Church and State

[lmunchkin]

For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate.  Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?

[willowtreewren]

The very last thing I want is to see our government meddle in even more personal affairs. The choice of which religion (or none) to follow should be strictly in the hands of each individual.

If the USA were a theocracy, the government could choose an official state religion, something from which our forebears fled. People who advocate that the majority should determine whether or which religion should be institutionalized forget that majorities change. Keeping church and state separate protects both.

Aleta

[Stoday]

It seems to me that every dollar bill contradicts the separation of church and state (in God we trust).

If the church is to play a part in government, then which will be the lucky one? There are so many. Or would you advocate several fedrally recognised churches?

The UK has Church of England representatives in the upper chamber, but they have little influence. The church's influence in general is much less now than it was when I was a child. I particularly remember that the swings and other amusements for children were locked up on Sundays. Not so now.

[Ang]

For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate.  Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?

NO NO NO NEVER

but it does

[MooseMom]

We all know the story about the Puritans fleeing from England to America so that they could have religious freedom.  What most people forget is that the Puritans didn't like the idea of religious freedom for others.  They were just as tyrannical in this regard as was the Anglican church leaders in England at that time.

Which religion are you going to mix with politics?

I watched a very interesting documentary on HBO this evening, written, filmed and produced by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter.  It was called "Citizen USA"; it will probably be OnDemand by now, so check it out.  Anyway, Alexandra's husband is Dutch, and since he married an American, he was easily able to get a green card.  When his first child was born, though, he decided that he didn't want to be the only one in the family who was not American, so he applied for citizenship.  Alexandra took his experience and travelled to each of the 50 states and witnessed a Naturalization ceremony in each state.  After each ceremony, she spoke with several new American citizens and would ask them why they wanted to become an American.  One man from Poland said that he wanted to be a citizen in a country who could overcome its past and elect a black man as President.  Many women said that in America, they could own their own home, own their own car, create their own businesses, things that they never would have been able to do in their native land.  One Muslim woman in Tennessee, another in Mississippi and another man in Michigan all said that they appreciated the religious freedom they had in this country.  You don't really think of Muslims living in the American Bible Belt expressing gratitude for religious tolerance!  But that goes to show how much Americans fundamentally cherish not only their faith but also their freedom to have whichever faith they choose.

On a personal note, I feel that religion belongs either in the home or in the church.  It does not belong in government and it does not belong in our schools.  Parents should give their children whichever kind of religious education they feel is appropriate.  In saying that, though, I think that government should act in ways that are pretty universally recognized as fair-minded and compassionate.  I don't think you have to be of any organized religion to want our government to be responsible, fair and humane.

What we understand to be the mixing of Church and State is anti-American.  As Aleta pointed out, that would mean our federal government would choose an official state religion, and I can't think of anything more against the ideals of the Founding Fathers than that!

[cariad]

For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate.  Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?

That sound you hear is our Constitution throwing up....

[Hemodoc]

Most folks do not have knowledge of the Christian origins and roots of America as well as the Christian roots of the English Common Law on which the majority of our rights are based. Indeed, the 14th amendment when incorporated into the 1st amendment declared several state constitutions unconstitutional, but that was not the original intent of the founders who specifically kept the provisions in the constitution separate from state and local rights.

Eight states originally had requirements that all those in the state government must believe in Jesus and God as the Supreme Being in acceptance of the Christian religion. The establishment clause had to do with denominations, not religions as we now view the term. There was nothing in the constitution at the time it was written to prohibit the Christian religious test at state and local levels. It was only after the much later 14th amendment incorporated the 1st amendment to apply to states and local governments did we begin to see an intrusion upon the expression of Christian principles in these governments.

http://vftonline.org/TestOath/22leaders.htm

At the Federal level, we had mandates for an American Bible that was actually authorized and printed by congress(1782), we established Christian missions to the indians with congressional approval and many of the founding fathers professed belief in Jesus Christ.

Yet today, we would be led to believe that America was a secular nation right from it's foundations, this is simply not true. There are four Supreme Court rulings in our history that declared America a Christian nation. The last was in 1931. If folks wish to state that America is no longer a Christian nation, I have no argument with that statement at all, much to our demise. But going back to the founding fathers and the subsequent generations, they not only declared, but embraced we were a Christian nation. It was not until 1948 in McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948). However, it was not until the 1960's that the crusade against Christianity in our government really began.

McCollum v. Board of Education Dist. 71, 333 U.S. 203 (1948) http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/church-state/decisions.html

In 1984, ironically, Ronald Reagan signed into law the taxation of churches through social security taxation and at the same time made them tax collectors as well. I know a man in prison today who is there because of his misplaced trust in the constitution that would overturn this law.  A sad situation no doubt and one that the founders would turn in their graves over. The constitutional provisions were never meant to keep the influence of Christianity out of the government, on the contrary, they were to protect the church from the state. Today, the historical revisionists would have us believe that it was they were protecting the government from Christian religion. That is simply not true.

http://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/handbook/handbook.11/handbook-1136.html

In fact and reality, 8 of the original states were in essence run as Christian theocracies which our Federal constitution of 1789 did not overturn or interfere whatsoever. In fact, 7 states still have the original language in their state constitutions even though SCOTUS has ruled them unenforceable in 1961.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Torcaso_v._Watkins

Thus, to state that America is not a Christian nation today, that is certainly a much more accurate statement than to make the false assertion that the founding fathers had the same view. It truly was not until 1961 that America denied it's Christian origins in earnest and began a crusade against Christianity at the Federal level. Today, any expression of Christianity in public is often viewed as unconstitutional.  Sadly, what started as a Christian nation is now largely hostile towards this religion.  Limiting the expression of Christianity to simply home and church is a persecution that will one day eliminate those two areas someday as well. Sorry, I don't leave my Christianity at home with me, it is who I am. Religious tolerance is now extended to almost every religion, yet not to Christianity. The child bringing a Bible to school is often subject to questioning at the very least by school officials, yet a recent court decision allows Sikhs to bring their ceremonial knives into the schools.

http://www.nytimes.com/1994/09/04/us/school-told-to-allow-sikhs-to-have-knives.html

Lastly, how ironic that although Christians are banned from prayer, Muslims are not:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2007-07-25-muslim-special-treatment-from-schools_N.htm

America is no longer a friendly nation to Christians and our sphere of freedom to practice our religion is slowly becoming more and more restricted to the point that if laws declaring homosexuals protected rights, the US courts will soon in my opinion be able to force American churches to hire openly gay men and women in religious positions.  There are many who have already advocated such and I hope and pray that our religious freedoms do not erode to that point, but we are certainly in danger of that right now. In fact, in Canada, several verses in the Bible are already declared hate speech and anyone that preaches these verses from the pulpit can and have been arrested and prosecuted. So, if folks wish to speak about separation of church and state, getting all of the facts is an essential place to start.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=20862

Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.

[Willis]

For many years we have lived on Federal guidelines to keep Church and State Separate.  Do you feel it is time to change that law or keep it? Should we begin to mix religion with Politics?

That sound you hear is our Constitution throwing up....

Religion has always been mixed with politics and there's nothing in the Constitution to prohibit anyone from mixing religion with politics!

The writers of the Constitution never intended to root out religion from every facet of the government. The government is PEOPLE and especially in the late 1700s most people were strongly entangled with some form of traditional religion. So unless all religious people are banned, there is no way to keep religion out of the government.

The establishment clause of the First Amendment was written to prevent the GOVERNMENT from establishing a state-sponsored church such as the Church of England and forcing people to join that "establishment of religion" or making it a requirement for office seekers, or otherwise forcing it down people's throats by using the police powers of the government to do so. Specific clauses were added to the Constitution that clearly forbade using religion as a means test for holding office and preventing Congress from passing laws concerning religion. But the Founders never intended to wipe out all vestiges of religion from public life.

People have opinions, convictions and ethics, usually based on their religion if they have one, and those convictions are the essence of the people serving in government whether religious or not. How can anyone function if they have to set aside all traces of their religion when they enter the Capitol? So it wasn't to stamp out religion in politics or government that was the goal; rather, it was to prevent the GOVERNMENT for forcing religion on to the people (by force). Of course the non-religious or the irreligious or even those totally anti-religious can all run for any office. Then it's up to the voters to decide.

 

[gothiclovemonkey]

idk if this is ever relevent, so forgive me if it isnt.

The school in which I used to attend, and my son now attends, does not allow anyone to wear "alternate" religious symbols. They do however allow the cross. I don't really think that should be right... I personally love the Cross and I am christian, but I have a friend, who has children that are of the Wiccan faith, and are not allowed to wear their religious symbol. When I was in that school, I was not allowed to wear an old star of david I found at a sale, and thought it was pretty! I had no idea it was even religious symbol at the time! I was told to remove it at once.
I find that to be wrong. If they allow one, they should allow all. Or none. Just saying.

[cariad]

idk if this is ever relevent, so forgive me if it isnt.

The school in which I used to attend, and my son now attends, does not allow anyone to wear "alternate" religious symbols. They do however allow the cross. I don't really think that should be right... I personally love the Cross and I am christian, but I have a friend, who has children that are of the Wiccan faith, and are not allowed to wear their religious symbol. When I was in that school, I was not allowed to wear an old star of david I found at a sale, and thought it was pretty! I had no idea it was even religious symbol at the time! I was told to remove it at once.
I find that to be wrong. If they allow one, they should allow all. Or none. Just saying.

Is this a public school? If yes, I think it's very relevant and sounds most illegal to me. You are right in that it is the favoring of one religion over another that causes the real problem.

Willis, I think the spirit of lmunchkin's question was clear to all who responded, even though she may not have worded it well. Should we repeal "that law" (The First Amendment) and slide toward theocracy, where government is allowed to promote a specific religion? If we don't have the freedoms of the First Amendment, which revolve around freedom of thought and expression, we don't have much, do we.

Stoday, I looked up the various legal battles surrounding In God We Trust and it has apparently been decided that it does not go toward establishing a religion (therefore not in violation of the Constitution) and the phrase has "lost through rote repetition any significant religious content". I would have to admit that I have no problem with that.

[cariad]

In 1984, ironically, Ronald Reagan signed into law the taxation of churches through social security taxation and at the same time made them tax collectors as well. I know a man in prison today who is there because of his misplaced trust in the constitution that would overturn this law.  A sad situation no doubt and one that the founders would turn in their graves over.

Hemodoc, you have mentioned your friendship with Kent Hovind before. He did not think that those laws were going to be overturned, he bragged repeatedly about outsmarting them. He threatened investigators, made his employees state that they were "volunteers" or "missionaries" (what happens if one of those people needs Medicare and does not have enough work credits?) structured cash transactions, wasted years of the courts time, and lied A LOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind (According to this article, he also does not believe there is such a thing as the separation of church and state) He is by every definition a criminal and is exactly where he belongs, having been found guilty on 58 counts. (58!!!)

I do not view America as a Christian nation, and I do not see that as a detriment in the least.

[Bill Peckham]

I think the Founders were men of the Enlightenment. They professed a belief in God but that isn't the same as being a Christian. There are a lot of Founders and each state has its Founders but if you're talking about Washington Franklin Jefferson Madison Adams Hamilton then I'd say they were free thinkers.

[MooseMom]

America is no longer a friendly nation to Christians and our sphere of freedom to practice our religion is slowly becoming more and more restricted to the point that if laws declaring homosexuals protected rights, the US courts will soon in my opinion be able to force American churches to hire openly gay men and women in religious positions.  There are many who have already advocated such and I hope and pray that our religious freedoms do not erode to that point, but we are certainly in danger of that right now. In fact, in Canada, several verses in the Bible are already declared hate speech and anyone that preaches these verses from the pulpit can and have been arrested and prosecuted. So, if folks wish to speak about separation of church and state, getting all of the facts is an essential place to start.

Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.

I am truly, truly baffled by this victimhood mindset.  Who is preventing you from practicing Christianity?  How are you defining "Christian"?  Do you know any Christians who are prevented from going to church or praying in their homes or wherever they like?  My husband and I were out for dinner the other evening and noted a family at a nearby table praying before their meal.  No one persecuted them.  What kind of worship or show of your Christian faith is being denied you?

And what exactly is this "glorious past" that America once had but now does not because it is now "unfriendly" to Christians?  Are you perhaps talking about the "glorious past" where plantation owners believed God created black people to serve white ones?  Or perhaps it's that glorious past where God meant for whites to sit at the front of the bus with blacks in the back.  Oh, I know!  It's must be the glorious past of Manifest Destiny where God told the white man that he was destined to fill the American continent, almost obliterating an entire race of people that couldn't possibly be favored by God.

You seem to have a rosy image of America's past, and I for the life of me can't figure out why, but it certainly doesn't have to do with a greater presence of God in America.  If it is true that America had indeed once been a Christian nation, then that is a lie.  If it were so, we would not have enslaved or killed millions and millions of people.  We have NEVER been a Christian nation....NEVER!

(Oh, and I am sure that Jesus Christ heartily approved of women being burned for being "witches", yet another chapter of our glorious Christian past.)

[Hemodoc]

In 1984, ironically, Ronald Reagan signed into law the taxation of churches through social security taxation and at the same time made them tax collectors as well. I know a man in prison today who is there because of his misplaced trust in the constitution that would overturn this law.  A sad situation no doubt and one that the founders would turn in their graves over.

Hemodoc, you have mentioned your friendship with Kent Hovind before. He did not think that those laws were going to be overturned, he bragged repeatedly about outsmarting them. He threatened investigators, made his employees state that they were "volunteers" or "missionaries" (what happens if one of those people needs Medicare and does not have enough work credits?) structured cash transactions, wasted years of the courts time, and lied A LOT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind (According to this article, he also does not believe there is such a thing as the separation of church and state) He is by every definition a criminal and is exactly where he belongs, having been found guilty on 58 counts. (58!!!)

I do not view America as a Christian nation, and I do not see that as a detriment in the least.

Dear Cariad, I wouldn't call meeting someone briefly twice being "friends" with Kent Hovind, but he did indeed believe that the constitution in the end would trump these new laws.  A simply perusal of his writings and listening to his videos makes this clear. He believed he could overturn them by direct confrontation which sadly is not a defense not only for Kent but many others.

Nevertheless, the point I am making is that the interpretation of the "separation of church and state" which is not even in the constitution mind you as interpreted today really as freedom from religion was not at all what the writings of the founding fathers declared nor several Supreme Court decisions all the way up until 1938. No one dared tax the church as it had originally been interpreted taxing God. Ronald Reagan bravely sold out that provision on January 1st 1984. For what Kent Hovind is in jail was not at all a crime before that date. His mistake was believing sincerely that he could go back in time. I have no such illusions. Simply put, Kent Hovind refused to be a tax collector which he believed was not a task that constitutionally belonged to the church. The modern era of this day does not hold the sanctity of the church that people did in the government until our recent generation. Times are different.

Actually, Kent Hovind's downfall began when he became associated with a man named Glenn Stoll who has been conning unwary Christians for decades. Hovind turned over control of his ministries properties to Glenn Stoll believing he would be able to render the same legal protections that several Catholic dioces had enjoyed in the past but the courts have ruled them as unlawful tax scams outside of that narrow application. Glenn Stoll has somehow evaded imprisonment while many, many of his followers have paid their price to society. This con artist stood as his lawyer with no law degree and Hovind placed his trust in this person to his demise.

 As far as the "bragging" part you are referring to, that was David Gibbs III who visited Hovind and then served as a key prosecution witness against him. Gibbs is noted as Terri Shaivo's lawyer. Pride is a sin that many of us fall into and I am sure that was a part of his downfall, but I am convinced that he truly believed in challenging these laws he believed in his heart were unconstitutional and he was right if it had been before January 1st, 1984.

Sadly, although we here the term God bless America frequently, the majority of folks just wouldn't want Him to interfere at all in their lives and in reality I believe He is giving us our wishes collectively in this nation to simply walk away from Him. I must disagree that you don't see this as a detriment. In fact, John Adams would strongly disagree with your contention that there is no detriment:

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." John Adams

http://candst.tripod.com/morrelpeo.htm

[Hemodoc]

I think the Founders were men of the Enlightenment. They professed a belief in God but that isn't the same as being a Christian. There are a lot of Founders and each state has its Founders but if you're talking about Washington Franklin Jefferson Madison Adams Hamilton then I'd say they were free thinkers.

Actually that cohort of men were best known as Deists, and you are correct that they were not Christian so to speak. However, the were restrained in their comments due to the fact that their constituency in America were predominantly protestant Christian believers who lived by the constructs of the Bible as their single most important document. You are right that they probably would have felt more at home today in our overwhelmingly secular America, but nevertheless, history records their references to a Christian populace in their language and in their actions.  Ben Franklin was actually a dabbler in many of the occult practices of the day as well as strong ties to the Masons. George Washington in fact is often attributed as the leader of the masons which he himself denied, yet today one of the biggest museums to George is the George Washington Masonic Museum in Virginia:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mbell1975/4234483063/in/set-72157622991900785

The Masons became such a powerful political entity that an "anti-mason" party developed several years later noted by John Quincy Adams as one of their supporters.  They were the first "third" party in America. Nevertheless, the majority of the population remained overwhelmingly protestant Christians up until our last couple of generations really starting overtly in the 1960's.

[Hemodoc]

We all know the story about the Puritans fleeing from England to America so that they could have religious freedom.  What most people forget is that the Puritans didn't like the idea of religious freedom for others.  They were just as tyrannical in this regard as was the Anglican church leaders in England at that time.

Which religion are you going to mix with politics?

I watched a very interesting documentary on HBO this evening, written, filmed and produced by Alexandra Pelosi, Nancy Pelosi's daughter.  It was called "Citizen USA"; it will probably be OnDemand by now, so check it out.  Anyway, Alexandra's husband is Dutch, and since he married an American, he was easily able to get a green card.  When his first child was born, though, he decided that he didn't want to be the only one in the family who was not American, so he applied for citizenship.  Alexandra took his experience and travelled to each of the 50 states and witnessed a Naturalization ceremony in each state.  After each ceremony, she spoke with several new American citizens and would ask them why they wanted to become an American.  One man from Poland said that he wanted to be a citizen in a country who could overcome its past and elect a black man as President.  Many women said that in America, they could own their own home, own their own car, create their own businesses, things that they never would have been able to do in their native land.  One Muslim woman in Tennessee, another in Mississippi and another man in Michigan all said that they appreciated the religious freedom they had in this country.  You don't really think of Muslims living in the American Bible Belt expressing gratitude for religious tolerance!  But that goes to show how much Americans fundamentally cherish not only their faith but also their freedom to have whichever faith they choose.

On a personal note, I feel that religion belongs either in the home or in the church.  It does not belong in government and it does not belong in our schools.  Parents should give their children whichever kind of religious education they feel is appropriate.  In saying that, though, I think that government should act in ways that are pretty universally recognized as fair-minded and compassionate.  I don't think you have to be of any organized religion to want our government to be responsible, fair and humane.

What we understand to be the mixing of Church and State is anti-American.  As Aleta pointed out, that would mean our federal government would choose an official state religion, and I can't think of anything more against the ideals of the Founding Fathers than that!

Religious tolerance is actually an outcome of true Christian belief where people must come to an individual knowledge and belief in the God of the Bible. That is the way Christianity has always been, we don't convert people at the point of a sword. We preach the gospel and people choose what they wish to believe or not.

[Hemodoc]

America is no longer a friendly nation to Christians and our sphere of freedom to practice our religion is slowly becoming more and more restricted to the point that if laws declaring homosexuals protected rights, the US courts will soon in my opinion be able to force American churches to hire openly gay men and women in religious positions.  There are many who have already advocated such and I hope and pray that our religious freedoms do not erode to that point, but we are certainly in danger of that right now. In fact, in Canada, several verses in the Bible are already declared hate speech and anyone that preaches these verses from the pulpit can and have been arrested and prosecuted. So, if folks wish to speak about separation of church and state, getting all of the facts is an essential place to start.

Is America a Christian nation anymore? Not at the Federal level for sure yet what a glorious past America once had.

I am truly, truly baffled by this victimhood mindset.  Who is preventing you from practicing Christianity?  How are you defining "Christian"?  Do you know any Christians who are prevented from going to church or praying in their homes or wherever they like?  My husband and I were out for dinner the other evening and noted a family at a nearby table praying before their meal.  No one persecuted them.  What kind of worship or show of your Christian faith is being denied you?

And what exactly is this "glorious past" that America once had but now does not because it is now "unfriendly" to Christians?  Are you perhaps talking about the "glorious past" where plantation owners believed God created black people to serve white ones?  Or perhaps it's that glorious past where God meant for whites to sit at the front of the bus with blacks in the back.  Oh, I know!  It's must be the glorious past of Manifest Destiny where God told the white man that he was destined to fill the American continent, almost obliterating an entire race of people that couldn't possibly be favored by God.

You seem to have a rosy image of America's past, and I for the life of me can't figure out why, but it certainly doesn't have to do with a greater presence of God in America.  If it is true that America had indeed once been a Christian nation, then that is a lie.  If it were so, we would not have enslaved or killed millions and millions of people.  We have NEVER been a Christian nation....NEVER!

(Oh, and I am sure that Jesus Christ heartily approved of women being burned for being "witches", yet another chapter of our glorious Christian past.)

That is in part one of the reasons why we are at such a cross roads that immigrants have no trouble whatsoever understanding when comparing life in America to many of the nations from which they have come. Just ask my wife how she appreciates America compared to her native land.  My wife is a naturalized citizen and has a greater love of this nation and its ideals and freedoms than most native born Americans. There is a reason for that which seems to escape many born here today.

You are certainly free to your own opinions, but a review of historical documents points to the fact that America was a Christian based nation actually starting as a theocracy in most of the original colonies. Sorry, no amount of modern historical revisionism will obviate those facts. The fact that sin existed in this nation likewise does not obviate the historical facts that we were at our onset a Christian nation.  Those that braved the Atlantic for religious freedom and economic freedom I believe would take issue with your assessment of their motivations and sacrifices to find a place where they could exercise their beliefs in freedom. It truly was and is an amazing experiment in freedom that you would be hard placed to find another such example despite all of its well noted failures along the way.

[Bruno]

By golly, you Americans do get stuck into issues. A most entertaining thread...congratulations to all the contributors.

[Rerun]

I started school in 1967 and we prayed to God for a good day and then did the flag salute.  Then started our day.  I don't remember doing that in middle school.  When they took God out of our schools was a sad day.  Even if you don't share the same religion.  Praying to your god or just time to meditate before your day is good. 

As far as I know kids cannot bring bibles to school.  I don't know about the book of Mormon.  I guess it would have to be in someones locker as they go there before school which is usually right next door.

 I feel funny praying at restaurants but I do it when I'm with church friends.  I'm a hypocrite I guess.           The bible talks about the end times.  I see it all around.

I appreciate living in a country where I can practice my religion freely.  I don't like it when others degrade Born Again Christians like saying "those Christians" blah blah blah.  Tolerance..... remember?   

[MooseMom]

That is in part one of the reasons why we are at such a cross roads that immigrants have no trouble whatsoever understanding when comparing life in America to many of the nations from which they have come. Just ask my wife how she appreciates America compared to her native land.  My wife is a naturalized citizen and has a greater love of this nation and its ideals and freedoms than most native born Americans. There is a reason for that which seems to escape many born here today.

You are certainly free to your own opinions, but a review of historical documents points to the fact that America was a Christian based nation actually starting as a theocracy in most of the original colonies. Sorry, no amount of modern historical revisionism will obviate those facts. The fact that sin existed in this nation likewise does not obviate the historical facts that we were at our onset a Christian nation.  Those that braved the Atlantic for religious freedom and economic freedom I believe would take issue with your assessment of their motivations and sacrifices to find a place where they could exercise their beliefs in freedom. It truly was and is an amazing experiment in freedom that you would be hard placed to find another such example despite all of its well noted failures along the way.

I certainly agree that those immigrants who have jumped through all of the required hoops to become a US citizen probably have a greater understanding and appreciation of the freedoms we enjoy.

You may be right that from the outset, America was a "Christian based" nation (thankfully, you've retreated from the label of "Christian nation").  And yes indeed, I certainly question their motivations and sacrifices.  While you may convey some sort of saintliness onto the people who crossed the Atlantic and then settled toward the Pacific, searching for their economic freedom and to exercise their beliefs how they wished, this "amazing experiment in freedom" enslaved a race of people, decimated a race of people and laid waste to vast number of animal species.  Hide behind those rose-colored glasses all you like, but this is our history, and it certainly does not follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

I would argue that despite our increasing secularity, we are more closely following those teachings now that we did 150 years ago.  We strive to ensure freedom for ALL people, no matter their color.  We work to including all citizens in our political process (universal suffrage).  We give the tools of success to everyone (free education for all children). None of these were available to this righteous Christian nation 150 years ago.

I don't even know what definition of "Christian" you are using.  Could someone explain to me exactly what a "born again" Christian is?  How are they different from Christians whose faith never died in the first place?

[cariad]

Hemodoc, Kent Hovind knowingly and purposefully broke the law. I don't have the time nor desire to re-fight an argument that has been put to rest by our court system. There is nothing innocent nor accidental about structuring cash transactions. He has been caught on tape (which can be accessed on YouTube) discussing ways to hide assets with his son. Who knows how many public dollars he has wasted in entering nonsense pleas in court such as "subornation of false muster". You don't tell your employees to pass themselves off as volunteers without sending a neon-lit message to the world that you are trying to get out of paying your due employee-related taxes. In fact, this is such a fundamental issue in the tax code that it does not matter if all parties agree to, say, a contractor relationship. If the intent is to get out of paying tax, you are breaking the law. My father is a tax attorney and has been an employer for the past 30 years, and for personal reasons, I have discussed this at length with him. This is money that is to be used to care for these employees and their families, and he stole it from them and the rest of us who have to pick up the tab for any shortfalls. Kent Hovind tried to game the system and he lost. There is really nothing more to say.

MM, well-said, so much of what you've written. I don't understand the need to portray oneself as a victim all the time, either, other than it's what people do when they have run out of other arguments. I care very little for what the founding fathers would think of our interpretations today, and I don't really understand the need to endlessly go over and over what they might do in our present circumstances, to pretend to be, as Stephen Colbert put it, "a time-traveling mind reader". The separation of church and state is a basic principal on which our country operates - and to get back to the original, horrifying question, no, no, one million times no, we should not insert anyone's religion into our government.

This idea that the Constitution does not include the separation of church and state - this seems to have started up recently with the Tea Party and that one nutter candidate Christine O'Donnell asking Chris Coons in a debate where exactly the Constitution says this. He had the most priceless tone, as if he could not believe what she was asking. Here is the entire text of the First Amendment, (in case you're still following along, Bruno ): 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. Straightforward and to the point, with precedent being set in the ensuing years to further define and establish this basic, basic tenet of American society. And precedent means a lot in this country, cases are won or lost on it.

Christian is not synonymous with moral, and non-Christian is not in any way synonymous with immoral or amoral. Nor does the word 'religious' automatically mean Christian. I would put atheist morality against Christian morality any day. Seeing this film in which Julia Sweeney, a long time Catholic, turns to Humanism, she explained that the first moment she entertained the idea that there was no God, she immediately thought about all the poor and suffering people of the world, realised that there was no deity looking after them, and thought "Someone's got to help them!" That's right - atheists cannot relieve themselves of responsibility by saying 'God will sort this one out'. It can be heartbreaking and it can cause a lot of guilt, but there it is. 

I am going to have to leave you all to it. Like so many other discussions, this one has gone out of control with oversized posts (mine, for example!) and people talking past each other. Why do I ever involve myself in these discussions? It's not like I delude myself into thinking that I will ever change anyone's mind. Anyhow, a good day to all of you. 

[Hemodoc]

Hemodoc, Kent Hovind knowingly and purposefully broke the law. I don't have the time nor desire to re-fight an argument that has been put to rest by our court system. There is nothing innocent nor accidental about structuring cash transactions. He has been caught on tape (which can be accessed on YouTube) discussing ways to hide assets with his son. Who knows how many public dollars he has wasted in entering nonsense pleas in court such as "subornation of false muster". You don't tell your employees to pass themselves off as volunteers without sending a neon-lit message to the world that you are trying to get out of paying your due employee-related taxes. In fact, this is such a fundamental issue in the tax code that it does not matter if all parties agree to, say, a contractor relationship. If the intent is to get out of paying tax, you are breaking the law. My father is a tax attorney and has been an employer for the past 30 years, and for personal reasons, I have discussed this at length with him. This is money that is to be used to care for these employees and their families, and he stole it from them and the rest of us who have to pick up the tab for any shortfalls. Kent Hovind tried to game the system and he lost. There is really nothing more to say.

MM, well-said, so much of what you've written. I don't understand the need to portray oneself as a victim all the time, either, other than it's what people do when they have run out of other arguments. I care very little for what the founding fathers would think of our interpretations today, and I don't really understand the need to endlessly go over and over what they might do in our present circumstances, to pretend to be, as Stephen Colbert put it, "a time-traveling mind reader". The separation of church and state is a basic principal on which our country operates - and to get back to the original, horrifying question, no, no, one million times no, we should not insert anyone's religion into our government.

This idea that the Constitution does not include the separation of church and state - this seems to have started up recently with the Tea Party and that one nutter candidate Christine O'Donnell asking Chris Coons in a debate where exactly the Constitution says this. He had the most priceless tone, as if he could not believe what she was asking. Here is the entire text of the First Amendment, (in case you're still following along, Bruno ): 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. Straightforward and to the point, with precedent being set in the ensuing years to further define and establish this basic, basic tenet of American society. And precedent means a lot in this country, cases are won or lost on it.

Christian is not synonymous with moral, and non-Christian is not in any way synonymous with immoral or amoral. Nor does the word 'religious' automatically mean Christian. I would put atheist morality against Christian morality any day. Seeing this film in which Julia Sweeney, a long time Catholic, turns to Humanism, she explained that the first moment she entertained the idea that there was no God, she immediately thought about all the poor and suffering people of the world, realised that there was no deity looking after them, and thought "Someone's got to help them!" That's right - atheists cannot relieve themselves of responsibility by saying 'God will sort this one out'. It can be heartbreaking and it can cause a lot of guilt, but there it is. 

I am going to have to leave you all to it. Like so many other discussions, this one has gone out of control with oversized posts (mine, for example!) and people talking past each other. Why do I ever involve myself in these discussions? It's not like I delude myself into thinking that I will ever change anyone's mind. Anyhow, a good day to all of you. 

Dear Cariad,

I never stated I supported Kent Hovind's actions, I do understand his basis for why he felt turning a church organization into a tax collector is unconstitutional and I agree with that position, but alas it is the law of the land and he is paying his debt to society. Not sure why folks don't understand the reason why churches have an ethical reason for not being tax collectors and I believe that is an infringement on the free exercise clause. As I mentioned previously, Hovind's downfall is most related to his relationship to Glenn Stoll who acted as his lawyer. It was on his advice that they did not withdraw anymore than 10,000 dollars at one time. Clearly under new banking laws in the last 20 years or so designed to fight the mob making these transactions illegal, he broke the law and got his wife a one year prison sentence at the same time. Look up Glenn Stoll and you will find he sells himself as a lawyer for churches even though he has no law degree. He also lists all of the people who have gone to jail following his directives.  Why Hovind placed all of his trust in such a scam is the real question in all of this. Technically, he signed all of the properties over to Glenn Stoll. So, while I agree with Hovind's stand on the constitution, I recognize that the original intents of the first amendment when written are far from where we are today.

As far as the terms: separation of church and state, O'Donnell is correct, they are not part of the constitution, they are an interpretation put forth first by Jefferson and later picked up in Supreme Court rulings. I have already pointed out that the 1st amendment was looked at quite differently when it was written and in 1961. The wording is quite simple, congress shall not establish a state religion nor prohibit the free exercise thereof. Read Jefferson's comments in context and you will see that the term separation of church and state was first of meant to protect the church from the government:

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/LIBissuesArticles.asp?id=65

Understanding how church and state were one and the same throughout Europe at the time that the first amendment was written is the entire reason it was given to the American population.  It was never meant as a prohibition of the influence of religion on the government which it is now being interpreted as being. Freedom of religion is now more correctly thought of as freedom from religion at the government level.  I would refer you to the Supreme Court rulings up until 1938 that openly declared America was a Christian nation. The first Supreme Court ruling that challenged that was in 1948. The first amendment has evolved in the last two hundred years as have many others and it is unrecognizable from  it's original intent of protecting God's church from government interference. Today, it is mainly interpreted as protecting the government from religion, a complete reversal of how it was interpreted at the onset.

 As far as the free exercise, ask any child who has attempted to bring a Bible to school in their own private belongings and see how people get all bent out of shape, yet at the same time Sikh's are granted the free exercise of bringing their ceremonial knives to school and muslims are granted prayer time and non-muslims must respect their worship to the point that males and females must separate. If folks don't want religion in schools, etc. why then are we allowing these others and denying Christianity? The hate speech issue is quite real as our neighbors in Canada know all to well and many wish to implement the same legislation here in America as well.

http://www.wnd.com/?pageId=24407

Canada is not the only nation to lock up people simply preaching from the Bible.   Sweden is another nation that now outlaws parts of the Bible and they have prosecuted people.

http://www.soulwinning.info/rights/criminalizing.htm

So, not crying victim at all, simply putting forth some real concerns regarding the free exercise of my religion that many nations have recently adopting and many are advocating for here as well.

Separation of church and state mean completely different interpretations to people today as they did when written. By the way, the Bible makes it clear that there will come a time where God let's man have his wish of having a world completely outside of the influence of God. It is called the tribulation, a time that will be worse than any time or since.

As far as epiphany moments, when I was 36 years old, a medical school graduate with a degree in Biology, the moment that God began walking and talking with me understanding for the first time in my life that not only is He real, but he cares for us. He sends the sun and rain to believers and unbelievers alike. As far as Christian morality, I will take it over man's so called morality any day:

Matthew 5:43     ¶ Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy.
44     But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you;
45     That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.
46     For if ye love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the same?
47     And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?
48     Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven is perfect.

 

[Bill Peckham]

I'm curious Peter. What in your view would be different about our society if your understanding of the First Amendment was the basis for our society and laws?


In other words given a counter factual history of your choice - maybe starting in 1961 to keep it simpler or 1790 if you like - what would I notice in 2011 in that counter factual world that is different from the world out my window?

[Hemodoc]

I'm curious Peter. What in your view would be different about our society if your understanding of the First Amendment was the basis for our society and laws?


In other words given a counter factual history of your choice - maybe starting in 1961 to keep it simpler or 1790 if you like - what would I notice in 2011 in that counter factual world that is different from the world out my window?

Dear Bill,

If the Supreme Court rulings of the 1960's had not occurred, that is an interesting question obviously which would only be speculation on anyone's part. I not only believe in the Bible, but I also believe in Bible prophecy which lists many of the outcomes 2000 years after Christ's first advent. (I do have scriptures that support the 2000 year period, but I will forego that discussion since this is mainly a secular website, but it is tolerant of Christian views to its credit.) So, while I firmly believe that the events that have happened were ordained by God's foreknowledge, it is an interesting speculation nevertheless.

Let me bite, I believe that those that honor God receive His blessings. With so many bumper stickers stating God Bless America, I suspect many folks feel likewise. I readily understand God's hand in my own life and the Bible records the historical blessings to a people that will obey His commandments. In such, are there agonies and pains and travails that this nation has undergone in the last 50 years that God would have avoided? Our Christian faith would say yes and that is our hope for this nation once again. However, Christianity is not a religion of coercion, God gave us free will and folks get to make their own choices.

To answer specifically, I suspect America would look a lot more like the 1950's, hopefully without all of the racial inequalities that existed at that time, but where people respected those that looked out for them whether a politician, policeman, fireman or even us disparaged doctors. The world today is one where respect of other people has been shredded, most especially with respect to life itself. Was it perfect in the 1950's? Absolutely not, but I remember well growing up in Alaska which remained isolated from the turmoil of the 1960's found in many American cities and it is indeed one of the most cherished times of my life. The Alaska of the 1960's had a true frontier spirit alive and well which remains in many places in Alaska today. It may be a poor analogy to America in old times, but I do believe it represents the unique American experience that spread across the nation from coast to coast. Divorce rates were lower, families had a mother and father and usually a large number of children that actually spent time together. Those that would not profess Christianity nevertheless shared many uniform "Christian" principles that were the fabric of our American society. Sounds like Richie and Fonzie would come around the corner in such a time, but truly, America has lost an innocence that shall never be regained.

I believe many folks would readily go back to those days if possible. Unfortunately, we cannot turn back the clock, but it was fun thinking about it for a little bit.

[Bill Peckham]

Peter, right now, somewhere in Alaska a young boy is growing up. And in 50 years he will remember that when he was young prices were reasonable, politicians were noble and children respected their elders. And he'll think, if only we could get back to the turn of the century everything would be better.


I think you are describing ordinary nostalgia.