Should Church and state be separate?

[firstborn888]

*double post*  :mblush:

[firstborn888]

Molly,
 Your long posts detailing the personal religious beliefs of some fine leaders is great, but has nothing to do with the subject of this thread. If any of those men moved to impose their personal religious views through governmental policy they would be in absolute violation of the 1st amendment. Do you understand this?  
 Hopefully we can elect enough people of good moral character to uphold freedom (AND the first amendment) and stop the government takeover of private businesses etc. I am as concerned as anyone about that. But again - that's not the subject of this thread.

[Molly]

I am not even denying that the far left have a very undesirable personal agenda as well. BOTH extremes are detrimental to our free society. Hopefully the extremes will cancel each other out and cooler heads (moderates) will prevail. That way we can (on the one hand) avoid communism and (on the other hand) avoid a religiously produced Armageddon.

I assume you are thinking that the religiously produced Armageddon folks are Christians?  Whatever would make you think that?  Just calling yourself a Christian doesn't make you one.  You are referring to the neocons and their 'religious right' movement?  They are fascists, not Christians.  Where in the Bible does God tell us to cause 'Armageddon' by starting wars?  I must have missed that scripture.  You are talking about the people who deny that Jesus is the Messiah?  Isn't that the antiChrist?  The neocons are neither new nor conservative.

Main Entry: neo·con·ser·va·tive
Pronunciation: \ˌnē-ō-kən-ˈsər-və-tiv\
Function: noun
Date: 1952
1 : a former liberal espousing political conservatism
2 : a conservative who advocates the assertive promotion of democracy and United States national interest in international affairs including through military means

There is NO difference between the far left and the far right.

You think these people don't have a religion which is directing their every move?  Of course they do-- on both the right and the left.  But it's not Christianity.

If any of those men moved to impose their personal religious views through governmental policy they would be in absolute violation of the 1st amendment. Do you understand this?

Did you read what the founders were all saying?  This country was founded on Christian principles.  This country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Those in government should be Christians.  There is no just government without Christian principles.  The Bible should be taught in school.  I am a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Savior.   Congress should begin every session with a prayer.  We should endeavor to elect Christian leaders.  They were not silent about their purpose and their beliefs.  This is still a Christian country, founded as such,  and we lose that at our peril.

Now as far as not imposing views through governmental policy, what exactly do you think Barack Obama is doing?  He has now taken over 50 percent of our economy.  Would you like to explain to me what kind of government system owns the economy of a nation? [hint: that would be communism or fascism]

You quote a passage about God's sovereign government and try to apply it to what - the U.S. government? Good luck with that (you'll need it!).

Not only do I apply it, the founders applied it.  What do you think they thought they were doing?  They even said as much, that they were creating the kingdom of God on earth, that the government was on the shoulder of Jesus.

Don't you know that you are the right hand of God--his holy arm?

[Pierac]

John 18:36  Jesus answered, "My kingdom is not of this world. If My kingdom were of this world, then My servants would be fighting so that I would not be handed over to the Jews; but as it is, My kingdom is not of this realm."

You never saw Jesus, His followers or the early church get involved with the kingdoms (Goverments) of this world! America is a kingdom, and you can't be citizens of two kingdoms! Yes, I still vote but care not of the outcome... as All is of God!   :2c:

Paul

[Molly]

36Jesus answered, `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.'


"now"

G3568
νῦν
nun
noon
A primary particle of present time; "now" (as adverb of date, a transition or emphasis); also as noun or adjective present or immediate: - henceforth, + hereafter, of late, soon, present, this (time). See also G3569, G3570.



Pray like this

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

[Pierac]

36Jesus answered, `My kingdom is not of this world; if my kingdom were of this world, my officers had struggled that I might not be delivered up to Jews; but now my kingdom is not from hence.'

"now"

G3568
νῦν
nun
noon
A primary particle of present time; "now" (as adverb of date, a transition or emphasis); also as noun or adjective present or immediate: - henceforth, + hereafter, of late, soon, present, this (time). See also G3569, G3570.

Pray like this

Thy kingdom come, Thy will be done, on earth as it is in heaven.

So we agree, Thy kingdom come is not America! Our kingdom has a King!

Paul

[Molly]

Our kingdom has a King!

I agree with Samuel Adams--

As members were signing the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams, the father of the Revolution, said, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to Whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." After the public reading of the Declaration of Independence, Samuel Adams noted, "The people, I am told, recognize the resolution as though it were a decree promulgated from heaven."

[Raggedy Anne]

Firstborn888 Wrote:

"The government needs to stay the hell out of faith matters except to protect the right of citizens to believe as they wish. It's called 'freedom'. "

Amen to that, brother!  Freedom to think and believe as one will is essential.  Anything less is not liberty.   

A~

[firstborn888]

Did you read what the founders were all saying?  This country was founded on Christian principles.  This country was founded on the Gospel of Jesus Christ.  Those in government should be Christians.  There is no just government without Christian principles.  The Bible should be taught in school.  I am a Christian and Jesus Christ is my Savior.   Congress should begin every session with a prayer.  We should endeavor to elect Christian leaders.  They were not silent about their purpose and their beliefs.  This is still a Christian country, founded as such,  and we lose that at our peril.

After reading the above - I'm just glad you were not in a position to prevent the passage of the 1st amendment and the bill of rights which puts a stop to the nonsense being put forth here.

First you say that saying you're a Christian doesn't make you one (so true). Bot then you say only Christians should be in government. So (under your plan) first we need a committee to investigate each candidate and determine whether their claims of being "a Christian" are really true (now - that would be an interesting confirmation process :mblush:).

Once THAT part is done I guess it's on to implementing Christian doctrine. Hmmmm.. back to men demanding obedience from their wives and gee - I'd like to own a few slaves - that's biblical (of course being a Christian I would treat my property well) and um... let's get all the shaggy long haired hippie men to stop going against nature and the women to stop evilly 'bobbing' their hair http://www.bible.acu.edu/crs/doc/ccbh.htm (cutting off their glory??? What impudence!).

Now - we keep all the other commandments but IGNORE the no work Sabbath so we need to reinstitute the death penalty for that (or at least 39 stripes!) complete with a committee to determine what is the equivalent of modern day donkey watering - wouldn't want to execute or beat a technically innocent man).    

And now for school - okay - first we baptize all the students (after we have a committee  to determine the proper words "Jesus" or "Father Sin and Holy Spirit") and then those who don't start speaking in tongues immediately can go back for re-education till they can get it biblically right (biblical baptisms end in tongue talking).

Then time for government bible class!!! We'll start with the evils of women speaking in church or (gasp) teaching men! Of course, no female high school teachers can have males 18 or above in their class. Being that the country is founded on the bible and all.

Wow Molly, - all this sounds great! you've convinced me. Just tell the supreme court you want all our present elected officials fired immediately unless they can PROVE (not just say) that they are real Christians (but of course we'll have to elect the Christian confirmation committee first *but* ooops... who will determine if the confirmation committee are true Chr... , shucks, you just start by picking them Molly! We trust you!  :icon_flower:    

Do you see my point here? At all?

[Molly]

After reading the above - I'm just glad you were not in a position to prevent the passage of the 1st amendment and the bill of rights which puts a stop to the nonsense being put forth here.

No I was not but John Adams was--

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost.

Elias Boudinot was

Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned... Let us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ's sake, to preside in our councils . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.18


Alexander Hamilton was

Hamilton suggested that it be named the Christian Constitutional Society, and listed two goals for its formation: first, the support of the Christian religion; and second, the support of the Constitution of the United States. This organization was to have numerous clubs throughout each state which would meet regularly and work to elect to office those who reflected the goals of the Christian Constitutional Society. 37


James Otis was--

Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?... I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God... The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God.86

So (under your plan) first we need a committee to investigate each candidate and determine whether their claims of being "a Christian" are really true (now - that would be an interesting confirmation process ).

No I think you should just vote for any goofy candidate the main stream media tells you to vote for.  Don't bother vetting them yourself.  Don't put any thought into it.  Or, better yet, just close your eyes at the ballot box and play pin the tail on the donkey.  Or better yet, don't vote. :msealed:


YOU are the committee.  You don't get that?

[firstborn888]

After reading the above - I'm just glad you were not in a position to prevent the passage of the 1st amendment and the bill of rights which puts a stop to the nonsense being put forth here.

No I was not but John Adams was--

The Holy Ghost carries on the whole Christian system in this earth. Not a baptism, not a marriage, not a sacrament can be administered but by the Holy Ghost. . . . There is no authority, civil or religious – there can be no legitimate government but what is administered by this Holy Ghost.

Elias Boudinot was

Let us enter on this important business under the idea that we are Christians on whom the eyes of the world are now turned... Let us earnestly call and beseech Him, for Christ's sake, to preside in our councils . . . We can only depend on the all powerful influence of the Spirit of God, Whose Divine aid and assistance it becomes us as a Christian people most devoutly to implore. Therefore I move that some minister of the Gospel be requested to attend this Congress every morning . . . in order to open the meeting with prayer.18


Alexander Hamilton was

Hamilton suggested that it be named the Christian Constitutional Society, and listed two goals for its formation: first, the support of the Christian religion; and second, the support of the Constitution of the United States. This organization was to have numerous clubs throughout each state which would meet regularly and work to elect to office those who reflected the goals of the Christian Constitutional Society. 37


James Otis was--

Has [government] any solid foundation? Any chief cornerstone?... I think it has an everlasting foundation in the unchangeable will of God... The sum of my argument is that civil government is of God.86

All these guys were there and tried to stop it? I wouldn't know but - Wow - I'm glad they failed! And that this got in there instead: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".

Praise God!!! :happy3: :cloud9:

[firstborn888]

YOU are the committee.  You don't get that?

I do Molly, and I am very concerned that an ever growing federal government is taking away the power of the people's committee. We probably share many of the same concerns. I just think the opposition to the clear/wise separation of church and state is not the answer at all, in fact - I believe the barrier it's absolutely necessary. As long as the basic human rights we all agree on are maintained we will be fine if we are dutiful in our spiritual lives. The transformation of society is a bottom up process, not a government down process. Let's protect freedom (something I'm sure we agree on) and the rest will work itself out as it should.  :thumbsup:

[firstborn888]

As a show of good faith and to prove I'm not at all opposed to Christians in office I hearby announce a grassroots movement to elect Jabcat as the next president of the United States. I have seen in this forum that He is a fair and just man (I'm sure springing from his relationship with God) and am confident he will be faithful to uphold the constitutional freedoms this country was founded upon.

So who's in?

I'll even put you in as VP Molly IF you swear to God not to reinstitute prohibition or slavery OR make the male hippies cut their hair short.  :happygrin:

[Molly]

Then time for government bible class!!!

So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?

People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will.  Either that, or they will home school.

Once THAT part is done I guess it's on to implementing Christian doctrine.

The modern definition of "separation of church and state" is so far removed from the original meaning of the First Amendment that it is downright preposterous. All the First Amendment does is prohibit (the federal) Congress from passing any law establishing a state church or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.
The idea that James Madison and the other authors of the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights intended to prohibit children from praying in school, or state and local governments from posting the Ten Commandments and from erecting Nativity scenes is the invention of modern-age humanists, whose real goal is to eviscerate America's Christian heritage. Such reasoning is a complete inversion of the real meaning of the First Amendment. All the First Amendment was designed to do was recognize religious liberty..

--Chuck Baldwin



Do we currently have religious liberty?  I would argue no.  I could not send my children to a public school today because what they teach violates my religion.  Nor would they allow my children to practice their religion freely.

All these guys were there and tried to stop it? I wouldn't know but - Wow - I'm glad they failed! And that this got in there instead: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech".

No, those guys who loved Christ wrote it.

I'm with you re: Jab.

PS prohibition was a plot instituted by the Rockefellers so that they could corner the feul market and make themselves zillionaires.  Before prohibition, every farmer had his still and you could just pull over and fill up your car on the family farm.  And, you thought  it came about through the mighty power of little old ladies who hate hippies and drunks, right?

[firstborn888]

Then time for government bible class!!!

So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?

People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will.  Either that, or they will home school.

It doesn't matter what the government wants to teach my kids. I don't need the government (AKA: "Public") schools to teach my kids one thing! That's why neither of my two daughters EVER set foot inside a government run school.  :thumbsup: The only "taking back" would be the abolishment of government run schools. If you ask me sticking thousands of kids together in one place all week is one of the worst ideas ever.  :thumbdown:  :Sparkletooth:

[Molly]

Then time for government bible class!!!

So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?

People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will.  Either that, or they will home school.

It doesn't matter what the government wants to teach my kids. I don't need the government (AKA: "Public") schools to teach my kids one thing! That's why niether of my two daughters EVER set foot inside a government run school.  :thumbsup: The only "taking back" would be the abolishment of government run schools. If you ask me sticking thousands of kids together in one place all week is one of the worst ideas ever.  :thumbdown:  :Sparkletooth:

well, I'm with you on that.  Unfortunately, around here they make you pay thousands of dollars every year to support the government run schools.   You have to pay that even if you are paying thousands of dollars a year to send your children to a private school.  Most mothers have to send their kids to public school because they have to work to afford the taxes for them.  It's a catch 22.  

But, I'm hopeful people will begin to wake up.

[firstborn888]

Then time for government bible class!!!

So you think it is much more harmful to introduce children to Jesus than to teach five year olds about homosexual relationships?

People haven't figured out yet how to take back their public schools, but they will.  Either that, or they will home school.

It doesn't matter what the government wants to teach my kids. I don't need the government (AKA: "Public") schools to teach my kids one thing! That's why niether of my two daughters EVER set foot inside a government run school.  :thumbsup: The only "taking back" would be the abolishment of government run schools. If you ask me sticking thousands of kids together in one place all week is one of the worst ideas ever.  :thumbdown:  :Sparkletooth:

well, I'm with you on that.  Unfortunately, around here they make you pay thousands of dollars every year to support the government run schools.   You have to pay that even if you are paying thousands of dollars a year to send your children to a private school.  Most mothers have to send their kids to public school because they have to work to afford the taxes for them.  It's a catch 22.  

But, I'm hopeful people will begin to wake up.

Well, it's a big, well entrenched racket isn't it? The school taxes are even higher out is the rural county where I live because there are fewer businesses.

[Molly]

Well, it's a big, well entrenched racket isn't it? The school taxes are even higher out is the rural county where I live because there are fewer businesses.

Yes it is all a racket.  We are drowning in rackets.  We have parasites sucking our blood dry.  Do people even realize it?

If a local community wants to run their public school without teachers unions, teaching their children to read using the Bible, there is NO reason why they should not be able to do that.  The federal government should have NOTHING to say about that.  It should be up to the local community.
That is what the first amendment is all about.   If a certain parent objects, they can deal with that in a way that makes allowances for their concerns about their child.  In the case of David Parker, he was blindsided when his son brought books home from kindergarten.   He was just a parent trying to protect his son, and he was told he could not protect his son, and that is when he refused to leave until the principal would talk to him about how his son could opt out of these classes on this subject matter, and he was arrested.  That is not a lie.  He wasn't trying to make the papers; he was just trying to protect his son.

We have all been bamboozled by people who tell us it's not ok to sing Jesus loves the little children in school,  but it IS ok to sing Obama loves the little children.  The children sang songs to Hitler, too.  You think that's not a religion?  What about global warming, and how 12 years olds are terrified in public schools by algore's movie on how the ice caps are going to melt and drown us all unless their parents pay him huge sums of money.  You think that's not religion, too?  

Religion is ok, and even mandated, as long as it is their religion--humanism, secularism, atheism, paganism [Earth day], scientism, witchcraft [Harry Potter is ok, but not the Bible].  That's a violation of the first amendment in my book.

[Paul Hazelwood]

If a local community wants to run their public school without teachers unions, teaching their children to read using the Bible, there is NO reason why they should not be able to do that.  The federal government should have NOTHING to say about that.  It should be up to the local community.

This is a simple matter,  all they have to do is not accept public funds and they can make this local school as public as they like there is no law against this. 

[Molly]

If a local community wants to run their public school without teachers unions, teaching their children to read using the Bible, there is NO reason why they should not be able to do that.  The federal government should have NOTHING to say about that.  It should be up to the local community.

This is a simple matter,  all they have to do is not accept public funds and they can make this local school as public as they like there is no law against this. 

But aren't you talking there about private school?  Private school has always been an option for the wealthy.  What is not an option is to refuse to pay property and state taxes, the majority of which goes to the schools, and pay that money to a private school instead.  Then, you would really see a mass exodus from the public schools.  People would vote with their feet.  Maybe that is the way to handle this?

You say 'public funds,' but the exclusion clause referred to in the Constitution is aimed at the Federal government, so maybe a more appropriate phrase would be Federal funds?  If local schools refused to receive federal funds, would that make a difference?  The states and the people have wide birth when determining how they wish to conduct their affairs, even if that is not currently honored.  Don't forget, for almost 200 years children were taught to read using the Bible in public schools.  You think those people were just ignorant of the Constitution?  Or are people today the ignorant ones?

What happened in Massachusetts is that the decision for gay marriage was decided in the courts by an activist Judge.  It was then challenged by the people of the state who collected tens of thousands of signatures to request the state legislature to put it on the ballot.  The legislature refused.  It has since come out that Teddy Kennedy called his democratic friends in the state legislature and told them to vote against their constituents.  Meanwhile, the people who signed that petition had now publically revealed themselves and became the object of death threats, harrassing phone calls from all over the country, property damage, and general mischief, which I'm sure has made people reluctant to come forth again.  The gay community moved very quickly into the school system with their programs, so this is now forced on all children who go to public schools.

Is that freedom as conceived by our Founders?  I don't think the public school should have any say in the sexual education of our children.  That is a matter of conscience and a matter for the parents alone.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Don't forget, for almost 200 years children were taught to read using the Bible in public schools.  You think those people were just ignorant of the Constitution?  Or are people today the ignorant ones?

Yes I believe they were, in the same way slavery happened, witch burning happened, segregation happened, not allowing women to vote happened,  the way gay marriage is not recognized in the 50 states now. 

The bible is easily read in public school in a class that is specifically designated as religion or philosophy, so there is no problem actually.  The only problem is when Christians want the bible as part of a curriculum that professes a hard truth, rather than in the light of faith.

You point at the constitution as if it was a no brainer that those things were against the constitution yet,  they happened.

You can stand and say they were not Christians, but that is the whole problem,  the primary thought of religious Christianity has those roots and denying it doesn't change anything.

  I don't think the public school should have any say in the sexual education of our children.  That is a matter of conscience and a matter for the parents alone.

And I am with you on that, so christians need to quit making it a homosexual issue and make it a sexuality issue.  But that is not what it is.  They want abstinence based education on this hand and on the other hand they do not want homosexuality recognized as normal human behavior by equating it with sexual immorality.  They are ignorant that among heterosexuals and homosexuals alike there is deviant behavior that is apart from normal comitted monogomous loving relationships.   

David was not making an issue of "sexuality" he was making an issue of homosexual relationships by the ignorantly equating the two.

[Molly]

Yes I believe they were, in the same way slavery happened, witch burning happened, segregation happened, not allowing women to vote happened,  the way gay marriage is not recognized in the 50 states now.  

'Witch burning' was an isolated incident in the colonies where it seems the motive might have been a transference of property by some unscrupulous individuals.  It's hardly fair to paint the Christian colonists with that broad brush.  Slavery was a part of the culture when the Constitution was written.  We still have slavery today, it has just taken a different form.  Unless you consider that working three months for the government is not slavery or working as a domestic housekeeper for low wages is not slavery.  At least they get paid, right?  So did the slaves in the south get paid with room and board, and their necessities met.  The only difference is that today most of the slaves can vote, and they have a little more freedom to chose their masters.  But other than that, not much difference.  In fact, they might even be worse off today, living in tents and in their cars with their families instead of on the master's plantation.

and on the other hand they do not want homosexuality recognized as normal human behavior by equating it with sexual immorality.

That is a matter of religious belief for a lot of Christians, so can you tell me how their freedom of religion is not being violated when they are forced to recognize something as normal that they consider immoral based on religion?  Prostitution is normal, too?  Shall we write books for 5 year olds about the lifestyle of a prostitute?  We can tell the children how she takes these pretty colored pills all day to make her job more fun.

[Paul Hazelwood]

'Witch burning' was an isolated incident in the colonies where it seems the motive might have been a transference of property by some unscrupulous individuals.  It's hardly fair to paint the Christian colonists with that broad brush.  Slavery was a part of the culture when the Constitution was written.  We still have slavery today, it has just taken a different form.  Unless you consider that working three months for the government is not slavery or working as a domestic housekeeper for low wages is not slavery.  At least they get paid, right?  So did the slaves in the south get paid with room and board, and their necessities met.  The only difference is that today most of the slaves can vote, and they have a little more freedom to chose their masters.  But other than that, not much difference.  In fact, they might even be worse off today, living in tents and in their cars with their families instead of on the master's plantation.

It's fair when I come across Christians today that aren't bothered by witch burning.   And to equate todays economic stories to the slavery of blacks is preposterous.  I have been poor and down on my luck, I have lived that life and it is not even close to the same.  I was not a slave because I left one job for another, and even then that job was a worse one, so I left it for another one.   It was not an easy life, but to say I was a slave would be a lie.

That is a matter of religious belief for a lot of Christians, so can you tell me how their freedom of religion is not being violated when they are forced to recognize something as normal that they consider immoral based on religion?

This is an easy one.  No one forces you to believe anything.   But since your intepretation of the bible has no place in law making,  your religious beliefs as anyones often will take a back seat to what may be allowed in this country whether you like it or not.

If you can cite something that is violating that, it doesn't change that it's the goal.    Blacks should have never been slaves in this country based upon what this country was founded upon, but they were, so that fact was irrelevant to someone saying they are a Christian trying to say their religious freedom was being violated by being forced to recognize that they ARE free and that they must conduct themselves accordingly.

So personally, you have every right to believe that God says Gays are an abomination,  your convictions are irrelevant to whether it is determined in this country that they are free to be married and have relationships that are considered normal by law.   





 

Prostitution is normal, too?  Shall we write books for 5 year olds about the lifestyle of a prostitute?  We can tell the children how she takes these pretty colored pills all day to make her job more fun.

As I said,  you ignorantly equate homosexual relationships with "sexual behavior" that is inappropriate to be introduced to 5 year olds.  When you learn the difference then you will see that I agree that sexually based materials of any orientation should not be introduced to very young children in public schools.


[/quote]

[Molly]

It's fair when I come across Christians today that aren't bothered by witch burning.

huh?  I'm not sure what that means.

And to equate todays economic stories to the slavery of blacks is preposterous.

I am talking in general.  Whenever a man is separated from the fruits of his labor, that constitutes slavery.  So I am postulating to you that if you pay 25 percent taxes, you are a slave to the government for 3 months out of the year.  If your taxes go to 50 percent, then you are a slave to the government for 6 months of the year. If you do not pay your property taxes, whatever percentage that is of your labor,  you will lose your house.   How does that make you that different from a slave in the old south?

But since your intepretation of the bible has no place in law making,  your religious beliefs as anyones often will take a back seat to what may be allowed in this country whether you like it or not.

Let's back up here a bit.  I thought we were talking about the exclusion clause--where the federal Congress is prohibited from passing any law establishing a state church or from prohibiting the free exercise of religion.

I am saying that by forcing my children to learn things in public schools that are contrary to my religion,  and giving me no option at all, and by refusing them the right to practice their religion in school, they are doing just that.   That is the argument.  So if witchcraft is contrary to my religion, my children should not be forced to be exposed to Harry Potter in the public school.  You can't have it both ways--but they demand to have it both ways.

As they know full well, anything you teach a little child is truth to him, whether it is truth or not.  Children are not capable of having the type of discussion we are having now.  Therefore, they are forcing their beliefs on my children, whether they be humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, or witchcraft, and thereby denying me and my children freedom of religion.  That is the argument.

This could all be solved by getting the feds out of our state school systems.

My second argument is that a belief system is always a part of lawmaking,  and therefore, I am arguing that we should be very careful about whom we elect to office--that is, that they share our belief system.  

[Paul Hazelwood]

 I am talking in general.  Whenever a man is separated from the fruits of his labor, that constitutes slavery.  So I am postulating to you that if you pay 25 percent taxes, you are a slave to the government for 3 months out of the year.  If your taxes go to 50 percent, then you are a slave to the government for 6 months of the year. If you do not pay your property taxes, whatever percentage that is of your labor,  you will lose your house.   How does that make you that different from a slave in the old south?

We are not taxed without representation.  I am still allowed to vote federally and locally on my represenatives.  they do not always do what I like and sometimes they do, that is the way it is.   Blacks were not allowed to own property at all, let alone be represented through a tax burden paid on that property.  

I am saying that by forcing my children to learn things in public schools that are contrary to my religion,

That is your problem.  All your kids have to do is walk around in society and they are forced to be subject to things that are against what you believe, none of that prevents you from pursuing happiness,  if it does, all it proves is that your religion is useless.  Muslim women should not be able to conceal their identity for things concerning public identification such as a drivers license.  You would not want that either, however that is against their religion and in this country, the only responce they should get is   "too bad, your problem".

So if witchcraft is contrary to my religion, my children should not be forced to be exposed to Harry Potter in the public school.  You can't have it both ways--but they demand to have it both ways.

It is not having it both ways.  Harry potter is postulated by religion to contain religion when it is a work of fiction and is not a religious text in the first place.  Just because religious people lie and make a mockery of their own beliefs through such nonsense doesn't mean anything they say about it is true.

As they know full well, anything you teach a little child is truth to him, whether it is truth or not.  Children are not capable of having the type of discussion we are having now.  Therefore, they are forcing their beliefs on my children, whether they be humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, or witchcraft, and thereby denying me and my children freedom of religion.  That is the argument.

Not the same at all, christians actually refuse that the bible be in schools in the same light as those other terms.

If you will postulate the bible as a work of fiction, as general philosophy and something that if believed or not is on the same emotional level as any of those other terms you mentioned then you will find that it would be much easier to have biblical texts remain in the schools.

But you will not be willing to do that which proves that you want control rather than freedom, so it is right to refuse religion such control.   Religious people by and large only prove everyday that laws preventing their control are great laws. and YES the founding fathers knew , yep, they did, even if there were things they hated to see.   They knew the greater good came from allowing some things they hate in the name of freedom.

But Christians want to deceive people into thinking the founding fathers would agree with all their religious nonsense, some of us don't buy it for a second.