Persecution

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Rick, if such attacks really bother you and you see them as wrong towards other believers, start by flagging such posts and demand the moderators refrain from such attacks and enforce the rules fairly on those that violate the rules of this forum. That is something everyone of us should be doing on a daily basis. Biblicist and DHK are two of the worst offenders.

 

[revmwc]

My point is simply that those who were once persecutors are now defenders of religious liberty and church-state separation, while some whose ancestors died for these principles have abandoned them.

The term seperation of church and state appears no where in the Constitution of these United States. The First Amendment states "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"

The seperation of church and state is being used today by the Atheist and other groups to take God out of our nation. Not what the Forefathers had in mind. All 50 states constitutions mention God.

From t he Articles of Confederation which were the pre-cursor to the Constitution state this in the Pre-Amble:

Preamble
To all to whom these Presents shall come, we the undersigned Delegates of the States affixed to our Names send greeting.

Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in Congress assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of America, agree to certain articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia, in the words following, viz:

Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts-bay, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.

Seperation of Church and state was not the intent the intent was not to have the State dictate which church we would worship in not to keep the Government from having expressions of God or saying God exist as the atheist and agnostice like to promote.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Was not at issue as well the desire of the founding fathers to prevent one particular denomination or religious group from prohibiting the free exercise of religion by all others? Was it not to keep one particular view from reigning terror on all others with opposing views such as was the case when Catholisim wed with the state or Calvin and others practiced at places like Geneva?

 

[revmwc]

Was not at issue as well the desire of the founding fathers to prevent one particular denomination or religious group from prohibiting the free exercise of religion by all others? Was it not to keep one particular view from reigning terror on all others with opposing views such as was the case when Catholisim wed with the state or Calvin and others practiced at places like Geneva?

You had in the colonies the Congregationalist (Puritans) in Massachusetts who would imprision, fine and whip non-congregationalist in their colony. You had this all over colonial America with the exception of just a few like Rhode Island who made it free to all religions.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

And your point is?

 

[revmwc]

And your point is?

That persecution was occuring in U.S. and that is what the clause was also about.

 

[Thinkingstuff]

His point is clear government control of religion or the idea of State Sponsored religion is ok with him as long as its his brand of faith. He makes it clear by citing that the early colonies did not permit religious freedom with in their territories save for a few.

However, He is correct the "Wall of seperation between church and state" is in a Jeffersonian letter to a baptist minister indicating that the state will not interfere in the practice of any particular faith. That particular phrase is not in the constitution. The constitution states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well, at least the bill of rights.

 

[revmwc]

His point is clear government control of religion or the idea of State Sponsored religion is ok with him as long as its his brand of faith. He makes it clear by citing that the early colonies did not permit religious freedom with in their territories save for a few.

However, He is correct the "Wall of seperation between church and state" is in a Jeffersonian letter to a baptist minister indicating that the state will not interfere in the practice of any particular faith. That particular phrase is not in the constitution. The constitution states that " Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Well, at least the bill of rights.

No State Sponsored religion is not ok with me as you stated "the idea of State Sponsored religion is ok with him as long as its his brand of faith" this is what was happening that brought the 1st amendment in.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

Thanks Revmwc, I believe I understand you now.:thumbs:

 

[Thinkingstuff]

No State Sponsored religion is not ok with me as you stated "the idea of State Sponsored religion is ok with him as long as its his brand of faith" this is what was happening that brought the 1st amendment in.

Good you were sounding that way at first. And Yes the fist amendment was directed at this type of thinking. However, right now we are in a fight to maintain the first amendment. It is quickly going by the way side.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

As I said, and which you avoid, you've engaged in much name calling and inflammatory attacks yourself. Something you aren't facing. That's being honest contrary to you implying I'm not.

Why in todays world would I go out and share my name, and where I live in public? Grow up son, it proves nothing that you use your name publicly while others think it wise to not do so.

Again, I have admitted to inappropriate responses -- after I've been personally attacked.

Aw, come on, preach. You know who I am and where I live, so come on down, and we'll have a cup of coffee.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

Good you were sounding that way at first. And Yes the fist amendment was directed at this type of thinking. However, right now we are in a fight to maintain the first amendment. It is quickly going by the way side.

Indeed it is.

 

[revmwc]

Good you were sounding that way at first. And Yes the fist amendment was directed at this type of thinking. However, right now we are in a fight to maintain the first amendment. It is quickly going by the way side.

The state (courts) have been making decisions that are quickly removing religious freedoms.

 

[Heavenly Pilgrim]

...and so have the Feds.