Should Church and state be separate?

[Molly]

That is your problem.

Why is this my problem?  Exactly what religion is being forced on me?  I'd like to know.   And, 'no religion' is not an acceptable answer.  Harry Potter might be fiction but it contains all the trappings and allures of the real thing--witchcraft.  So calling it 'fiction' doesn't help you out any more than calling Lady Chatterly's Lover 'fiction.'  It's a fictional story about the real thing.

Even though Darwinism and Global Warming are fiction, they are still taught to children as the real thing.   Do you really think children know the difference between fact and fiction?

which proves that you want control rather than freedom, so it is right to refuse religion such control.

That's right.  I want control of my freedom.  That's why, if I am surrounded by like minded people in my own community, we should be free to do that in our local school, and the feds should have nothing to say about it.


You still haven't explained to me why the schools are allowed to force the religions of humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, and witchcraft on my children.  Nor will you, because your goal is to attack Christianity. In other words, every religion is ok in your book except Christianity.  You are just pretending that the others are not religion, which they most certainly are.  And, they are being forced on us and we are being forced to pay for them being forced on us.  That's your idea of freedom?

[Molly]

Panel approves Bible classes for public schools

By Daniel Tencer
Friday, February 19th, 2010 -- 12:4


'Angel sent down' to put Bible on Kentucky school curriculum, legislator says'

A Kentucky state Senate committee has approved legislation allowing the Bible to be studied as a literary subject in public schools, a move that means the state will likely follow Tennessee, Texas and a handful of others in bringing the Christian text into the curriculum.

The bill, put forward by three Democratic state senators, orders the Kentucky Board of Education to draw up guidelines for teaching the Bible as a literary work in the context of "literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy," reports the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Bible courses would be elective.

The bill passed the committee 12-0, and is expected to sail smoothly through the legislature. "It's the kind of legislation that most Kentucky lawmakers dare not vote against, especially in an election year," reports the Associated Press.

In praising the legislation, state Sen. Elizabeth Tori told the bill's sponsors that "an angel was sent down on your shoulders" prompting "you to put this bill together," as quoted at the Courier-Journal.

"I've said for many years that until we put God back into our households, things in society will not change for the better," Tori said.

"So our politicians believe in imaginary cherubs from the sky dropping down to suggest legislation. Alert the writers at the Jon Stewart show," writes Rick Redding at the Louisville Mojo blog. "Sorry, Ms. Tori, but there are schools you can send your kids to if you want a religious education. Those aren't the ones funded by taxpayers."

But the bill's sponsors insist the new law wouldn't amount to religious indoctrination and steers clear of violating the principle of separation of church and state.

"There are so many aspects in the scripture relevant to literature -- it's relevant to art, to music, to social issues as well," Democratic state Sen. David Boswell, the bill's chief sponsor, told ABC affiliate WTVQ. "I know of no other book out there with the thousands of years of documentation on all of these social issues that can be used for instructional purposes."

The American Civil Liberties Union says that, while the bill doesn't appear to be unconstitutional, it will likely lead to abuses that will violate students' rights.

"It's not clearly unconstitutional on its face, but it will likely lead to a host of unconstitutional actions by school boards," ACLU of Kentucky executive director Michael Aldridge told AP. "It's obviously kind of a backdoor means to open the door to teach unconstitutional Bible courses in public schools."

The national legal director of American Atheists told WTVQ that he views the proposed law as unconstitutional.

"Nowhere does this book or this course intend to say these are mythological stories. They are presented as fact and they are presented as true history," Edward Kagin said. "I would readily support a bill to teach comparative religion, but I am opposed to teaching essentially the Christian religion."

Late last month, Tennessee's state board of education approved guidelines for a secular Bible course, which will be taught starting this fall as "part of a secular curriculum."

Texas has had a similar law on the books since 2007, and as of this fall, offering the class will be mandatory in Texas school districts.

http://rawstory.com/2010/02/angel-bible-kentucky-curriculum/

[Paul Hazelwood]

That is your problem.

Why is this my problem?  Exactly what religion is being forced on me?  I'd like to know.   And, 'no religion' is not an acceptable answer.  Harry Potter might be fiction but it contains all the trappings and allures of the real thing--witchcraft.  So calling it 'fiction' doesn't help you out any more than calling Lady Chatterly's Lover 'fiction.'  It's a fictional story about the real thing.

Even though Darwinism and Global Warming are fiction, they are still taught to children as the real thing.   Do you really think children know the difference between fact and fiction?

That is your religious opinion which has no place in determining law or what is allowed.   No religion is an acceptable answer because you did exactly what I said you would do.   You will not allow your own religion to be placed into schools in the same light as what you call other religions.  And since you refuse to do that, your religious assertions should be kept out of public school.

That's right.  I want control of my freedom.  That's why, if I am surrounded by like minded people in my own community, we should be free to do that in our local school, and the feds should have nothing to say about it.

You do have that right, just don't accept public funds in order to advance your religious cause and no one can say anything about it.   

You still haven't explained to me why the schools are allowed to force the religions of humanism, atheism, scientism, paganism, and witchcraft on my children.  Nor will you, because your goal is to attack Christianity.

I did explain,  you just refuse to allow your own beliefs to be seen in the same light.  It is called freedom of religion and the fact that you paint other religions as evil and yours as good and want your religion to prevail in the schools proves exactly why they have no place, because you are not about freedom of religion,  you are about promoting your religion as what everyone else should learn.  If you do not want Christianity attacked, perhaps it should actually amount to something that doesn't make it so easy to see the root of it's evil.

[Paul Hazelwood]

The bill, put forward by three Democratic state senators, orders the Kentucky Board of Education to draw up guidelines for teaching the Bible as a literary work in the context of "literature, art, music, mores, oratory and public policy," reports the Louisville Courier-Journal. The Bible courses would be elective.

Lets see where those guidelines end up.   There is great literature in the bible no matter what someone believes, will these people be content with leaving the bible as just another literary book?  We will see.

The bill passed the committee 12-0, and is expected to sail smoothly through the legislature. "It's the kind of legislation that most Kentucky lawmakers dare not vote against, especially in an election year," reports the Associated Press.

Yeah, funny how Christians hate politics until something goes thier way, then they whore out themselves.

[Molly]

Major combat in the Chinese Civil War ended in 1949 with the Communist Party of China in control of mainland China, and the Kuomintang (KMT) retreating to Taiwan. On 1 October 1949, Mao Zedong proclaimed the People's Republic of China.[28] "Communist China" or "Red China" were two of the names of the PRC.[29]

The economic and social plan known as the Great Leap Forward resulted in an estimated 36 million deaths.[30] I



The Great Leap Forward (simplified Chinese: 大跃进; traditional Chinese: 大躍進; pinyin: Dàyuèjìn) of the People's Republic of China (PRC) was an economic and social plan used from 1958 to 1961 which ostensibly aimed to use China's vast population to rapidly transform China from an agrarian economy into a modern communist society through the process of agriculturalization,[citation needed] industrialization, and collectivization. Mao Zedong led the campaign based on the Theory of Productive Forces, and intensified it after being informed of the impending disaster from grain shortages.

Chief changes in the lives of rural Chinese included the introduction of a mandatory process of agricultural collectivisation, which was introduced incrementally. Private farming was prohibited, and those engaged in it were labelled as counter revolutionaries and persecuted. Restrictions on rural people were enforced through public struggle sessions, social pressure, and violence. Food rationing was introduced, in some cases leaving rural Chinese with less than 250g (half a jin, 8.82 ounces) of grain per day. The Great Leap ended in catastrophe, triggering a widespread famine that resulted in up to thirty million deaths.[1

--wikipedia.com

wow--they murdered 30 million people in 3 years.  That has to be some kind of communist record.  Funny how no one ever mentions this genocide.  I guess it's not genocide when communists do it because they are the people's party.




The thief cometh not, but for to steal, and to kill, and to destroy: I am come that they might have life, and that they might have it more abundantly.

--John 10:10

[Molly]

Rev. Jim Wallis, a member of President Obama's "faith council" who is described as a spiritual adviser to the president, is a socialist activist who has championed communist causes and previously labeled the U.S. "the great captor and destroyer of human life."



The Associated Baptist Press described Wallis as a "politically progressive evangelical and longtime advocate for the poor." The Huffington Post identified Wallis as a "Christian author and social-justice advocate."

Wallis, however, is a longtime socialist advocate and founder of a far-left magazine, Sojourners, that has championed communist causes He currently serves on Obama's White House Advisory Council on Faith-based and Neighborhood Partnerships. He reportedly is a spiritual adviser to Obama and has known the president for years.

Wallis began his activism as a protester and then later Michigan leader of the Students for a Democratic Society, the 1960s anti-war group from which Bill Ayers' Weatherman domestic terrorist organization splintered.

Discover the Networks said that as a theology student, Wallis founded an anticapitalism magazine called the Post-American, which identified wealth redistribution and government-managed economies as the keys to achieving "social justice."



In 1971, Wallis renamed his magazine Sojourners. He has since served as editor of the publication.

Sojourners' official "statement of faith" urges readers to "refuse to accept [capitalist] structures and assumptions that normalize poverty and segregate the world by class."

Sojourners has published a slew of radicals, including socialist activist Cornel West and James Cone, considered the founder of Black Liberation Theology, which spawned the likes of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Obama's pastor of nearly 20 years.

Wallis' magazine actively lobbied for communist regimes that seized power in Latin America in the late 1970s, including the Sandinista dictatorship in Nicaragua. Sojourners in the 1980s was a fierce opponent of the U.S. nuclear buildup, claiming the policy was "an intolerable evil" irreconcilably at odds with Christianity.

Discover the Networks notes how Sojourners originally formed a socialist commune in Washington, D.C., where members shared finances and launched anticapitalist activism.

In his 1976 book, "Agenda for Biblical People," Wallis called the U.S. "the great power, the great seducer, the great captor and destroyer of human life, the great master of humanity and history in its totalitarian claims and designs."

Wallis continues to openly support socialism. Along with socialist activist West, Wallis in 1995 founded Call to Renewal, a coalition of religious groups demanding the spread of U.S. wealth to promote "social justice."

As a guest on MSNBC last week, Wallis stated "social justice" is at the heart of the Bible.

http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=128053

[ChuckK3]

I believe in the separation of church and state.  No single church has the right to influence their agenda in government matters. 

Now separation of church and state doesn't have to mean separation of God and state.  A Godless nation cannot stand.

[Molly]

I did explain,  you just refuse to allow your own beliefs to be seen in the same light.  It is called freedom of religion and the fact that you paint other religions as evil and yours as good and want your religion to prevail in the schools ...

Yes, that's right, I do, because the majority of these children come from Christian families, and children are not capable of making religious choices at 5 years old, or 10 years old,  nor are they capable of discerning for themselves why they might choose Christianity over paganism, humanism, atheism, communism, scientism,  or any other non Christian religion one might choose to teach them at a tender age.   They will believe everything you tell them is Truth.  That is why the propagandists work so hard to teach our children anything other than Christian principles because they know that if they can reach the child at a young enough age, they can change the society.  It's simple.

Otherwise, stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic with a very bland curriculum, which they do not do these days--or give tax vouchers to private schools and watch the public schools empty out.  They are happy to celebrate Halloween in the schools with every kind of ghost, goblin, and witch, but Christmas?--That's anathema.  And this continues all the way through the university level.

You will see what the founders were guarding against if you look at a Communist country where the state religion is atheistic statism, and everyone who disagrees is either murdered or put in jail.  Nor did they want a situation like in England, where the King is also the head of the Episcopal Church.   But the founders saw no conflict between teaching the Bible in public school and their own Constitution, in fact, they encouraged it.


The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [extinguishing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools.[54]  The Bible, when not read in schools, is seldom read in any subsequent period of life. . . . It should be read in our schools in preference to all other books from its containing the greatest portion of that kind of knowledge which is calculated to produce private and public temporal happiness.[55]
BENJAMIN RUSH, SIGNER OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE




Romans 10:17
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yes, that's right, I do, because the majority of these children come from Christian families, and children are not capable of making religious choices at 5 years old, or 10 years old,  nor are they capable of discerning for themselves why they might choose Christianity over paganism, humanism, atheism, communism, scientism,  or any other non Christian religion one might choose to teach them at a tender age.

Of course you do not want freedom,  that is what I have been saying.

Otherwise, stick to reading, writing, and arithmetic with a very bland curriculum, which they do not do these days--or give tax vouchers to private schools and watch the public schools empty out.  They are happy to celebrate Halloween in the schools with every kind of ghost, goblin, and witch, but Christmas?--That's anathema.  And this continues all the way through the university level.

Yes and the people promoting christianity have not seen their own error.  It is the knowledge that you want control as you have just admitted that causes the problem.  Ghost goblins and witches around halloween hasn't caused anyone to be religious in that nature.  More lies.  More hiding that you want religious control, and when youir opposed you cry foul and start yapping on about the founders.  The founders understood what you want is wrong.

But the founders saw no conflict between teaching the Bible in public school and their own Constitution, in fact, they encouraged it.

Of course, that's why the lies from Christianity has nothing to do with having biblical texts in school in the correct context.   You do not want the bible in schools you want your religious interpretation to control it.

But because you want that, all of the sudden it's constititional, more lies.

[Molly]

Of course you do not want freedom,  that is what I have been saying.

Yes, I do want freedom.  I have had the great pleasure of growing up in complete freedom because of Christianity.  And, I realize that without Christianity and without Christ subsequent generations are at great risk of losing that freedom.  Name one free country in the world that does NOT have its roots in Christianity.  Name ONE.

Yes and the people promoting christianity have not seen their own error.  It is the knowledge that you want control as you have just admitted that causes the problem.  Ghost goblins and witches around halloween hasn't caused anyone to be religious in that nature.  More lies.  More hiding that you want religious control, and when youir opposed you cry foul and start yapping on about the founders.  The founders understood what you want is wrong.

Shall we look at the statistics on the increase in pagan religions and atheism in this country?  You think that might be because these religions were taught in school to children?  I do.   I don't 'yap' about the founders, as you so eloquently put it,  I quote them.  Why don't you quote where they say they don't want the Bible or Christianity taught in schools? Oh, you can't because they didn't say that. They said the opposite.  I would rather listen to them than to you misrepresenting them.  So quote them, and I might listen to you.

I don't want to control knowledge to adults.  Adults are welcome to learn and do whatever they want. I studied just about every religion known to man as a young adult.  But I want to make sure our children learn the religion that this country was founded on as the religion of their forefathers.  Just like I would like to insist that all people in this country speak English, and that English is insisted upon in the schools as our native language.

You do not want the bible in schools you want your religious interpretation to control it.

That is not true.  You don't even know what I believe, do you?  But know this, I'm a Christian.  I .would greatly object to the Bible being taught as 'myth,' and that would NOT be teaching it in a neutral sense as some would like to trick us into believing.  Those who wrote the Bible believed in God and the God they were writing about.

 And, it is very clear to me that God has given us his word and invites us to interpret it as is fitting to us, through the Holy Spirit.  My own understanding of it has grown as I have grown.   Introduce children to Jesus and the New Testament in schools and I have total confidence that they will understand who he is better than most adults, no interpretation necessary.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Yes, I do want freedom.  I have had the great pleasure of growing up in complete freedom because of Christianity.  And, I realize that without Christianity and without Christ subsequent generations are at great risk of losing that freedom.  Name one free country in the world that does NOT have its roots in Christianity.  Name ONE.

That is the religious lie,  Christianity is not what our country was founded upon, it was founded upon a freedom that can be seen as better than we are and Godly values are what will align with that freedom.

Which means you have to live with the fact that your poor  poor children might learn something you do not like and disagree with and perhaps make a decision one day based on that very freedom.

You avoid the fact that I see that you wish to erradicate other beliefs you do not like if you had the control and power to do so. You are not for freedom, you speak a lie.

Shall we look at the statistics on the increase in pagan religions and atheism in this country?  You think that might be because these religions were taught in school to children?  I do.   I don't 'yap' about the founders, as you so eloquently put it,  I quote them.  Why don't you quote where they say they don't want the Bible or Christianity taught in schools? Oh, you can't because they didn't say that. They said the opposite.  I would rather listen to them than to you misrepresenting them.  So quote them, and I might listen to you.

Religion misrepresents the facts,  I am a pagan based on those stats and I live more free than ever because I do not conform to religious ideologies.  Yes you yap about the founders because when you quote them you think they side with you and your wish for control and you are wrong.  I have not once said I am against the bible being in schools, but you equate the bible to your religious ideologies and that is not what this is about.   Christians want the bible in school in the manner of instructing kids in how they should be through the intepretations they accept and that any other way is evil and wrong and that is not what the founders intended.  They did not intend for your ideology to be the acceptable light of control.  They would oppose you because you do not want people to be free you want them religiously controlled.

I don't want to control knowledge to adults.  Adults are welcome to learn and do whatever they want. I studied just about every religion known to man as a young adult.  But I want to make sure our children learn the religion that this country was founded on as the religion of their forefathers.  Just like I would like to insist that all people in this country speak English, and that English is insisted upon in the schools as our native language.

[/quote]

Nope, because in all your quoting you only include what is convenient to your point,  quote all the founders where they show that some were only deists and that they do not accept that Christianity founded this country.   

And it is that nonsense there that has caused Christians the trouble that they find themselves in concerning public schools.  You want ytour religious intepretations taught as truth in schools and want that control and you hide behind half truths to promote your lies.


Christians blame the devil and the liberals and the one world order and now they blame obama, and in the furture they will blame someone, when they are their own problem and until they understand what freedom of religion actually means, they will continue to have the problems that are only caused by their own hand.

[Molly]

I am a pagan

Then why are you here?

They did not intend for your ideology to be the acceptable light of control.

You don't know what my 'ideology' is, you are just pretending you do to set me up as your straw man that you can then knock down.

I have not once said I am against the bible being in schools,..

Then we agree, unless you have an ideology that the Bible be taught as NOT the word of God which the Bible itself claims to be.

Christians want the bible in school in the manner of instructing kids in how they should be through the intepretations they accept ..

I can't speak to that because I was taught the Bible with the Bible as a child.  I was not taught a specific interpretation that I couldn't see for myself in the scripture.  The scripture itself is enough and stands alone.  How you interpret it is up to you and the Holy Spirit.

quote all the founders where they show that some were only deists and that they do not accept that Christianity founded this country.

Ok, you give me the quotes.  I'm waiting.  You can be a deist and a Christian, you know.  A deist just maintains that God does not interfere with day to day existence.  I feel sorry for them if that is the case in their lives, but they are welcome to believe that.  Yet, founder after founder say how they owe everything to God and that God did interfere with blessings in their favour.

You want ytour religious intepretations taught as truth in schools ..

Why don't you tell me what my religious interpretations are that you object to and I'll tell you whether or not I have those interpretations and try to defend them.   Stop making things up about me.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Then why are you here?

I am here because religion does not determine who I am.  I am a pagan according to Christianity,  but that does not determine that I am. 

You don't know what my 'ideology' is, you are just pretending you do to set me up as your straw man that you can then knock down.

Not hardly, you have already told me that you want Christianity in control,  that is not what the founders would agree with.  So there is no strawman, you have stated it yourself.

You can be a deist and a Christian,

That is probably the best evidence yet that "Christianity" has no bearing on the founding of this country.

There is no teaching associated with christianity that would make a statement such as that.

[Molly]

I am here because religion does not determine who I am.  I am a pagan according to Christianity,  but that does not determine that I am.

well, I don't know what that means, but pagan actually has a definition, none of which seem compatible with Christianity.

pa·gan (pgn)
n.
1. An adherent of a polytheistic religion in antiquity, especially when viewed in contrast to an adherent of a monotheistic religion.
2. A Neopagan.
3. Offensive
   a. One who has no religion.
   b. An adherent of a religion other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.
4. A hedonist.

Not hardly, you have already told me that you want Christianity in control,  that is not what the founders would agree with.

I have given you multiple quotes to show that they did want us to remain a Christian country.  You have not shown me one to the contrary.

There is no teaching associated with christianity that would make a statement such as that.

Deism also actually has a definition and a history.


de·ism  (dē'ĭz'əm, dā'-)    
n.  The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.



An 18th-c. movement in religious belief for the educated laity, especially the philosophes; not confined to France. The word originated in the 16th c. as a pejorative term for antitrinitarian and similar ideas among sects such as the Socinians, and was taken over to denote analogous views in secular writings: the deist is essentially one who, on the positive or constructive side, limits his religion to the belief in God, and on the negative or critical side remains independent of Christianity, and often hostile. 'Natural religion', often taken as synonymous, is in principle compatible with Christianity, or can even be its basis.



... the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them...

--Declaration of Independence

[Paul Hazelwood]

   a. One who has no religion.

That could be me.

An adherent of a religion other than Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Could be me, I do not stake a claim in any of those.

I have given you multiple quotes to show that they did want us to remain a Christian country.  You have not shown me one to the contrary.

That contradicts freedom of religion.  They had no problem with basic concepts, but that is not what you have said, you want control, they would oppose you and your quotes would not help your case.

Deism also actually has a definition and a history.

That's great, Christianity needs to be aware of that because you will not find any teaching with in christianity that will accept deism as being compatible with it.   That is why christianity did not found this country.

[Molly]

That contradicts freedom of religion.  They had no problem with basic concepts, but that is not what you have said, you want control, they would oppose you and your quotes would not help your case.

Think of it this way.  Our founders came from a homogenous background in the sense that they all came from Christian countries.  Christians had been notoriously fighting among themselves for centuries.  On the one hand you had the Pope who claimed power over sovereign governments, on the other hand you had the King of England who claimed power over the church.

This was what they wished to avoid.  Thomas Jefferson had a horror of recreating another English government with the Episcopal church in charge, or the Pope, for that matter.  

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government" [12], and, "In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." [13
--Thomas Jefferson

Among the various Protestant sects themselves, Jefferson pointed to the infighting that threatened civil harmony and freedom.

The serious enemies are the priests of the different religious sects, to whose spells on the human mind its improvement is ominous. Their pulpits are now resounding with denunciations against the appointment of Dr. Cooper whom they charge as Monarchist in opposition to their tritheism. Hostile as these sects are in every other point, to one another, they unite in maintaining their mystical theology against those who believe there is one God only. The Presbyterian clergy are the loudest. The most intolerant of all sects, the most tyrannical, and ambitious; ready at the word of the lawgiver, if such a word could be now obtained, to put the torch to the pile, and to rekindle in this virgin hemisphere, the flames in which their oracle Calvin consumed the poor Servetus..."[15]


So here he is pointing to two groups fighting over what flavor of Christianity is acceptable and his fear is not of Christ, the Bible, or of God being worshipped in a Christian manner, but of a particular Christian sect demanding and gaining ascendency over another Christian sect--in this case, the Calvinists.


In summary, then, Jefferson was a Christian deist because he believed in one God, in divine providence, in the divine moral law, and in rewards and punishments after death; but did not believe in supernatural revelation. He was a Christian deist because he saw Christianity as the highest expression of natural religion and Jesus as an incomparably great moral teacher. He was not an orthodox Christian because he rejected, among other things, the doctrines of the Trinity and that Jesus was the incarnate Son of God. Jefferson's religion was fairly typical of the American form of deism in his day.

--Avery Cardinal Dulles, Roman Catholic theologian



Yet, Jefferson calls himself at the end of his life, 'a Christian,'  a follower of Jesus Christ.  I maintain that it is impossible to spend any serious amount of time in the New Testament and not fall in love with Jesus.  And, I believe that Jefferson, much as he tried to control his public expression of that fact, finally succumbed to it.


One can only imagine what it was like in their day, coming to this country for the freedom to worship God as they pleased, fleeing religious prosecution,  but always with their own flavor of Christianity.  

There is no doubt that this was a Christian country founded by those who had fled Christian countries.  They didn't come here for the urbane society it offered.  They came here for religious [read Christian] freedom.  And, they set up a Constitution to achieve that effect, but they wanted the power, not in the hands of the federal government, but in the hands of the people and of the states.   The states at that time were by definition the most powerful entities of the time, and they wished it to remain that way, where the states themselves derived their power from the people.  For the federal government to tell the states what they can and cannot do in their state run institutions, against the will of the people, blatantly contradicts that fact.  The federal government itself is now forbidding freedom of religion by requiring the states to follow their rules,  which I maintain violates the first amendment.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Among the various Protestant sects themselves, Jefferson pointed to the infighting that threatened civil harmony and freedom.

Anyone representing "Christianity" today who wants control will be opposed because it is not about freedom, it is about control, you can water it down all you like.  There is nothing in the written constitution that says we are a Christian nation and that freedom of religion is freedom only of a brand of Christianity.   That is another lie.

[Molly]

Among the various Protestant sects themselves, Jefferson pointed to the infighting that threatened civil harmony and freedom.

Anyone representing "Christianity" today who wants control will be opposed because it is not about freedom, it is about control, you can water it down all you like.  There is nothing in the written constitution that says we are a Christian nation and that freedom of religion is freedom only of a brand of Christianity.   That is another lie.

Taking my statements out of context doesn't serve you well.  



Originally, the First Amendment only applied to the Congress. However, in the 20th century, the Supreme Court held that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment applies the First Amendment to each state, including any local government.
--Wikipedia  


Maybe it's time to repeal the 14th amendment [which was not written by our founders]. And,  I think the states might just be in the mood to do it.  I would like to see freedom of religion restored in my lifetime.

[Paul Hazelwood]

Taking my statements out of context.  

I'm not.

  I would like to see freedom of religion restored in my lifetime.

There is, but you think that freedom only applies to people within Christianity and you are wrong.

[Raggedy Anne]

Paul,

I wonder if you have seen this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Rqw4krMOug

It demonstrates the reason why I try to stay far away from religious groups, particular the ones that insist that I believe everything just as they do.  
Religion can be so creepy.   If we do not insist on having our own freedom of thought, there will always been someone standing by who is eager to "tell you
what truth is" and insisting you believe it (or else!).  

We really are like sheep, made vulnerable to following something or someone.  Each person should respect others' right to follow the spirit of Truth for themselves
and not try to dictate their notions on others.   You would think those who have come into the understanding of UR would have learned that by now, but there is
still a strong tendency even among UR believers to try to control everyone.    This whole world is a lot like an insane asylum.

Anne

p.s.... I think there is a spiritual law that goes something like this: 'So long as you despise the other (those not like yourself)', you cannot be set free from religious prison.  Wasn't that a lot of what kept the Jews in bondage thousands of years ago - despising the foreigner and stranger ?  Isn't that what is causing hell on the earth now?

[Beloved Servant]

Psalm 124

A song of ascents. Of David.


  If the Lord had not been on our side—

let Israel say —

if the Lord had not been on our side

when men attacked us,

when their anger flared against us,

they would have swallowed us alive;

the flood would have engulfed us,

the torrent would have swept over us,

the raging waters

would have swept us away.

Praise be to the Lord,

who has not let us be torn by their teeth.

We have escaped like a bird

out of the fowler's snare;

the snare has been broken,

and we have escaped.

Our help is in the name of the Lord,

the Maker of heaven and earth.

[Molly]

Quote
 I would like to see freedom of religion restored in my lifetime.

There is, but you think that freedom only applies to people within Christianity and you are wrong.

No there is not freedom of religion at this time.

Ok let me try once more to explain and to be as clear as possible, although I'm close to giving up.  The founders never intended for the first amendment to prevent a public school from teaching Christianity.  The states, which were the most powerful entities of that time, would not have agreed to that because the states were made up of Christian people who wanted to pass their religion along to their children--and that would include in school.  So they would have never allowed the founders to write a Constitution which would limit that freedom.  What we call the Ivy League schools were originally created to teach ministers of the Protestant religion.

Freedom of religion means that my little community of Paradise, South Carolina can teach whatever we feel is important for our children to know in our public schools, including Christianity.  It should be left up to the states and to the community within the states if we are to stay within the intent of the founders.  That is religious freedom.

What we have today is not religious freedom because the courts have ruled that the fourteenth amendment which was not written until 1862 applies the first amendment to the states and the communities.  This allows the feds to take away my religious freedom as granted to me by the founders.   Without the 14th amendment, my little community of Paradise can teach our children anything that pleases us that we as a majority agree upon.  THAT is freedom.  If you don't like what we are doing in Paradise, you can move to another city or state that is more to your liking and that is different.  THAT is freedom.

Therefore, repeal the fourteenth amendment and restore my freedom of religion as the founders intended.

[Paul Hazelwood]

No there is not freedom of religion at this time.

Yes there is.

The founders never intended for the first amendment to prevent a public school from teaching Christianity.

A public school is not prevented from teaching about Christianity when in the correct context.

What Christians often hate is that they do not get to have church in school.  Because that is what they really want.

THAT is freedom.  If you don't like what we are doing in Paradise, you can move to another city or state that is more to your liking and that is different.  THAT is freedom.

Nope,  you have it all wrong.   First the states have never been able to absolutely anything they wanted apart from the federal government.   But I would say that it would be possible for a state to free itself from more federal control if it refused to take one penny of federal money.   The freedom you seek is actually there,  but you are not willing to have it.  Few Christians are, they demand freedom,. but cannot bear the full price of what that freedom really means so they seek control being nothing but hypocrites.

[Molly]

First the states have never been able to absolutely anything they wanted apart from the federal government

Are you kidding me?  You need to seriously study some American history. You have it all backwards. The States, even though they were at first 'colonies,'  were like little countries in Europe, and they were around long before the Federal government.  Good grief.  The Constitution wasn't even ratified until years after the Revolutionary war.  And the Constitution itself only gave the federal govt a few discrete things they could do.  The founders would be rolling over in their graves if they saw us today.

Take no money from the feds?  Ok, that's a deal if they take no money from the states.  And, while we're at it, let us restore our money as well. This healthcare bill is going to force this all to a head.  We shall see if Freedom can once again reign supreme in this land.




"In 1607, Captain John Smith established the first permanent English settlement in America at Jamestown.  Many settlers died that winter from starvation; fortunately, ships bringing new colonists with food and supplies arrived early in the spring.

John Rolfe of Jamestown began planting tobacco in 1612.  He developed a method that enabled tobacco to be exported, allowing it to become the leading industry in Virginia.  In 1619, the House of Burgess became the first legislature in America.  This group and the governor met together to create laws for the colony.



The First Continental Congress was a convention of delegates from twelve of the thirteen North American colonies that met on September 5, 1774, at Carpenters' Hall in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, early in the American Revolution. Called in response to the passage of the Coercive Acts (also known as Intolerable Acts by the Colonial Americans) by the British Parliament, the Congress was attended by 56 members appointed by the legislatures of twelve of the Thirteen Colonies, the exception being the Province of Georgia, which did not send delegates. At the time, Georgia was the newest and smallest province and declined to send a delegation because it was seeking help from London in pacifying its smoldering Indian frontier.[1]

The Congress met briefly to consider options, including an economic boycott of British trade; publish a list of rights and grievances; and petition King George for redress of those grievances.

The Congress also called for another Continental Congress in the event that their petition was unsuccessful in halting enforcement of the Intolerable Acts. Their appeal to the Crown had no effect, and so the Second Continental Congress was convened the following year to organize the defense of the colonies at the onset of the American Revolutionary War. The delegates also urged each colony to set up and train its own militia

The Thirteen Colonies were British colonies on the Atlantic coast of North America, which declared their independence in the American Revolution and formed the United States. The colonies, whose territory ranged from what is now Maine (then part of the Province of Massachusetts Bay) to the north and Georgia to the south, were Delaware, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Georgia, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, South Carolina, New Hampshire, Virginia, New York, North Carolina, and Rhode Island. At the time of the Revolution, these colonies contained territory now outside of the borders of the modern states.

The United States Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in each U.S. state in the name of "The People". The Constitution has been amended twenty-seven times; the first ten amendments are known as the Bill of Rights.[1][2]

The United States Constitution is the shortest and oldest written constitution still in use by any nation in the world today.[3]"


--Wikipedia

[Paul Hazelwood]

Are you kidding me?  You need to seriously study some American history.

We are talking about constitutional issues so citing things before the constitution is a different argument.   If you think that was a better time in history, then try to get rid of the constitution altogether.   Go ahead try,  you have the right to try.

Fact is,  you only want freedom for those who you decide are acceptable Christians,  that is not freedom no matter how you wish to slice it and I for one am glad there are people who will oppose you because they have the right to as you have the right to try. S

Succeeding in your endeavors to redefine freedom to be only seen in the name of religious control is quite another matter.