separation of church and state - a christian perspective please.

State an church are controlled by satanists, so just dont believe both, they are promoting humanism, atheism and all this stuff to destroy the morals of the people. They need to do this before the antichrist arrives and they are being succesful. All atheists and people who want the separation of state and church will easily accept the one state and one church under the antichrist. You know that our rulers are conspirating against Yeshua the Most High God.

Loko,I am going to give you one warning.Please stop spamming this board with nonsense.If you do not, you will be banned.

Elisha Williams (1694’1755) express his view of Separation of Church and State in a 1744 essay titled "The Essential Rights and Liberties of Protestants."I suspect that Thomas Jefferson borrowed the theme of no government intermeddling in religion from Williams.Jefferson wrote: Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle. (letter to Robert Rush, 1813).Williams wrote:If Christians keep from indecency and disorder in their worship, they come up to the rule given by the Apostle in the now mentioned text; and this they may certainly do without the civil magistrate’s determining any thing about it. Christians observed this apostolick precept as well before there was any such thing as a Christian magistrate to be found, as they have done since: And may do it as well to the second coming of Christ, without the civil magistrate’s intermeddling in this matter (not to say with more honour to Christ and greater peace in the church, if he forbears his injunctions). So that it is impossible to get an inference from this text in favour of the civil authority’s determining any thing by their laws in these cases. Williams used the term "private judgment in matters of religion" for what Thomas Jefferson called "Separation of Church and State."That the civil authority ought to protect all their subjects in the enjoyment of this right of private judgment in matters of religion, and the liberty of worshipping God according to their consciences.

No, i don't think jefferson borrowed it from one person, but took the ideas of many people, rationalist, religous,and non-religous when he started on the road to the idea
heres a page on john locke who is also attributed with influencing the revolution and seperation Locke, John | Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

James Madison kicked John Locke's butt at the Virginia Convention of 1776 that adopted the Virginia Bill of Rights. John Locke spoke of "religious toleration." James Madison preached the full and equal rights of conscience.FVF

Dear Mick:Scalia, Thomas and the other scoundrels who want to unite church and state in the U. S. are Counterfeit Christians like Patrick Henry and Oliver Ellsworth who view religion as merely a tool to be used by the government to achieve its temporal objectives. They reject the authority of Christ and believe instead in the rendering to Caesar what belongs only to God and joining together what God hath put assunder.Scalia claims that we are a religious people whose institutions presuppose a Supreme Being. However, he is so ill informed or so evil that he does not realize that the institution of Church State Separation was ordained by the Supreme Being.Scalia believes that the myth of George Washington and "so help me God" is legal precedent for a civil recommendation to acknowledge only the God who delivered the Children of Israel out of bondage in Egypt, to make no graven image, to not take God's name in vain, not to bow down to a graven image and to remember the Sabbath and to keep it holy. The source of his claim about Washington adding "so help me God" is a guy who wrote a book a few years ago. Scalia offers no contemporary historical evidence for his claim.Presented below is the official account of the swearing in ceremony of President George Washington on April 30, 1789. There is no mention of “so help me God.”Journal of the Senate of the United States of America, 1789-1793

​

THURSDAY, APRIL 30, 1789.

​

The Senate assembled: present as yesterday.

​

The report of the Committee on the mode of communications between the Senate and House of Representatives, was taken up, and, after debate, postponed.

​

Mr. Lee, in behalf of the committee appointed to take order far conducting the ceremonial of the formal reception, &c. of the President of the United States, having informed the Senate that the same was adjusted; the House of Representatives were notified that the Senate were ready to receive them in the Senate Chamber, to attend the President of the United States while taking the oath required by the Constitution. Whereupon, the House of Representatives, preceded by their Speaker, came into the Senate Chamber, and look the seats assigned them; and the joint committee, preceded by their chairman, agreeably to order, introduced the President of the United States to the Senate Chamber, where he was received by the Vice President, who conducted him to the Chair; when the Vice President informed him, that "the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States were ready to attend him to take the oath required by the Constitution, and that it would be administered by the Chancellor of the state of New York." To which the President replied, he was ready to proceed: and being attended to the gallery in front of the Senate Chamber, by the Vice President and Senators, the Speaker and Representatives, and the other public characters present, the oath was administered. After which the Chancellor proclaimed, "Long live George Washington President of the United States."

​

The President having returned to his seat, after a short pause arose, and addressed the Senate and House of Representatives . . . . http://memory.loc.gov/...FVF Changed URL display length to fix page width - The Queen
This message has been edited by FreddyFlash, 04-24-2006 11:22 AMThis message has been edited by AdminAsgara, 04-25-2006 07:30 AM

Your inconography?...

and this has what to do with the price of tea in china?

Dear Tal:You wrote that: What the founding fathers did not want was a Church of America, like England had way back in the day. That's why they put in the constitution that Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of any religion. That doesn't translate into "take the commandments out of the courthouse" in my view.The men who established our system of government did not post the Ten Commandment at their conventions nor is one of them known to have advocated shuch a thing. The First U. S. Congress declined the proposal, I doubt that there really was one, to place the Ten Commandments in the Federal Courts. No State government, during the founding era or the formative years of the Republic is known to have posted the Ten Commandments anywhere.Religion is the duty which we owe to our Creator. If having no God other than the one who delivered the Israelites from bondage in the land of Egypt is not a duty which is owed to the Creator, then what is?FVF

The debate is essentially between those who see themselves as upholding existing law versus those who see their job as reinterpretation of law. In this link, the ACLJ soundly defeats the ACLUs tired position regarding seperation of church and state. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.Consider this:Is it a prayer?
The following verse was read each day to a Florida kindergarten class. The school board said the purpose of the verse was to calm kids down and create a sense of appreciation for the world. Is the verse a prayer? How are students likely to interpret "you"? Could
"you" be Mother Nature or a Giant Slug?
We thank you for the flowers so sweet;
We thank you for the food we eat;
We thank you for the birds that sing;
We thank you for everything.This message has been edited by Phat, 04-25-2006 06:56 AM

Dear ACLJ:Since when do we find the meaning of the Constitution, with respect to religious liberty, in the actions of the national government? However, if we are going to do so, shouldn't we focus on the actions of Congress during the formative years of the Republic? Say the first-half century? Also, shouldn't we consider what Congress did not do - as well as what it did do?Please present some legitimate historical evidence (not just the unsupported claims in a legal opinion written by a lazy or devious Supreme Court Justice) that the Chaplains to the First U. S. Congress were initially employed by Congress to offer daily prayers in the Congress.Please show me some contemporary historical evidence that the Chaplains to the First U. S. Congress ever even offered daily prayers during an official session of Congress.Please post some evidence that the general government of the early American Republic recognized Christmas and Thanksgiving as national holidays. Wasn’t the establishment of that practice actually a slap in the face of the noble men who established our system of government?FVFThis message has been edited by FreddyFlash, 04-25-2006 10:03 AM

The United State Was Founded As A Heathen Nation That Disowned GodThat was the view of the loathsome individuals who executed the evil scheme to have the motto IN GOD WE TRUST impressed on the United State’s coins. They despised the noble Christian gentlemen who established our system of government.These loathsome individuals considered great men like James Madison to be heathens who disowned God. These despicable servants of the evil one were successful largely because of the prevalence of Counterfeit Christianity during and immediately after the Civil War.A Reverend M.R. Watkinson, who was part of a larger effort waged by a coalition of Counterfeit Christians, disenchanted with the exemption of religion from the cognizance of government established by the founding fathers and intent upon undermining the Separation of Church and State, wrote a letter to the Secretary of the Treasury Samuel P. Chase in 1861.Secretary Chase rejected the authority of Christ over the religion of his people and was instead an advocate of the satanic idea of government authority over religion. Chase received other appeals from Counterfeit Christians throughout the country, urging that the United States recognize the Deity on United States coins. Rev. Watkinson’s letter dated November 13, 1861 read: The United States surrendered any right to claim it was a genuine Christian Nation when the American people did not take up the terrible swift sword and extirpate the wicked stooges who passed the 1860's bill that authorized the government to declare the people’s trust in God on the nation’s coins. The American people might just as well have sworn allegiance to the Devil and offered their homage in the Temple of Satan.FVF

Agreed. Can you show where it translates into putting the commandments into the courthouse?Please cite the applicable article of the constitution. Perhaps Article VI? Enjoy.

---

Join the effort to unravel {AIDS\HIV} with Team EvC! (click)

---

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand

​

RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

Scalia and Thomas are both Catholic. Thomas went to seminary to be a priest.The link is a good read.
The American Catholic's Problem - Cherishing Ideals Condemned by the ChurchWhile it is true that the Catholic Church did flourish in this country whose government was professedly indifferent to religion, it must be said that the Church received this "freedom to flourish" at a high price. That price was the nearly complete negligence of the Church's doctrine of union of Church and State, of the duty of governments to profess the one true faith, and to repress non-Catholic religions. Catholics were told that the American system of freedom of all religions was the ideal system, and Catholics had deeply fixed in their heads the notion that you have a civil right to be a Protestant, a Jew, a Moslem or even a Satanist, since religion should have nothing to do with the state, and the state nothing to do with religion. But this idea was condemned by Pope Gregory XVI and Pope Pius IX: "And so from this rotten source of indifferentism flows that absurd and erroneous opinion, or rather insanity, that liberty of conscience must be claimed and defended for anyone." (Pope Gregory XVI)"For surely you know, Venerable Brothers, not a few are found who, applying the impious and absurd principles of naturalism, as they call it, to civil society, dare to teach that the "best plan for public society and civil progress absolutely requires that human society be established and governed with no regard to religion, as if it did not exist, or at least, without making distinction between the true and the false religions." (Pope Pius IX)"And also, contrary to the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, and of the most holy Fathers, they do not hesitate to assert that the best condition of society is the one in which there is no acknowledgment by the government of the duty of restraining, by established penalties, offenders of the Catholic religion, except insofar as the public peace demands." (Pope Pius IX)"And, from this wholly false idea of social organization they do not fear to foster that erroneous opinion, especially fatal to the Catholic Church and to the salvation of souls, called by Our predecessor of recent memory, Gregory XVI, insanity; namely that "liberty of conscience and of worship is the proper right of every man, and should be proclaimed and asserted by law in every correctly established society; that the right of all manner of liberty rests in the citizens, not to be restrained either by ecclesiastical or civil authority; and that by this right they can manifest openly and publicly and declare their own concepts, whatever they may be, by voice, by print, or in any other way." (Pope Pius IX)From these texts it is clear that the Catholic Church condemns freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press. Yet these "freedoms" are held as sacrosanct in the American culture. In an effort not to appear un-American, the Catholic clergy in the United States for the most part neglected these condemnations, as well as the teaching of Sacred Scripture, of the Church, and of the holy Fathers which supports them. One searches in vain to find in Catholic catechisms before Vatican II, even on the High School level, the Church's teaching on the duty of states to the Catholic religion. Rather most pre-Vatican II Catholic catechisms and history books are either totally silent on the subject, or actually extol the American system of indifference to all religions, and extol freedom of conscience, freedom of religion, freedom of speech, and freedom of the press.and so on.........Scary, isn't it?
Enjoy!

oh dear god don't get me started on scalia. really. i could write a book. a book about murder by flaying. seriously.