saturation of the lives of the people with religion and their political life and assumptions as well -- not any religion, the Christian religion. The Constitution could not ever have been written without it. The specific differences in belief of the founders, the "Deism" the lack of religious language in some documents, are not proof against the fact that EVERYTHING American in those days was Christian to such an extent that it didn't have to be said on all occasions for it to be assumed. And it often WASN'T explicitly said because they DID want to extend the blessings of Christian freedoms to all peoples of whatever beliefs. The problem is that we've lost that frame of reference today after a century or two of gradual erosion. It doesn't restrict freedoms to Christianity, the whole system of freedoms was made possible by Christianity, and if you take it away you also take away the freedoms.Again, I'm saying that it was the Christian principles embodied in our Constitution and our Laws that established this freedom and all our other freedoms and inspired the writing of them into our Constitution. It was necessary but it may be a big part of the reason why the nation has lost its original Christian character since only a Christian with a strong historical sense -- and there are few of us around unfortunately -- would understand what the founders meant. But if we made sure all citizens had a good solid education in the founding principles members of other religions could adhere to them without believing in the religion itself. Well, many of the Christians felt betrayed by the nonreligious language in the Constitution and it may be that our form of government, viable as so many said only on the moral and religious character of the people, was doomed to degenerate despite its lofty concepts and despite its apparent recognition of the tendencies of fallen human nature to undo it all. That's because it is NOT a Christian government in THAT sense. Thank you. Actually, mine don't but yours do.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

You may be able to infer some of them from the speeches of Adams and Washington I linked a few posts above, about the moral condition of the nation and of France for example.

I do not deny that there was some, but please name the incidents of Protestant blood on their hands and give statistics comparing the scope of their offenses to the Catholic church's.Scope matters, and source matters. A few leaders still barely out of the Catholic church or a few wrongheaded ones corrected by the soberer ones cannot compare to a concerted program of persecution, torture and murder conducted over centuries -- and even before the office of the Inquisition was officially established.Thank you

I'm sorry you don't see the difference.ABE: But to try to state it: religion is NOTHING BUT following rituals and do's and don't's, no relationship with God whatever.Christianity is relationship with Christ and obedience follows from the relationship and done in love to Him.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Sorry, freedom of religion IS derived from Christianity whether you can see it or not. It has to do with the recognition of the individual's conscience in determining his own private relationship with God. That did come through Locke from Owen as I understand it but I don't do a good job of keeping my references, and if I have a computer blowout which I do from time to time, they're all gone, and anyway I can't find this right now.Here's an article about the principles embodied in Blackstone's Commentaries, the main legal commentaries used at the time of the founding, well known by the founders, showing the lineage of some of the main ideas in the founding documents:Blackstone's View of Natural Law and American Law Blackstone embodies a Christian perspective on the law and Blackstone strongly influenced the American founders. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, if you've eliminated the grounds on which I might make my case, the views of the founders, obviously there's no point in trying to answer you. You will always be right about what their words mean if their opinions are unimportant to you.

Well, then you produce that evidence.I say it came through Locke and I know he was taught by John Owen and I know that John Owen had suffered as a Puritan the intolerance of his beliefs by the established English church, and he wrote prodigiously about the necessity of honoring freedom of conscience, which is the main basis for freedom of religion as it says belief cannot be compelled and must be kept free of coercion. So all the quotations I've given from the American founders mean nothing at all then, where I showed that they disagree with you in that they believed only a moral and religious people could support a government based on freedom. You can just rewrite their words to mean whatever you think they should mean from a context that wasn't their own. Nobody was fighting in Constitutional America. DeToqueville reported on a peaceful society saturated in a spirit of religion that the people held to be indistinguishable from their political life. No, this is no longer a Christian nation and that would be forcing a Christian view on people who don't accept it. Such a decision should have a clear consensus behind it.But I will agree with Buz as I originally did on this thread that it threatens the security of the nation to officially support or endorse pagan religions in any way. But this is being done in so many ways these days making an issue of Wicca is probably superfluous. The AF already made provision for other pagan religions, and pagan religions are already hosted in the nation's National Cathedral too, and all that already threatens the security of the nation.So no, there's no point in objecting, but there may at least be a point in warning that there will eventually be consequences as God does not tolerate idolatrous religions for long, and America is more vulnerable to His judgment than most because we were originally a Christian nation.Although there's probably not even much point to that in the end either. If our Christian roots are that far gone nobody's going to listen anyway.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

So I'll amend it to say that freedom of religion in the West is derived from Christianity.And I'd also like to point out that in other cultures where there is supposedly freedom of religion when Christianity joins in it's not accepted. The Romans were quite happy with all their religions and would have accepted Christianity too except that Christians wouldn't worship Caesar or any other god. That made them "atheists" and targets for persecution.Hinduism is also supposedly tolerant of other religions because of their own huge collection of gods, but Hindus are persecuting native Christians in India.The Biblical God is not much tolerated by the pagan religions anywhere really. When the Jews were in Babylon there was also a decree that they were to worship the Emperor and the prophet Daniel refused because they weren't to worship anyone but God, and was thrown in the lion's den for that.It's always the Biblical God who is at odds with all the other religions on the planet. You can have them or Him but you can't have both.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Yes, a perfect statement of the pagan version of freedom of religion.The Christian version certainly doesn't require HONORING other religions, merely respecting the conscience of individual human beings. That's what tolerance is, it's not honoring, it's respectfully tolerating, but if honoring, then honoring human choice, because human beings are made in the image of God and their conscience is to be respected, but not the religions they choose. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Well, but you do need the Christian version of religious freedom for the kind of religious freedom that we have. What they have is not the same freedom of religion, it's simply one pagan god honoring another, but not the true God. But the true God respects His human creation and their choices and honors them despite their religions. Surely the will of Caesar counts in the place of a Constitution as far as Roman law goes. The Caesars would quite happily have tolerated all religions but not one that refused to worship Caesar. Well, Indian law isn't doing anything to stop it. And don't be misled, it's a religious motivation behind it, not nationalism though they mix the two. And it's other INDIANS they are persecuting. And the KKK is outlawed and subject to legal action against their criminal behavior. Well, among themselves, sure that's possible. All pagan religions have a lot in common with each other.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Don't confuse evangelism with the law guaranteeing religious freedom. You have every right to your beliefs but we may also tell you why your beliefs are wrong.

Yes, but in exalting virtue he is explicitly denying the right to exalt one's creed above others and requiring rendering honor to other creeds. This can only be done among followers of equal gods, but Christians do have the "arrogance" to believe we are following THE one and only God above them all, and we cannot say or do anything to imply otherwise. That always eventually puts us under persecution wherever the pagan gods are exalted. Don't think so. "One must not exalt one’s creed discrediting all others, nor must one degrade these others Without legitimate reasons. One must, on the contrary, render to other creeds the honour befitting them .The creeds, not the believers in them. Soon as a Christian dares to suggest to a follower of another creed that Jesus Christ offers him forgiveness of sin through His death on the cross, and eternal life in the presence of God, end of "religious freedom" for Christians because that's exalting one's own creed and dishonoring the other creeds.

Apparently it's mostly that the persecutions are so out of control that the government can't do much about them. Page not Found :( - Gospel for Asia But the Christians aren't getting much protection whatever the reason. The brutality is incredible. Beating, hitting with sticks, kicking in the face and body until they die. Stripping the clothes off the women and chasing them naked through the streets, kicking them in the genitals. I got some pictures of thse things from a little church in india.Sometimes when the police do intervene it's on the side of the Hindus: And in the state of Orissa where all this is going on there are laws against the Christians: