zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzseperation of church and state
As former solicitor general Paul Clement points out, the phrase "separation of church and state" is not technically in the First Amendment. It's a phrase coined by Thomas Jefferson, who wrote in 1801 that "religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God" and argued the Constitution required "building a wall of separation between Church & State." But as ThinkProgress' George Zornick notes, the Constitution does prohibit the endorsement or establishment of a state religion.
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzseperation of church and state
United Baptist Church of Christ
It wasn't just the founding fathers who advocated for the separation of the church from the state. The concept was embraced, not just by the population, by churches also. Most religions of pre and post revolution America where well aware of the fact that most atrocities against Christians since Constantine where committed by other Christians. They all witnessed this not just in the history of those fleeing religious oppression [Christian against Christian], but also in the history of colonial America. In doing extensive genealogical research in libraries across the mid-west, south and the east coast I have often used the records of colonial and early American churches as a source. In a large number of these records it is not uncommon to find in their organizational papers principles and rules similar to the following: June 26, 1830 ‘assigned’ members of the United Baptist Church of Christ, came together as a Church at Second Creek Meeting house in Lawrence County, Tennessee, and upon examination of the Abstract of Principle of the Shoal Creek Association was given all the rights and privileges of a Gospel Church. In November of that same year the membership drafted and received their own Abstract of Principles:
"Abstract of Principle Article…
- 12th We believe that a union of religion and states constitutes the anti-Christian kingdom.
- 13th We believe that the religion of Jesus Christ ought not, nor cannot be established by the civil Law of the Land and further we believe that no Legislative body what ever ought to presume to pass any such law.
- 14th We believe it to be our duty to support the Government under which we live in all her civil matters.
- 15th We believe that money was not the means that God devised in infinite wisdom to effect the spread of the Gospel."
Contrary to the denouncement by right wing politicals or their religious equivalents the separation of church and state was actually a Christian concept, not an anti-Christian one, borne out of the necessity for holding populist views in check.
http://addictinginfo.org/new/?page_id=930
***************************
from:
http://www.npr.org/2011/08/05/139019758/summertime-politics-bring-out-the-flip-flops&sc=nl&cc=ph-20110821
But "the early pilgrims were weary of it all and had suffered under the uncertainty of a Catholic or Protestant regime when the wrong choice could mean death," he says. "In fact, the [George] Washington family came to Virginia when Cromwell came to power, and all of their generations of investing in a relationship with the crown was for naught."
As a result, Wead says, the Founding Fathers set out to protect the American people and the country's political system from "the fickleness of government and to provide some continuity and to make change less arbitrary and more advised with the three branches of government riding herd."
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzx
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzseperation of church and state
Glenn Littrell So many Americans don't identify with America, in truth they identify only with 'their' version of America versus the other guys America. Perhaps the proof that we are a 'Christian' nation is that we subscribe to the same concept of Christianity... our version of 'Christianity' versus invalid versions of Christianity, lumped together with Atheist and Agnostics and 'other' believers.
The Republican version of Americanism has become "I’ve got mine, you get yours, but not at my (or my class) expense..."
The conservative Christian version of Christianity has become to confuse Christianity, a religion, with Capitalism, an economic system.
This reflects their 'my way or the highway' attitude which manifest itself in politics, religion and their version of 'democracy'.
It has gotten to the point that in most cases you cannot separate the conservative argument from the Christian argument, not because the conservative arguments retains a moral component, but because many Christian have forsaken the moral component of their religion in the acceptance of the political arguments of conservatism.
How many times have you been called liberal just because you didn't totally agree with a conservative. I've never been called a moderate for disagreeing.
How many times have you found someone trying to convert you to Christianity, even though you said you believe in Christ, pray, forgive and give thanks. Because you didn't believe right, pray right, or forgive the right people you evidently are not the right kind of Christian.
I had a cousin who once argued that the Westboro Baptist Church was a liberal church! In spite of them being a fundamentalist, conservative movement he labeled them liberal, and I quote "...anyone 'left' of me is liberal", unable to accept the fact that someone, or something (Westboro) could be to the right of him. Which makes me ask if you are so right, why do your read the bible? For confirmation? Or for understanding.
When someone's condemnation of the unemployed, underemployed, and unskilled is based on them not having the same determination and intelligence they themselves had I have to wonder, "If their a Christian, who do they give thanks to? Was all their successes due to their own virtues, or did God, chance, opportunity, or luck have anything to do with it?
When you replace your religious beliefs with political ones your are putting your shoes on the wrong foot.
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzseperation of church and state
http://www.alternet.org/belief/10-things-traditional-christians-got-terribly-wrong?page=0%2C0&paging=off¤t_page=1#bookmark
Although progressive Christians have been at the forefront of social justice, conservative Christians are often on the wrong side of history.
November 7, 2013 |
When Christians get political, they often do so because they believe that they have God on their side. This is true whether they are progressive or conservative, and throughout most of American history there have been both. (You’d think that the conflicting claims about what God wants would lead to more doubting, but here we are.) Looking over the long history of people claiming to be speaking for God’s wishes, it quickly becomes evident that Christians are frequently on the wrong side of history. Here are 10 things that American Christians of the conservative stripe got completely wrong when they were so sure they were speaking on God’s behalf.
1) Slavery. Both sides of the American slavery debate claimed to be speaking from profound Christian conviction. The Bible clearly has a positive view of slavery, something pro-slavery Christians routinely pointed out. Abolitionists took a broader, less literal view of the Bible. Unsurprising that this divide led to the South being, to this day, home of the most people who take a literalist, fundamentalist view of Christianity.
Of course, nowadays you can’t find even the most literalist fan of the Bible who is willing to agree with their predecessors in the 19th century who believed the Bible endorsed slavery. Of the many things conservative Christians have gotten wrong over the years, the pro-slavery argument is probably the one that is least likely to be revived by modern fundamentalists.
2) Women’s suffrage. Unsurprisingly, conservative Christianity was hostile to women’s suffrage, just as it’s been hostile to women’s progress every step of the way. Women’s “God-given” roles were routinely referenced in arguments against giving women the right to vote, such as when Susan Fenimore Cooper—daughter of James Fenimore Cooper–wrote in Harper’s that “Christianity confirms the subordinate position of woman, by allotting to man the headship in plain language and by positive precept.”
While the argument is clearly wrong in retrospect and disavowed by most modern conservatives, there are still some Christian conservatives who continue to believe that the issue isn’t resolved and should still be up for debate.
3) Evolution. From the second it became evident that the Biblical story of creation was wrong and life on earth evolved over millions of years of random mutation, many Christians were aghast and resisted the truth getting out as hard as they could. Because of this, there have been multiple times throughout history where Christians embarrassed themselves by being wrong in a dramatic courtroom setting. The Scopes monkey trial is the most famous, but the Dover trial of 2005 over the teaching of intelligent design in schools is up there in terms of sheer humor. The Republican-appointed judge even went so far as to describe the Christian conservative defenders of creationism as liars pushing a theory of “breathtaking inanity.”
4) Pain relief for childbirth. The Bible explicitly lays out pain in childbirth as Eve’s punishment for sin, so unsurprisingly, that’s what many Christians in the 19th century believed had to be so. Once reliable pain relief in childbirth began to be developed, therefore, there was a lot of resistance to it from Christians who feared it defied God to let women have some relief. The truth is that pain in childbirth is not a punishment from God, but the product of evolution, which is a far from perfect process. Eventually, the argument that women owed it to God to suffer through childbirth faded to the fringes of right-wing Christianity. “Natural” childbirth has seen a resurgence in popularity in the secular world since the 1960s, but that was more of a reaction to some medical overreach than a belief that women are sinful and deserve to suffer.
5) Catholics. Modern American conservative Protestants embrace Catholics and have even started to borrow some Catholic arguments against things like abortion and contraception. But in the early 19th and 20th centuries, there was widespread anti-Catholic sentiment, much of it tied up in hostility to Catholic immigrants. There was even an anti-Catholic political party in the early 19th century. Catholics were viewed as idolaters and drunkards by many Protestants, but by far the most bizarre relic of anti-Catholic paranoia is the fear that evil shenanigans were going on in nunneries. A woman writing under the pseudonym “Maria Monk” penned a best-selling book where she claimed to have escaped a convent where she was forced to be a sex slave and pressed into the act of killing babies and hiding their corpses. Needless to say, none of her accusations should be taken as anything approaching true. Anti-Catholic paranoia also led to another Christian-led folly…
6) Prohibition. Hostility to Catholic immigrants was a large part of the reason temperance mania took over many Protestant communities in the 19th and early 20th centuries. Despite the fact that Jesus was a wine drinker, abstinence from alcohol—and forcing abstinence on others by force of law—became a major Christian cause during this period, leading up to Prohibition. This was true, even though many in the temperance movement were also aligned with the suffragist cause, making Prohibition one of the few Christian follies that weighs as heavily on the progressive Christian tradition as it does the conservative one. Luckily, it took little more than a decade for the big-time error that was banning alcohol to be fixed.
7) Segregation. Religious leaders like Martin Luther King Jr. led the desegregation movement, but it’s also important to note that the pro-segregation movement was also conceived as a Christian one. Arguments against “race mixing” were largely framed in religious terms. The judge who initially ruled against the interracial couple in Loving v. Virginia argued that the “Almighty God” put people on separate continents and “did not intend for the races to mix.” Christian right leader Jerry Falwell got his start fighting to uphold segregation, giving sermons about how integration was offensive to God. As Max Blumenthal noted in the Nation, the modern religious right as we know it started off as a movement to defend segregation.
8) Contraception. From the beginning of the “birth control movement,” Christian conservatives fought to keep women from being able to have sex without getting pregnant. Devout Christian Anthony Comstock successfully convinced Congress in 1872 that contraception was ungodly, leading to a federal ban on sharing birth control information across state lines. This was finally repealed in 1936. In 1963, the Supreme Court ended anti-contraception laws for married women. Finally, in 1971, the Supreme Court also eliminated the last of the god-bothering anti-contraception laws banning birth control for single people. Nowadays, 99 percent of sexually active women have used contraception at some point in their lives.
9) School prayer. Along with supporting segregation and opposing feminism, the third issue that created the modern religious right is the issue of prayer in public schools. In 1961, the Supreme Court ruled against school-led prayers, even if they were supposedly voluntary. Instead of giving up a chance to use schools as a way to foist their beliefs on the unwilling, the religious right spent and continues to spend the next 50-plus years trying to find some way to sneak religious indoctrination/bullying of non-believers into public schools. They’ve attempted to sneak it in by having students lead it, as if that makes it less coercive. Recently, in Rhode Island, they tried to sneak it in by having it written on a wall instead of recited. Most attempts fail in court. Even though there’s no evidence that these bullying tactics have ever converted anyone to their faith, they keep trying.
10) Marriage equality. The religious right is still fighting like it’s not obvious that they’re wrong on this one. The tide is shifting so fast it’s quickly becoming apparent that this issue, like segregation, is going to be one where they’ll be pretending they didn’t fight so hard for the side of wrong in a few decades. The majority of Americans now support same-sex marriage. Illinois is becoming the 15th state to authorize it. The momentum is in the direction of justice, and as gay rights proponents said from the beginning, Christian conservatives are, as with most things, on the wrong side of history.
Amanda Marcotte co-writes the blog Pandagon. She is the author of It's a Jungle Out There: The Feminist Survival Guide to Politically Inhospitable Environments.
xzxzxzxzxzxxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzzxzxzxzxz
In 2005 the top 10 Religious Right groups took in almost a half billion dollars in revenue, that’s almost $50,000,000.00 each.
https://www.au.org/church-state/june-2006-church-state/featured/religious-right-power-brokers
zxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzxzseperation of church and state
Myths and Lies told by the Right-Wing Leadership and repeated by So-Called Christian Leaders.
- Myth One: Separation of church and state isn’t found in the U.S. Constitution. Rather, it is a modern invention of the Supreme Court, a communist idea, something Nazis concocted, etc. Separation of church and state came about in America because during the colonial period there often was no separation, and this violated fundamental liberties. The system the Religious Right favors – church-state union – was tried in many colonies and failed. They led to more repression of religious rights, not greater freedom. The concept of Separation of Church and State is established in the Constitution even if the precise phrase is not used. You know what else doesn’t appear in the Constitution? The words Jesus Christ, Christianity and assault weapons with the capacity to fire off a hundred rounds in one minute.
- Myth Two: The United States was founded to be a Christian nation. This claim is easily debunked by referring to the text of the U.S. Constitution. If an officially Christian nation had been the Founders’ intent, the Constitution would say that explicitly. It doesn’t. In fact, it says the opposite.
Religion is referred to twice in the Constitution. The First Amendment bars laws “respecting an establishment of religion” and prohibiting “the free exercise thereof.” The second reference is often overlooked but is very important. Article VI contains language stating that “no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.” What the Founders did here was ban religious qualifications for federal office – Article VI ensures that all people – Christians, Jews, Muslims, atheists, etc. – can hold office at the federal level. It is impossible to square this language with the “Christian nation” concept. - Myth Three: Separation of church and state was originally intended to merely bar the creation of a national church. The text of the First Amendment goes way beyond simply banning a national church. The amendment prohibits all laws “respecting an establishment of religion.” James Madison, one of the chief drafters of the amendment, interpreted it broadly. Madison believed that tax funding of churches was unconstitutional and even concluded, later in his life, that official White House proclamations calling for days of prayer were a violation.
- Myth Four: Most of the Founders were evangelical Christians and supported government promulgation of that mode of faith. Evangelicalism did take hold in the colonies in the post-Revolutionary era, but it was never embraced by key Founders. Rather, they tended to align with a rival school that sought to merge certain ethical principles of Christianity with the tenets of the Enlightenment, which stressed the primacy of science and reason.
Thomas Jefferson is a good example of a Founder who was greatly influenced by Enlightenment principles. Jefferson admired the moral teachings of Jesus but rejected his claims to divinity and the miracle stories of the New Testament.
Many Founders are identified as Deists, a theological school of thought that is less popular today. Deists believed in God but didn’t interpret the Bible in a literal fashion. They were skeptical of miraculous claims and sought to find a way to bring religion into alignment with the emerging scientific view of the world.
Some of the signers of the Constitution did undoubtedly hold traditional Christian beliefs. But this does not mean they supported merging church and state. - Myth Five: Mottos like “In God We Trust” on currency and “Under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance are evidence that separation of church and state was never intended. Both of these phrases are of much more recent origin than many people believe.
“In God We Trust” is familiar to most Americans because it appears on U.S. currency. But early American money did not carry this phrase. The Fugio cent, a penny authorized by Congress in 1787 and reportedly designed by Benjamin Franklin, contained the mottos “Mind Your Business” and “We Are One” – a reference to the 13 colonies.
“In God We Trust” didn’t appear on coins until the Civil War, when it was authorized for use on some coins minted in the North. The use of the phrase on currency was not codified until the 1950s. Around the same time, the phrase was adopted as the national motto. (“E Pluribus Unum” had been serving as an unofficial motto until then.)
The Pledge of Allegiance was written in 1892 by Francis Bellamy, a minister and a socialist. Bellamy wrote the Pledge to commemorate the 400th anniversary of the voyage of Christopher Columbus. Bellamy’s Pledge, which did not include the phrase “under God,” appeared in a magazine called Youth’s Companion. It was adopted for use in public schools as part of a daily flag-salute ritual. Congress added the words “under God” to the Pledge in 1954, as a reaction to the fight against communism.
In short, the Founders had nothing to do with these religious mottos or their adoption. Much is also made of the fact that Christian figures such as Moses appear in our architecture and culture, but you know what else appears there? Egyptian pyramids,Pagan images such as the Masonic(occult) “All Seeing Eye” (originally a Pagan image of Egypt, Greek philosophers, pagan images, and Greek and Latin phrases.
Greek and Latin is more prevalent than either Hebrew or Arabic… the languages of Christ. - Myth Six: Thanks to separation of church and state, kids can’t pray in public schools. The U.S. Supreme Court in 1962 and 1963 banned programs of government-sponsored, compulsory prayer and Bible reading in public schools. The high court did not invalidate truly voluntary prayer and hasn’t done so since then. In many public schools prior to these rulings: Children were forced to take part in daily religious rituals. These practices were not voluntary; they were imposed on everyone – Christian and non-Christian. Thus, they amounted to a significant violation of parental rights.
Young people in public schools today may pray and read religious books in a non-disruptive way – but the choice is now theirs. No students can be compelled to take part in religious worship in a public school or singled out for refusing to do so.
Public school students can engage in a variety of voluntary religious activities. Most secondary schools must abide by the federal Equal Access Act. This legislation allows students to form and run a variety of clubs that meet during “non-instructional” time. Some of these clubs are religious in nature. All are voluntary; no one has to attend.
In addition, the Supreme Court has made it clear that public schools can teach about religion in an objective manner. Religion can be discussed in classes like history, art, literature and others. The Bible and other religious texts can even be read as part of a comparative religion course. As long as the approach has legitimate educational goals, public school officials will not get into trouble for teaching about religion. To sum up, there is plenty of room for religion in public schools, but it must be voluntarily chosen.
If this country ever recognized or established a dominant religion/church, or allowed forced prayer to return to the schools we should consider whose religion or prayer would we or our children be forced to use? Jewish Protestant (and which denomination), Catholic, Muslim, Hindu, etc. There are 217 Christian denominations in America.
The fight would not be over when forced prayer is returned to schools, it would be just beginning and would get nastier. (note, the largest Christian Denomination in America are Catholics) - Myth Seven: Separation of church and state fosters secularism, which drains religion of its vitality. Official government secularism is not the enemy of faith; it is the defender of it. A secular state is one that is neutral on matters of theology. An official policy of government neutrality toward religion is a positive thing for faith communities.
The United States is a perfect example of how an official doctrine of secularism helps religion. In this country, the government long ago adopted a hands-off attitude toward religion. As a result, hundreds (if not thousands) of specific faith groups have sprung up on our shores. Religious groups remain vital, and most Americans claim a religious affiliation.
Other Western nations have either established churches or some form of government aid to religion. Ironically, it is in these nations where religion is withering away. It would seem that the official tie between church and state and the rejection of secularism as a legal principle sap faith of its vitality. In the end, religion becomes a mere creature of the state and a tool for promoting whatever policies government leaders decide are appropriate. This is not what people want, and they turn away from religion. - Myth Eight: Separation of church and state means that government must be hostile to religion. The separation principle contains two key parts: The government is to refrain from promoting, sponsoring or advocating for any faith. Yet at the same time, the government is required not to meddle in the internal affairs of religious groups or impose undue regulations and oversight on them. Church-state separation protects religion by placing it beyond the reach of government.
American history is replete with examples of religious groups that used the First Amendment to protect their rights. If the United States had not adopted separation, these groups would have been left unprotected and subjected to state control.
Religious groups in America receive many benefits. They often receive special exemptions and preferential treatment in secular law. Far from experiencing hostility, the place of religion in this nation where we separate church and state is in many ways exalted. - Myth Nine: Most religious leaders don’t support separation of church and state. Some of the earliest proponents of separation of church and state were religious leaders. Roger Williams, a Puritan clergyman and the founder of Rhode Island, strongly advocated for separation during the colonial era. Years later, clerics like John Leland and Isaac Backus demanded separation as the best vehicle to protect the right of conscience for all.
In colonial Virginia and elsewhere, clergy from Baptist, Presbyterian and other traditions worked alongside Enlightenment thinkers like Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to secure church-state separation. These religious leaders knew that only separation could protect their faith and enable it to prosper.
In the modern era, many members of the clergy continue this proud tradition of support for church-state separation. Many religious denominations are on record as officially supporting the concept. A minority of religious leaders disagree. Most of them belong to fundamentalist denominations that seek to use the power of government to control other people and impose their regressive dogma. - Myth Ten: Separation of church and state stifles the public voice and presence of religion. Anyone who believes this hasn’t been paying attention. The United States operates under separation of church and state, yet religious groups have a loud and robust public voice. They speak out – from the left, right and center – on any number of political issues. As tax-exempt entities, houses of worship are not permitted under federal law to endorse or oppose candidates for public office, but there is nothing to stop them from addressing issues. Many do.
Nor does separation of church and state result in what one foe of the principle called a “naked public square.” It’s true that government may not post or erect religious symbols, but private religious groups are often able to use public space to display them with their own money and on their own time. All that is required is that the government must treat all religious and secular groups equally; if access to public space is extended to one group, it must be extended to all. This is a simple matter of fair play, and it usually results in a vibrant public square full of many symbols, not a naked one.
source
Something's Our Founding Fathers Did Say:
“Nobody can deny the fact that Christianity has played a huge role in our history. From the first Thanksgiving to the ideas of Jesus Christ that are embroidered in our culture today, Christianity and the Bible is responsible a big part of our heritage.
However, many conservatives will take this fact way out of context. They'll think that you have to be a Christian to be patriotic, which is simply not true. Following the more secular teachings of Jesus Christ (being charitable, loving one another, treating strangers with kindness) is what the men who founded this country were for.” by Tolerant Libertarian source
“…I beg you will be persuaded, that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution.” - George Washington, letter to the United Baptist Chamber of Virginia (1789)
“Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, then that of blindfolded fear.” - Thomas Jefferson, letter to Peter Carr (1787)
“Persecution is not an original feature in any religion; but it is always the strongly marked feature of all religions established by law. Take away the law-establishment, and every religion re-assumes its original benignity.” - Thomas Paine, The Rights of Man (1791)
“Congress has no power to make any religious establishments.” - Roger Sherman, Congress (1789)
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people build a wall of separation between Church & State." - Thomas Jefferson, letter to the Danbury Baptists (1802)
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry.” - Thomas Jefferson, A Bill for Establishing Religious Freedom (1779)
"Christian establishments tend to great ignorance and corruption, all of which facilitate the execution of mischievous projects." - James Madison, letter to William Bradford, Jr. (1774)
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution." - James Madison, General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia (1785)
Even though the Founding Fathers were mostly Christian they were well aware of the misuse of Christianity, supposedly for the sake of Christianity, in the pursuit of power. They were well aware of the fact that their ancestors fled to America for religious freedom from persecution. The persecution of Christians were not at the hands of Jews, Muslims, Pagans, or other non-Christian… they were fleeing persecution from other Christians.
They had also seen the divisive effects of state established and protected religion. The idea of religious tolerance dates back to Constantine. The concept of the separation of Church and State is a Christian concept established by the Founding Fathers to protect religious freedom.
Did you know: Thomas Jefferson Held The First White House Iftar.
The iftar is the evening meal eaten by Muslims to break the fast during the holy month of Ramadan. On Dec. 9, 1805, Jefferson invited Sidi Soliman Mellimelli, a Tunisian representative, to the White House. Jefferson moved meal time back to “precisely at sunset,” to accommodate the religious beliefs of his guest.
