-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Did the Founding fathers Expect A seperation of Church/State As We Now have it?
- Thread starter JesusFan
- Start date
No, they wouldn't recognize America today. But for goodness sakes, they lived centuries ago, would you expect them to?
Separation of church and state is good thing, just believers living in countries where they are the minoritiy how they feel about the state passing out religious materials to their children.
Separation of church and state is good thing, just believers living in countries where they are the minoritiy how they feel about the state passing out religious materials to their children.
The answer is yes they did once the adopted the Bill of Rights. The separation of church and state was pushed for vigorously by Baptists, especially the Virginia Baptist where the Church of England was the State church and persecuted others who were not of the Church of England. They knew first hand the danger of church and state not being separated.
Last edited by a moderator:
except virtually ALL of them held that one CANNOT even be a democratic society apart from morals , and BEST expression of that is in the Bible!
They believed that a nation divorced from influence of God in it was doomed to failure, that we should have Bible as a primary text book, and that we were founded upon jesus and His Gospel!
Even the Deists like Franklin and jefferson held that IF we sepertaed influence ofreligion from Government and society, would be at own peril...
sadly, history proved their concerns well founded!
seekingthetruth
New Member
the first amendment reads:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Nowhere does it say that religion cannot participate in government. It says that government cannot establish a state religion, and that the free excercise of religion will not be prohibited.
A group of Batpist preachers were concerned about the government control of the church, and Thomas Jefferson wrote to them to assure them that government would not interfere with the freedom to excercise their religion.
This is where the term "seperation of church and state" comes from, NOT from our Consitution, or our Declaration of Independence.
It is the liberal twisting of the concept and the hatred of the church that has caused this misinformation to be spread.
I am new here, but from reading earlier posts, I already know of one poster that will disagree with this. I don't care. Truth is truth.
John
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances
Nowhere does it say that religion cannot participate in government. It says that government cannot establish a state religion, and that the free excercise of religion will not be prohibited.
A group of Batpist preachers were concerned about the government control of the church, and Thomas Jefferson wrote to them to assure them that government would not interfere with the freedom to excercise their religion.
This is where the term "seperation of church and state" comes from, NOT from our Consitution, or our Declaration of Independence.
It is the liberal twisting of the concept and the hatred of the church that has caused this misinformation to be spread.
I am new here, but from reading earlier posts, I already know of one poster that will disagree with this. I don't care. Truth is truth.
John
believe EVERY colony referenced God at start of the state charter, and that though freedom to practice as one saw fit was set up, Christianity was always assumed to be the expected/normal religion to society to peractice/acknowledge!
Also had Bible published for public schools, and held services on Sundays in capital, and had Christianity spread among the native Americans, all on Govt dole!
seekingthetruth
New Member
That's neither here or there. They may have established the colonies and even the states on bilbical principles. but they made it clear that government would not interfere with the church.
"or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
It doesn't say christian or pagan or whatever, it says we have the free exercise thereof.
I don't agree with Wiccan or any other paganistic doctrine, but I respect their right to practice their chosen religion under the 1st amendment.
And I respect their right to lobby congress, and to speak out in their pulpits as to what they belief and how they feel their government is letting them down.
But!!!!!!.....I also demand that Christians be given the same opputunity, and have the same rights, which i believe the 1st amendment gaurantees, to voice their opinion also.
Do not let the liberals silence the Christian voice over a false pretense of "seperation of church and state"
John
PS We Christians need to realise that if we limit the free exercise of religion of the ungodly, then we also limit the free exercise of Christianity. If they don't have their freedon under the consitution, then neither do we.
We have to let the cults exist to preserve our rights.
At the founding of the country there were not public [local tax supported] schools, and there was no mandatory school attendance until 1852 in Massachusetts. But it is true, by what I've read, that the Bible was used as a principle textbook in the latter 19th century public schools and into the 20th. But since they also used Sears-Roebuck catalogs, along with the "classics" [Homer, Virgil, Shakespeare], another angle exists to the Bible being used-- there were few books available and not much variation. And some that were available-- even among the USA's early writers, like Irivng, Cooper, and Hawthorne-- were archaic and/or hard to understand, especially for Appalachian and midland dialect users. They were lucky to have any copies of the more 'modern' Dickens and Mark Twain.
Regarding services held in the Capitol, that apparently is true; but again, there is another angle. The new capital city, designed as such on state borders [i.e., it would not be in any one state], had people but no churches (buildings) to attend, so it was allowed to function for that purpose one day a week for a time. As to government-induced prosyletization of the natives-- I don't know that much about it, but it was probably a part of the campaign to force them out of their cultures by replacing it with another; thus the reason for shrinking reservations and Indian Schools.