Skip to main content

No! America is Not a Christian Nation

By Charles E. Carlson

04/25/03: ( WHTT )Many persons in the Mideast consider America a Christian country because of the professions of certain leaders. A professing G. W. Bush followed a professing Bill Clinton. Some cynics think it must pay politically to profess. Americans, including some churched people, tell me they are puzzled about what Christianity is. Who could blame them?

George Bush and Paul Wolfowitz are not deceptive. They are promoters of serial wars and they make no pretenses about it. Mr. Wolfowitz is the front man for THE PROJECT FOR THE NEW CENTURY, described by none other than ABC Nightline Anchorman Ted Koppel, as a "Cabal" for war. What Israeli patriot Koppel failed to note is that the Cabal’s plan is an anti-Islamic war agenda on wheels, aimed at one Muslim country after another. The 90-page document is now public for all to read. (http://www.newamericancentury.org/RebuildingAmericasDefenses.pdf )

The primary facilitator of serial wars, who are deceptively edging us toward it, call themselves Christian Zionists (CZ). We did not invent this term, they did. Christian Zionism is political and racist, pandering to a doctrine of Israeli’s superiority over others, supposedly as seen in God’s eyes. It follows that CZ hold to the inferiority of all other people (especially Arabs) to Israelis. Christ refuted this notion in his time and demonstrated it in his life.

Please read every word of Zionist Leadership Summit Website for their upcoming, posh conference in Washington on May 17-18. The interfaith Zionist Leadership Summit for America and Israel states as one purpose:

"TO SOLIDIFY AND CHART THE FUTURE STRATEGY FOR THE EMERGING ALLIANCE OF JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN ZIONISTS."

Sponsors and speakers include leading professing Christians. (http://zionistleadership.com)

We Hold These Truths says: "CHRISTIAN RACISM KILLS" It makes a god icon out of Israel, which makes war a certainty. There is no such thing as Christian Zionism because Zionism is by definition, racism. Any form of race hatred is not of Christ. CZ is a true oxymoron.

Jesus was paraphrased best by his apostle Paul who told followers that in God’s eyes: "THERE IS NO JEW NOR GREEK, THERE IS NO SLAVE NOR FREE, THERE IS NO MALE NOR FEMALE, FOR YOU ARE ALL ONE IN CHRIST JESUS. " (Galatians 3:28) Why should God view us differently today?

http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article3107.htm
Original Post

Replies sorted oldest to newest

pba,

This question appears to be designed to create a controversy, ending that controversy is very likely to MAKE America a Christian nation, with tollerance for other religions.

The objective of starting a fight is to WIN it.
You did not start the fight, the "Moral Majority" did. They are seeking dominance. Christianity is the MAJORITY religion. It is professed by Democrats and Republicans alike. But, it is also NOT DOMINANT.
In 1954, when the Pledge of Allegiance was changed, adding the words "Under God," it was because of a controversy. That controversy put God Believers in a dominant position over Atheists, but allowed any God Believer into the Dominant group. It subjugated Atheists and it was intended to subjugate Atheists. The "enemy" at the time was GODLESS COMMUNISM. Islam is not Godless, but it is the "new" enemy. (read the posts on this forum) The subjugation of Islam, as described in the article you quote, is now the objective. The problem for those who wish to subjugate Islamics is this. Islam believes in God, the God of Abraham, the Same God that Jews and Christians believe in.
To Dominate, in this situation, you must differentiate. The difference is, Muslims are not Christians, but the majority of Americans are. Of the three Abrahamic religons, ONLY Christianity worships Christ as God. Jews recognize him as a "false" profet. Muslims recognize Jesus as a "true" profit, but not the Son of God or God in the Trinity. To dominate the Muslims, they must be UN-Christian and Christians must dominate the USA. To dominate it is necessary to subjugate. Here is the problem the Christian Right faces. To dominate as Christians, America must declare itself a Christian Nation. In doing that they also subjugate the Jews, Buddhists, Shintoists and Confuscians. The do not overtly wish to dominate any but Muslims. That is a dilema, unless, the agenda is to Dominate first Muslims, then Jews, then all the other NON CHRISTIAN GOD BASED FAITHS.
Christians assert, "America is a Christian Nation." Non Christians can make any argument they wish against that assertion, but still the vast majority of Americans are Christians.

If you follow the assertions of the Christian Right you find a large body of anti-Masonic palaver. They condemn the Masonic symbolism on our Money, The condemn the Oblisk within a circle that is the Washington Monument as a Masonic fertility symbol.
http://www.cuttingedge.org/free16.htm
"Now consider the obelisk, depicted here by the Washington Monument , probably the most famous of all the obelisks in the world. Satanists believe that the spirit of the Egyptian Sun God, Ra, resides within the obelisk, and they pray to it daily three times daily, if possible, and facing East. The obelisk is the most recognized of all phallic symbols.

When the obelisk is depicted within a circle, the Satanists are depicting the sex act between male and female. In Washington, D.C., the Washington Monument is sitting within a circle. Freemasonry planned, designed, and created the Washington Monument. The obelisk is greatly revered in Masonry, as a quick tour of any cemetery in New England will tell you. You can immediately tell which graves are Masonic by the obelisks as their headstone; now, not all Masons choose the obelisk as their headstone, but I have never seen a person who was not a Mason choose an obelisk as their headstone.


Masons must be dominated to dominate Muslims. The Freemasons redily accept any person who believes in a creator. That acceptance etends even to those who are guided by the Spirits of Ancestors, but not professing Atheists.

This controversy, over the "Christian Nation" status of the USA was created, started, and is being fed by Christians intent on DOMINATING NON CHRISTIANS.
===============================================

I keep saying, over and over, the PNAC is about world domination, and that includes DOMINATION OF THE USA. The objective will be reached only when the "right kind" of Christians are able to subjugate everyone else.

Hitler did it with the Third Reich, and that turned out badly. THE PNAC IS TRYING TO DO IT WITH THE NEO CONSERVATIVE FASCISM THEY PRACTICE AND PREACH.
It was never meant to be, and it won't work if it becomes one.

This country was founded by raving atheists. History, real history, not the manufactured version the right wingers put out, proves this.

If you want to know what a society looks like when it's integrally tied to a state religion, look at Iraq and what we're fighting right now.
quote:
This country was founded by raving atheists. History, real history, not the manufactured version the right wingers put out, proves this.


Wrong. See for yourself.

http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_Fathers_Religion.html

John Adams: “ The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”

Samuel Adams: “ He who made all men hath made the truths necessary to human happiness obvious to all… Our forefathers opened the Bible to all.”

Benjamin Franklin: “ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”

And the best one from Patrick Henery: “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”
Billy Graham says we are a secular nation - and I agree. If we were to become a "Christian" nation I would want it to be an Episcopal country like England. I am sure the evangelicals would have a problem with that. Oh, and lets not forget the Catholics - they would definitely want a piece of the pie. Oh yeah, and the Church of Christ. They would have to be in control of all of it since they are the only ones who are right. Christian nation? That would only be the beginning - it would never end.

P.S. - The Jews might get a little irritated.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Billy Graham says we are a secular nation - and I agree. If we were to become a "Christian" nation I would want it to be an Episcopal country like England. I am sure the evangelicals would have a problem with that. Oh, and lets not forget the Catholics - they would definitely want a piece of the pie. Oh yeah, and the Church of Christ. They would have to be in control of all of it since they are the only ones who are right. Christian nation? That would only be the beginning - it would never end.

P.S. - The Jews might get a little irritated.
My data is a little old, but only 3% of British Citizens attend Episcopal, or Anglican Services regularly. The UK is a "Constitutional Monarchy" the queen is the head of state, NOT Tony Blair, and like any head of state, she has the right to refuse to sign legislation. Unlike the President, She serves for life, and is the "Protector of the Faith" As well as emperor of India.

The United States is Secular, but the people of the USA are more religious than the people of England. BEING RELIGIOUS DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR PARTICULAR RELIGION ON ANYONE THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE USA.
With all due respect for the one or two who seem to have a seperate agena in this topic, America, dear people was established to allow all of us our own beliefs and worships, even the non-believers.
Those who would malign this basic tenent of Freedom do not deserve this Freedom. Many serve, served and gave the ultimate for our ability to speak freely here. Let us all respect that gift.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
Billy Graham says we are a secular nation - and I agree. If we were to become a "Christian" nation I would want it to be an Episcopal country like England. I am sure the evangelicals would have a problem with that. Oh, and lets not forget the Catholics - they would definitely want a piece of the pie. Oh yeah, and the Church of Christ. They would have to be in control of all of it since they are the only ones who are right. Christian nation? That would only be the beginning - it would never end.

P.S. - The Jews might get a little irritated.
My data is a little old, but only 3% of British Citizens attend Episcopal, or Anglican Services regularly. The UK is a "Constitutional Monarchy" the queen is the head of state, NOT Tony Blair, and like any head of state, she has the right to refuse to sign legislation. Unlike the President, She serves for life, and is the "Protector of the Faith" As well as emperor of India.

The United States is Secular, but the people of the USA are more religious than the people of England. BEING RELIGIOUS DOES NOT GIVE YOU THE RIGHT TO IMPOSE YOUR PARTICULAR RELIGION ON ANYONE THROUGH THE GOOD OFFICES OF THE GOVERNMENT, IN THE USA.


You rightly point out that the British Monarch serves as the "Protector of the Faith". This means the Church of England. Henry VIII established the Anglican Church as the official Church of England. You also were right to point out that they only have 3% attendance. Established State Religions never work - religion cannot be compulsory.
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution, but the concept does. It's just worded differently.

The Constitution refers to religion twice, once when it prohibits any test of religion for officeholders, and again in the First Amendment.

The Founding Dudes clearly meant for the country to have a secular government.

DF
quote:
The phrase "separation of church and state" does not exist in the Constitution, but the concept does. It's just worded differently.

The Constitution refers to religion twice, once when it prohibits any test of religion for officeholders, and again in the First Amendment.

The Founding Dudes clearly meant for the country to have a secular government.


The 1st amendment is very clear, congress will not pass any laws endorsing a religion, nor will it prohibit the free exercise of religion. The founding fathers did not want a state endorsed church like England had, but they also wanted people to be able to freely express their religious beliefs. People use the "separation of church & state" as a way to suppress religious expression, which is a violation of the 1st amendment. Government may be secular, but people aren't and we all should be able to express ourselves freely as the founding fathers intended.
quote:
How is separation of church and state used to suppress religion? There is a valid viewpoint that government should not spend money endorsing a religion, but that is not suppressing it.


A community wants to have a prayer before a high school football game. They can't because of "separation of church and state". The employees of a local town hall wants to put up a small nativity scene, it's removed because of "separation of church and state". A group of students want to have prayer in front of the flag pole before class starts, they can't because of "separation of church and state". The phrase is not in the constitution, yet is thrown around as if it's law. It is a means of suppressing Christianity. I don't believe a government should endorse a religion or tell people what to believe, but people have the right to express their beliefs, yet a small group of people raise a stink when they do and those religious expressions are suppressed. Denying people's right to express their religious beliefs and trying to force them in private is simply wrong and unconstitutional.
Nash,

Although I'm basically strong on separation of church and state, I agree sometimes the execution of that separation gets silly.

However, a football game is a football game, not a church. I don't want to pay money to get into a public stadium and be preached at.

If a town wants to make a year-round religious expression area, where private citizens can erect creches, suicide bombers, menorahs, etc. then fine. The town has no business spending tax dollars celebrating any religious holiday, though.

OK, we agree prohibiting students from peacefully praying is annoying. But, as long as there are geometry tests, there will always be prayer in school. On this one, I'm with you.

The First Amendment IS law. Fundamental law.

On the flip side, do you recognize when churches exert inappropriate influences on societies that don't appreciate them? Such as those silly stickers on biology texts about evolution, and Judge Moore's nonsense, and Sunday Sales of beer, and **** near everything Jerry Falwell has ever done, and blue laws? Seems to me that constant corrections, adjustments, and effort are needed to maintain the separation between church and state that benefits both.

DF
I agree that some communities allow the churches to have too much power. The Shoals is one of them with blue laws, but even though they are wrong they are not unconstitutional. Congress did not pass the blue laws, the local governments did.

As for prayer at a football game, if everyone in the stadium wants to say a short prayer before kick off, they have that right. If you don't like it, don't go to the game or go to the concession stand during it.

I was in New York last week, there are plenty of Jewish people wearing their yamakas walking about town. They have that freedom to express themselves publicly. If a Jewish person served as a mayor or council member and wore his yamaka to work, it's no different than displaying a nativity scene on the front lawn. It's individual religious expression that is protected by the first amendment. People and communities should be allowed to express their beliefs freely without interference from small groups who want to suppress that right. The first amendment grants us freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion.
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
If anyone wants to pray before a football game -they can. Prayer need not be done over the P.A. system at a stadium. When prayer becomes a show of something - it sort of loses religious meaning and becomes politics.


If that's the measuring stick then the fact that the players normally gather at the middle of the field after a game to say a prayer is politics.
Nash wrote
quote:
If a Jewish person served as a mayor or council member and wore his yamaka to work, it's no different than displaying a nativity scene on the front lawn.


Of course it is! How many christians wear a pin or a necklace of a cross in City Hall? Plenty. But, the City does not pay for the yamulkes or crosses, that's the issue.

And public prayer over the PA is inappropriate at a football game between public schools. I pay tax dollars to support the school and paid more to get in, and I don't want to be preached at for it. If that doesn't suit you, you should send your kids to a christian private school where they pray between every play if they like.

The 1st Amendment not only protects freedom OF religion, it protects freedom FROM govt-sponsored religion.

DF
quote:
Of course it is! How many christians wear a pin or a necklace of a cross in City Hall? Plenty. But, the City does not pay for the yamulkes or crosses, that's the issue.

And public prayer over the PA is inappropriate at a football game between public schools. I pay tax dollars to support the school and paid more to get in, and I don't want to be preached at for it. If that doesn't suit you, you should send your kids to a christian private school where they pray between every play if they like.

The 1st Amendment not only protects freedom OF religion, it protects freedom FROM govt-sponsored religion.


The first amendment says nothing about what local municipalities can spend their money on. It does not say that a town cannot reflect the beliefs of the citizens or that a public school cannot allow a public prayer. It simply says that congress will not endorse nor prohibit the expression of religion. An individual or community has the right to express their beliefs, yet that right has been squashed by a very small but vocal minority
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Of course it is! How many christians wear a pin or a necklace of a cross in City Hall? Plenty. But, the City does not pay for the yamulkes or crosses, that's the issue.

And public prayer over the PA is inappropriate at a football game between public schools. I pay tax dollars to support the school and paid more to get in, and I don't want to be preached at for it. If that doesn't suit you, you should send your kids to a christian private school where they pray between every play if they like.

The 1st Amendment not only protects freedom OF religion, it protects freedom FROM govt-sponsored religion.


The first amendment says nothing about what local municipalities can spend their money on. It does not say that a town cannot reflect the beliefs of the citizens or that a public school cannot allow a public prayer. It simply says that congress will not endorse nor prohibit the expression of religion. An individual or community has the right to express their beliefs, yet that right has been squashed by a very small but vocal minority


Yes, Jews are a small minority. Not everyone is Christian and no one should be forced to pay for or accept the religious affectations of anyone else. When polititians start using the "football stadium prayer card" its time to adhere to Matthew 6:6 "But you, whenever you pray, go into you own room and shut the door:then pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father - He who sees in secret - will recompense you."Wemouth New Testament version.
Nash,

The Supreme Court has ruled that, because Federal law leads the nation, states and localities must follow the Constitution. Curious, when you look at the proscription of anything but gold and silver as money, but that's another topic. Anyway, the local governments should observe constitutional rights and obligations, don't you agree?

Snake has a good point about public prayer. It's usually political.

DF
quote:
Originally posted by meanasasnake:
If anyone wants to pray before a football game -they can. Prayer need not be done over the P.A. system at a stadium. When prayer becomes a show of something - it sort of loses religious meaning and becomes politics.



I don't think most people look at someone "leading" the prayer over the PA as something political--it always was just meant to control how long or short the prayer time lasted and to basically coordinate -- I can't think of words for what I"m trying to say -- one person saying a prayer to unify the group -- In school, my dad and Uncle are Baptist preachers and one of them would pray one week, the next week it would be a Methodist, CHurch of Christ and so on -- it was just part of the "organization" of the football game. I see your point that if something is for show then it loses its religious merit, but most times in high school I don't think that is the intention.

Other circumstance, yes, it could be construed as political.
quote:
The Supreme Court has ruled that, because Federal law leads the nation, states and localities must follow the Constitution. Curious, when you look at the proscription of anything but gold and silver as money, but that's another topic. Anyway, the local governments should observe constitutional rights and obligations, don't you agree?


Absolutely I agree, and prohibiting someone from praying or expressing their beliefs is unconstitutional whether it's on the federal, state, or municipal level.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
The Supreme Court has ruled that, because Federal law leads the nation, states and localities must follow the Constitution. Curious, when you look at the proscription of anything but gold and silver as money, but that's another topic. Anyway, the local governments should observe constitutional rights and obligations, don't you agree?


Absolutely I agree, and prohibiting someone from praying or expressing their beliefs is unconstitutional whether it's on the federal, state, or municipal level.


There is absolutely nothing prohibiting any American from expressing his belief. What is prohibited is the nationalization of religion. Clearly you see that Christian prayer at football games over the P.A. system is intended only to appeal to those who are Christian, leaving those of other faiths out of the equation. Since we all pay taxes publically owned stadiums belong to ALL the people - not just Christians. This does not threaten MY Christian belief in any way. The majority rules in many things, but not in religion.
-
Yes, Jews are a small minority. Not everyone is Christian and no one should be forced to pay for or accept the religious affectations of anyone else. When polititians start using the "football stadium prayer card" its time to adhere to Matthew 6:6 "But you, whenever you pray, go into you own room and shut the door:then pray to your Father who is in secret, and your Father - He who sees in secret - will recompense you."Wemouth New Testament version.[/QUOTE]
quote:
Clearly you see that Christian prayer at football games over the P.A. system is intended only to appeal to those who are Christian, leaving those of other faiths out of the equation. Since we all pay taxes publically owned stadiums belong to ALL the people - not just Christians. This does not threaten MY Christian belief in any way. The majority rules in many things, but not in religion.


I never said Christian prayer, I just said prayer. It could be from any faith that the majority shares. It just happens that the cases that have been questioned were Christian in nature.

If I attended a football game in Flint MI which has a large Muslim population and they wanted to kneel to the east and say a prayer, how exactly does that exclude me as a Christian? I can join if I want or I can just stand and watch. Am I being harmed in some way by watching another faith pray? If I live in a predominately Muslim community, why should I think it's wrong if a tiny portion of my tax dollars are being used to reflect the beliefs of the majority of the people?

It's a simple concept called tolerance. Not everyone believes the same way I do. If I'm in a Muslim community as a Christian, I'll respect the beliefs of the community and not dare try to suppress them. Doing so would be a violation of their first amendment right. Yet, when Christians pray publicly, a single person can put an end to that and prevent a majority of people from expressing themselves. How is that not oppression? How is that not intolerance? Is that how the first amendment is supposed to work?
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
Clearly you see that Christian prayer at football games over the P.A. system is intended only to appeal to those who are Christian, leaving those of other faiths out of the equation. Since we all pay taxes publically owned stadiums belong to ALL the people - not just Christians. This does not threaten MY Christian belief in any way. The majority rules in many things, but not in religion.


I never said Christian prayer, I just said prayer. It could be from any faith that the majority shares. It just happens that the cases that have been questioned were Christian in nature.

If I attended a football game in Flint MI which has a large Muslim population and they wanted to kneel to the east and say a prayer, how exactly does that exclude me as a Christian? I can join if I want or I can just stand and watch. Am I being harmed in some way by watching another faith pray? If I live in a predominately Muslim community, why should I think it's wrong if a tiny portion of my tax dollars are being used to reflect the beliefs of the majority of the people?

It's a simple concept called tolerance. Not everyone believes the same way I do. If I'm in a Muslim community as a Christian, I'll respect the beliefs of the community and not dare try to suppress them. Doing so would be a violation of their first amendment right. Yet, when Christians pray publicly, a single person can put an end to that and prevent a majority of people from expressing themselves. How is that not oppression? How is that not intolerance? Is that how the first amendment is supposed to work?


We do tolerate one anothers religious preferences - except Judge Roy Moore, who stated he would NOT allow non-Christian prayers in his court. You see the contradiction here? Not everyone is as tolerant as you are.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
I believe in the separation of church and state.


Good for you. By the way, that phrase does not appear in the Constitution.


I think it's hilarious that the right-wingers think they've come upon something by pointing out that that phrase isn't in the Constitution. Informed minds never posited that it was! You say you believe in the forefathers' vision for the country, and this too was a part of their vision. They were fleeing a country that required religion (among other things).

It most certainly is an act of respect toward religion when laws allow, encourage, or allot for prayer or any other religious ordinance. The schools and the government, who are in charge of and represent a wide array of people, have no business meddling in these matters.

Now, to be totally clear, the laws that prohibit the ordinances are just as much at fault. Our tax dollars should never be spent on the promotion or repression of religion. I truly believe that all phrases or acknowledgements of any religion, whether Christian or otherwise, should be removed from any establishment funded by or associated with government.

If it's true in one thing, it must be true in all things: Religion and government = oil and water. They should exist solely for the protection of the other.
quote:
If it's true in one thing, it must be true in all things: Religion and government = oil and water. They should exist solely for the protection of the other.


You're right. Unfortunately, the government has not been protecting religious freedoms and some religious groups have been interfering with politics. As I've said before, people should be free to express their religious beliefs freely and the government should simply leave them alone. Pray, hang a cross, star of David, display a menorah, meditate, or do nothing. It's your choice, your right, and no one should tell you or a group not to.

On the other hand, religious leaders should deal with the soul and not politics. Political speeches from the pulpits are a dangerous thing and people like Dobson have people in a haze of propaganda just like pba is with his leftist web sites. They don't know the facts, just what someone with an agenda tells them. I think churches that become too political should lose their tax exempt status.
quote:
Originally posted by NashBama:
quote:
If it's true in one thing, it must be true in all things: Religion and government = oil and water. They should exist solely for the protection of the other.


You're right. Unfortunately, the government has not been protecting religious freedoms and some religious groups have been interfering with politics. As I've said before, people should be free to express their religious beliefs freely and the government should simply leave them alone. Pray, hang a cross, star of David, display a menorah, meditate, or do nothing. It's your choice, your right, and no one should tell you or a group not to.

On the other hand, religious leaders should deal with the soul and not politics. Political speeches from the pulpits are a dangerous thing and people like Dobson have people in a haze of propaganda just like pba is with his leftist web sites. They don't know the facts, just what someone with an agenda tells them. I think churches that become too political should lose their tax exempt status.



Removing that tax-exempt status would hit many of them in the right spot and would deter some of the rhetoric. Problem is, who is going to turn them in? The ones that are there listening are "under the spell" most times and the ones that would turn them in -- well, you get the idea....
Good point, but churches who preach politics don't make an effort to hide that fact. A few years back my mom received a pamphlet in the mail from the Alabama Christian Coalition. It had a list of the candidates running that they endorsed. In other words, here are the people you should vote for if you're a Christian. I don't know if the Christian Coalition is tax exempt, but if they are they should lose their status.

People should be encouraged to research the issues themselves and come to their own conclusions. Unfortunately, there are just too many people who take the easy road and just absorb someone else's thoughts and take them to the polls.
Last year, a church out here in Pasadena was investigated for blatant politicking from the pulpit. You should have heard the caterwauling and howls of protest about "Bush Administration's War on Religion".

The biggest church that can't keep out of religion is the Catholic Church. Separation of church and state means absolutely nothing to the Catholics, and never has. Can you just imagine an administration removing the Catholic Church's tax exempt status? I mean, I'd laugh my a!! off, but there would be a revolution.

DF
<snip>
The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
Sorry Friend, the concept of separation of Church and State is clearly delineated by Article VI Section 3 and the first Amendment.
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
<snip>
The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
Sorry Friend, the concept of separation of Church and State is clearly delineated by Article VI Section 3 and the first Amendment.


Isn't that kinda a leap to get from the passage sited to "seperation of church and state". All I see in the passage is "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. I don't see "seperation of church and state" in there anywhere.
So Pat wrote
quote:
Isn't that kinda a leap to get from the passage sited to "seperation of church and state". All I see in the passage is "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. I don't see "seperation of church and state" in there anywhere.


It's not a leap. If the Founding Dudes had wanted a Christian government, made of Christian statesmen and employees, would they have included this phrase? They wanted church and state to be and remain separate. That's the word when they're not together.

Also, the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment clearly implies separation. "Separation of church and state" is a shorthand phrase for the clear intent of the Constitution.

DF
quote:
Originally posted by Southern Patriot:
quote:
Originally posted by EdEKit:
<snip>
The clause is cited by advocates of separation of church and state as an example of "original intent" of the Framers of the Constitution of avoiding any entanglement between church and state, or involving the government in any way as a determiner of religious beliefs or practices."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_religious_test_clause
Sorry Friend, the concept of separation of Church and State is clearly delineated by Article VI Section 3 and the first Amendment.


Isn't that kinda a leap to get from the passage sited to "seperation of church and state". All I see in the passage is "...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States”. I don't see "seperation of church and state" in there anywhere.
quote:
It's not a leap. If the Founding Dudes had wanted a Christian government, made of Christian statesmen and employees, would they have included this phrase? They wanted church and state to be and remain separate. That's the word when they're not together.

Also, the non-establishment clause in the First Amendment clearly implies separation. "Separation of church and state" is a shorthand phrase for the clear intent of the Constitution.
DeepFat

Add Reply

Post

Untitled Document
×
×
×
×
Link copied to your clipboard.
×