Originally Posted by dklassen

Nope. I'm pretty sure I know what the Constitution says. There's no denying that the Bible was regularly taught in public schools and played a major role in shaping our country.
Patrick Henry said, "The Bible is a book worth more than all other books that were ever printed." Thomas Jefferson was the first President of the Washington D.C. school board which adopted the Bible as a primary reader.

Once again, I am not disagreeing with your Constitutional or Biblical knowledge.
I am questioning your statement attributing church and state separation to the left.
You still have not defended that statement.

Originally Posted by dklassen

Yet another distortion from the far left... including some supreme court judges.

I've read the letter from Thomas Jefferson and had this discussion with a few friends before. Funny how liberals like to quote the funding fathers when they think it fits but they ignore everything else they say including how some of them felt the bible should be taught in public schools or keeping the size of government limited.

Yoda! You gettin' this ad hominem?

I am questioning your statement attributing church and state separation to the left.

I may be wrong. The ACLU could be a right wing organization. Or the one's that want In God We Trust taken off money, maybe they are right wingers.

Or how about the people that sue schools to have the Ten Commandments removed or sue schools so they can't say a prayer before a football game. Maybe they are conservatives.

Nope, I'm pretty sure it's the left.

Originally Posted by ptownrob

Yoda! You gettin' this ad hominem?

I try to stay out of arguments that are backed by Wikipedia as a reference of proof.

Yoda

Originally Posted by dklassen

I may be wrong. The ACLU could be a right wing organization. Or the one's that want In God We Trust taken off money, maybe they are right wingers.
Or how about the people that sue schools to have the Ten Commandments removed or sue schools so they can't say a prayer before a football game. Maybe they are conservatives.
Nope, I'm pretty sure it's the left.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danbury_Baptists
The Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut sent a letter, dated October 7, 1801, to the newly elected President Thomas Jefferson, expressing concern over the lack in their state constitution of explicit protection of religious liberty, and against a government establishment of religion.

In their letter to the President, the Danbury Baptists affirmed that "Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty — That Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals — That no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious Opinions - That the legitimate Power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor..."

Thomas Jefferson's response, dated January 1, 1802, concurs with the Danbury Baptists' views on religious liberty, and the accompanying separation of civil government from concerns of religious doctrine and practice. Jefferson writes: "...I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Thomas Jefferson a card carrying ACLU leftest? Doubtful.

Originally Posted by Yoda

I try to stay out of arguments that are backed by Wikipedia as a reference of proof.
Yoda

How about the Library of Congress?
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html

"To messers. Nehemiah Dodge, Ephraim Robbins, & Stephen S. Nelson, a committee of the Danbury Baptist association in the state of Connecticut.

Gentlemen

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802."

Originally Posted by SteveZ

I would disagree on the Roman Catholic Church comment regarding biblical/traditional practices. There are very few "constants" in this world, but the Roman Catholic Church rates as one. The Church moves at the equivalent pace of a glacier, and for good reason. There is sufficient confusion surrounding us, and the Church reminds us that species homo sapiens is not as smart as s/he thinks, especially when behavioral matters are involved. In a sea of radicalism and chaos, a safe harbor and an anchor are indeed welcome.

(No offense Maryann!)

Steve, I think that's why liberals & conservatives see two different worlds. Same in politics or religion. The Roman Catholic Church is not a constant at all. How do I come to that conclusion?

Well, First of all, in it's first 300 years, the Church evolved dramatically from an underground band of dreamers and schemers who were hated by both Jews and Rome, into a world dominating force that co-opted the Roman Empire, and was co-opted by Rome.

The Church moved from a radical affirmation of the power of the individual to achieve salvation through a DIRECT contact with the Holy Spirit to a multi-leveled system of both clergy and saints interceding- therefore blocking- a direct and personal relationship with God. That was all about power- which is what Rome, and all earthly powers are ultimately all about.

The priesthood did not even exist for the first 300 years. Christians were teachers, prophets, healers and elders. There was no evidence that "ordination" was necessary to celebrate a valid Eucharist. There was no requirement for a celibate priesthood until the 12th century, where it was instituted not for holiness sake, but to stop priests from passing on their land grants to their heirs. No wife, no legitimate heirs, and the Church kept the property.

Even more disturbing is to read the arguments against marriage and ANY intercourse as being filthy and an abomination when near the Eucharist.

The history of the Church is action-reaction, action-reaction, and I believe that you can no more say that Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism doesn't represent "arms" of an ever-changing Church than I could cut off my own arm and say, "That's not my arm any longer."

I'd say arguments to this would come rather easily from a conservative mindset, and they'd be valid. Rome is always Rome, the Pope is the Pope.

But I really support the more radical "view." The church is about change, about bringing people to a personal relationship- a transformative relationship-that empowers the individual. It's Liberation Theology v. traditional theology. It's working towards justice for the poor and disenfranchised rather than focusing on upholding the moral structure of a historically fallible institution.

Fallible? Well, we've had married popes (and priests and bishops), we've had sexually promiscuous popes, two sets of popes at the same time, murderous popes, armies of slaughter under popes, and even most recently, a pope who was seemingly silent about Nazi atrocities. Compare all of these behaviors to that of the early martyrs and founders**, who willingly gave their lives to uphold their faith in Jesus.

So, as a "liberal," the Church represents the open possibilities of working out my Christhood through the grace of God, not pounding my chest about the sinfulness of my human state. The Church holds great mysteries and lessons for transcending our human condition- but those lessons require leaps of faith. The Church exists not to keep us in a state of separation from God, but rather to encourage us to risk it all to become one with the Father. If we see the Church only as some solid, unchanging "rock" we tend not to take the risk of "Dieing to oneself" to be reborn again.

Two very different visions and, I believe irreconcilable ways of seeing our relationship to God, and of OUR relationship to the Church. "Unless a man dies unto himself, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven." John 3-3. the Cross and sin mean nothing if we don't die on the Cross ourselves. Jesus shows us how to "Cross over." In fact the word "Cross" as in cross the line or criss cross comes from "crux"!

Well, I've taken this thread on a total tangent!

Can someone please restate the purpose of this rant? It has gone on so long that I have forgotten. There must be at least 2 positions.

Is it anti-religion?

Is it anti-American ?

Is it anti-constitutional?

Is it, is it, What the he.. is it?

Yoda

ptowmrob - I just signed on and decided to look at the last page of this post. I read your summary of the church's history and started to wonder what the heck this entire post is about - not just yours but all the posts in this string. I do want to say that when you put together as many accurate facts as you have, coupled with logic, it makes it hard for the opposition to "chit chat". Whatever it's about, it sure is fun reading. OK, my 3 AM break is over - back to bed.
Irish

Originally Posted by ptownrob

(No offense Maryann!)

Steve, I think that's why liberals & conservatives see two different worlds. Same in politics or religion. The Roman Catholic Church is not a constant at all. How do I come to that conclusion?

Well, First of all, in it's first 300 years, the Church evolved dramatically from an underground band of dreamers and schemers who were hated by both Jews and Rome, into a world dominating force that co-opted the Roman Empire, and was co-opted by Rome.

The Church moved from a radical affirmation of the power of the individual to achieve salvation through a DIRECT contact with the Holy Spirit to a multi-leveled system of both clergy and saints interceding- therefore blocking- a direct and personal relationship with God. That was all about power- which is what Rome, and all earthly powers are ultimately all about.

The priesthood did not even exist for the first 300 years. Christians were teachers, prophets, healers and elders. There was no evidence that "ordination" was necessary to celebrate a valid Eucharist. There was no requirement for a celibate priesthood until the 12th century, where it was instituted not for holiness sake, but to stop priests from passing on their land grants to their heirs. No wife, no legitimate heirs, and the Church kept the property.

Even more disturbing is to read the arguments against marriage and ANY intercourse as being filthy and an abomination when near the Eucharist.

The history of the Church is action-reaction, action-reaction, and I believe that you can no more say that Eastern Orthodoxy or Protestantism doesn't represent "arms" of an ever-changing Church than I could cut off my own arm and say, "That's not my arm any longer."

I'd say arguments to this would come rather easily from a conservative mindset, and they'd be valid. Rome is always Rome, the Pope is the Pope.

But I really support the more radical "view." The church is about change, about bringing people to a personal relationship- a transformative relationship-that empowers the individual. It's Liberation Theology v. traditional theology. It's working towards justice for the poor and disenfranchised rather than focusing on upholding the moral structure of a historically fallible institution.

Fallible? Well, we've had married popes (and priests and bishops), we've had sexually promiscuous popes, two sets of popes at the same time, murderous popes, armies of slaughter under popes, and even most recently, a pope who was seemingly silent about Nazi atrocities. Compare all of these behaviors to that of the early martyrs and founders**, who willingly gave their lives to uphold their faith in Jesus.

So, as a "liberal," the Church represents the open possibilities of working out my Christhood through the grace of God, not pounding my chest about the sinfulness of my human state. The Church holds great mysteries and lessons for transcending our human condition- but those lessons require leaps of faith. The Church exists not to keep us in a state of separation from God, but rather to encourage us to risk it all to become one with the Father. If we see the Church only as some solid, unchanging "rock" we tend not to take the risk of "Dieing to oneself" to be reborn again.

Two very different visions and, I believe irreconcilable ways of seeing our relationship to God, and of OUR relationship to the Church. "Unless a man dies unto himself, he cannot see the kingdom of Heaven." John 3-3. the Cross and sin mean nothing if we don't die on the Cross ourselves. Jesus shows us how to "Cross over." In fact the word "Cross" as in cross the line or criss cross comes from "crux"!

Well, I've taken this thread on a total tangent!

Perhaps we need to spin this discussion off the political board completely, and request that a philosophy board, where such discussions may be more appropriate. I'd love the opportunity to continue the discussion , but off the pol-board.

Originally Posted by Yoda

Can someone please restate the purpose of this rant? It has gone on so long that I have forgotten. There must be at least 2 positions.

Is it anti-religion?

Is it anti-American ?

Is it anti-constitutional?

Is it, is it, What the he.. is it?

Yoda

I think RANT was the key word in your post....

I think both sides look at the same thing in two different ways.

Generally liberals and or atheists tend to believe it means (separation of church and state so called) no government involvement or support of religion in any way.

Conservatives believe it means what the Constitution literally says, in that the government can't pass any laws with respect to religion.

It is very clear that religion i.e. the Bible was an every day part of government and our schools from day one.

Contrast that today where the ACLU and others have made every attempt possible to completely eliminate it from any government entity to the point where they will sue even of a city puts a nativity scene on city hall property or the school wants a prayer before a football game... or even the words in God We Trust on our money.

I don't think that's what Jefferson had in mind.... do you?

The makeup (diversity) of the U.S. is much different than in Jefferson's day. Laws need to reflect changes like this.

dklassen left off....aclu, et al.......that is their sole goal and purpose for existing. And the point to be made is these are much smaller organizations than ANY representative groups that support what these minority (not race!!) groups are against. YET, they get their way!

Until such time as the majority in this Country gets off the couch, off their cell phone, etc.....they will continue to be taken for a ride...that THEY themselves will deem ..."is not right".

Apathy, appears to be the incurable disease we are confronted with (for years). The Republicans lost the election ....by not a huge margin the numbers will tell us. And each of the religious infringements the aclu and others gain, yields more to their purpose.

And unfortunately the longer the apathy remains, the more it becomes an acceptable (to some) way of life. Then time will take a lot of us out of the majority and the apathy will become the norm.....BUT NOT BY THE MAJORITY ANY LONGER!!!


I have harped this for years.....to little avail...apathy doesn't seem to truly describe the loss of the values this country was founded upon.

We still have a few years left to shift the momentum, but I fear it will never happen....folks are just too busy.....

BTK

Some want America to bend it's ways (or maybe bend over is the correct term) and do away with it's traditions in the name of diversity. I say if you want to be an American you need to respect our ways and traditions that have been with us since day one.

If you want to practice Buddhism, fine that is your First Amendment right and I support you 100%. However that doesn't mean that we have to take down our Ten Commands or nativity scenes so we don't offend Buddhists.

Well... some think we should. I'm not one of them.