Celsus Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 This is a thread on another group I belong to. I will post the original article and then my response: From: Lauri <trottinon117@...>Date: Sat Oct 22, 2005 10:07 am Subject: The Colonists were religious men trottinon117 Online Now Send IM Send Email Send Email Religion in the Colonies In the year 1702 all 13 American colonies had some form of state-supported religion. This support varied from tax benefits to religious requirements for voting or serving in the legislature. Below are excerpts from colonial era founding documents citing these religious references. While most instances of state-supported religion were removed before 1850, some requirements were never officially stricken from the state law books. Those requirements became null and void after the passing of the 14th Amendment on July 28, 1868 which guaranteed personal freedoms. References to those religious laws remained in two states' documents until they were amended seven and nine years later, respectively. What forms of government the colonies had prior to the adoption of the Constitution is irrelevant. For instance, Mass. was a Puritan Theocracy until finally the government of England and the citizens of Mass. realized the error of comingling religion and state. Rhode Island, on the other hand, was founded by Roger Williams, who believed in freedom of religion and seperation fo church and state. Thus, what the colonies had prior to the adoption of the Constitution of the United States is irrelevant and to say that all colonists were monolithic in their regard to religion and concepts of governance is disingenuous and deliberately misleading. It is a documented historical fact that the founding fathers clearly wanted there to be a seperation (no co-mingling) of church and state. It is also a documented historical fact that many Christian denominations fought agains the adoption fo the first amendment and have sought to get around it since the Constitution was adopted. All one has to do is actually read the Federalist Papers, where these issues were debated at length when they were devising the Constitution and historical editorials from the era. Yet, it is apparent that truth is not the agenda item of modern Christians who have taken up the cause of their theocratic ancestors. What this stratgey (trying to align the state with Christianity) tells me is that Christianity is a failure. In a free marketplace of ideas, the claims of Christianity have been: (1) Demonstrated to be falacious (YEC creationism/demon causation of disease, etc.) (2) The claims of Christianity about regeneration of believers does not happen. In a free marketplaces of ideas, only those ideas that cannot stand on their own, require governmental mandate to perpetuate themselves. If Christians truly believe in the claims of their demi-god and the validity of their theology, then go fish for men (and women) and reform society one soul at a time. The drive to have Christian ideology subsidized and enforced by government is a tantamount admission that their god is powerless. As are all fictional beings. Bruce Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 What this stratgey (trying to align the state with Christianity) tellsme is that Christianity is a failure. In a free marketplace of ideas, the claims of Christianity have been: (1) Demonstrated to be falacious (YEC creationism/demon causation of disease, etc.) (2) The claims of Christianity about regeneration of believers does not happen. In a free marketplaces of ideas, only those ideas that cannot stand on their own, require governmental mandate to perpetuate themselves. If Christians truly believe in the claims of their demi-god and the validity of their theology, then go fish for men (and women) and reform society one soul at a time. The drive to have Christian ideology subsidized and enforced by government is a tantamount admission that their god is powerless. As are all fictional beings. I really liked this part. It is so very true. The hard work the Christians are putting in into the project of reforming the States to a Theocracy, only proves that they have no strength to stand on their own legs in the future, and also that they know about it. Like you said Bruce, those efforts only tells us that Christianity is a failure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Merlinfmct87 Posted October 22, 2005 Share Posted October 22, 2005 The drive to have Christianideology subsidized and enforced by government is a tantamount admission that their god is powerless. As are all fictional beings. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Brilliant, Bruce. Just brilliant. Merlin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Karl-777 Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Well said, Bruce. Yes, our Founding Fathers wanted a "Christian Nation" alright...... As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion .... Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation.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. History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose. On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind. All national institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian or Turkish (Muslim), appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit. I do not mean by this declaration to condemn those who believe otherwise; they have the same right to their belief as I have to mine. But it is necessary to the happiness of man that he be mentally faithful to himself. Infidelity does not consist in believing, or in disbelieving; it consists in professing to believe what he does not believe. It is impossible to calculate the moral mischief, if I may so express it, that mental lying has produced in society. When a man has so far corrupted and prostituted the chastity of his mind as to subscribe his professional belief to things he does not believe, he has prepared himself for the commission of every other crime. He takes up the profession of a priest for the sake of gain, and in order to qualify himself for that trade he begins with a perjury. Can we conceive anything more destructive to morality than this? "There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt inspiration of all the books of the Old and New testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries in Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself, it is punished by boring through the tongue with a hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most states, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all blasphemers of any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating the divine authority of those books. Needless to say, the "authority" of "those books" has been investigated and debunked many times over on pages of this forum and numerous others. At present, the illegal "faith-based intiatives" of the current administration continue to violate the very essence of the Constitution: 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.It would be interesting to know how many Pagan, Hindu or Buddhist groups received money from "faith-based initiatives". NO religious group should get anything from the Federal Government, period. The American Treasury continues to be bilked to the tune of billion$ by a government that has become so heinous and corrupt, it defies belief. Then there's this: There is no such thing as separation of church and state in the Constitution. It is a lie of the Left and we are not going to take it anymore.and:Unique among the nations, America recognized the source of our character as being godly and eternal, not being civic and temporal. And because we have understood that our source is eternal, America has been different. We have no king but Jesus. Soon, we will have to decide if we will allow this country to completely degenerate (it's well on the way now) into the same type of mindless, barbaric theocracy that was escaped from by our Founding Fathers, OR.....if we will actually do something about it. If things keep getting worse, it may be just about time for the "Jefferson option"..... K Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
All Gods Fail Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Almost all of the Founding Fathers were agnostic, atheist or at the very least Unitarian. The founding of our democracy was based on the Enlightenment and the models of Greek and Roman democracy. Read some American history, you pinkos! I've had this debate with xtians before, and I ask them why the architecture of the original Federal buildings, Monticello, the White House, etc. are all based on Greek-Roman Revivalism. Another great way to make fundies squirm is to suggest that yes, we should have some kind of religious authority in the government - maybe the Vatican? (For Catholics making this same argument, substitute 'Pat Robertson') Wake up, you bible knobs! We are not a 'xtian' nation - we're a democracy! The separation of church and state protects religion as much as it protects us against a theocracy. That sword cuts both ways, you know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Casey Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Christian politicians try to claim the same bunkum in Australia, as witness this: Australia – A Christian Nation?Australia is a Christian nation. Why do I make that claim? As I said on a previous occasion, with the formation of the Islamic political party in the Australian Capital Territory, there is a proposal to introduce Koranic law, that is, sha'ria law, to Australia and we have been asked, "What does Australia stand for? Is Australia a Christian nation?" It is important that we reaffirm Australia as a Christian nation. Sir John Downer, MP, assisted in the adoption of the Commonwealth Constitution. When the Constitution was finally adopted he said, "The Commonwealth from its first stage will be a Christian Commonwealth." He was able to say that because our Constitution, which I call the Christian Constitution, commences with the words "humbly relying upon the blessings of Almighty God". Those words were not put there by accident. There was a major constitutional debate in Australia and church leaders said, "Unless there is an acknowledgement of Almighty God in the Constitution we will urge the people of Australia to vote no in the referendum", and Australia would have been stillborn. A minority of politicians who were not keen on that being done agreed that the Constitution should include the important Christian words "humbly relying upon the blessings of Almighty God". Very few constitutions in other countries acknowledge Almighty God. When the Commonwealth Constitution was finally adopted—obviously there was a lot of debate at that time—Alfred Deakin, one of Australia's first Prime Ministers, wrote these words in his prayer diary: God preserve these people and grant its leaders unselfish fidelity and courage to face all trials for the sake of brotherhood. Thy blessing has rested upon us here yesterday and we pray that it may be the means of creating and posturing throughout all Australia a Christlike citizenship. That was his ambition for our nation. Sir Henry Parkes, whom we regard as the Father of Federation, said something similar: As we are a British people—pre-eminently a Christian people as our laws, our whole system of jurisprudence, our Constitution are based upon and interwoven with our Christian belief, and as we are immensely in the majority, we have a fair claim to be spoken of at all times with respect and deference. To my knowledge there has never been a referendum in Australia or any legislation that stated that Australia was no longer a Christian nation. It certainly started as one. Sixty-seven per cent of the Australian population claim to be members of a Christian denomination. Federal and State parliaments begin each day with Christian prayers, as we do in this House. A longer prayer was offered in the 1500s during the reign of King Edward VI. At that time the clerk fell on his knees and recited the Christian litany and the members of the Commons responded, also on their knees. We do not get on our knees today. Even though Australia is a Christian nation, we respect minority religions, which constitute 5 per cent of the Australian population—Hindus 0.5 per cent; Judaism 0.4 per cent; Muslims 1.5 per cent; Buddhism 1.9 per cent; and other religions 0.5 per cent. Some people are under the impression that Australia is one-third Christian, one-third Muslim and one-third Hindu or other religions. That is not the case. Section 116 of the Australian Commonwealth Constitution prohibits the establishment of any religion. There has been some confusion about the meaning of the word "religion". In the 1900s people wrongly believed that the Church of England was a religion, that the Catholic faith was another religion and that the Baptists had yet another religion. The word "religion" was used to describe each of those beliefs. Today we regard them as denominations, all comprising the Christian faith. When the Constitution referred to "prohibiting the establishment of any religion" it was referring specifically to the establishment of the Church of England as the established church in Australia; it had nothing to do with the Christian faith or its place in our nation. We have a Christian Queen and I believe we also have a Christian flag, which has on it the cross of St George, St Patrick and St Andrew. Almighty God has put a Christian cross in the sky above our nation—the Southern Cross in the shape of the cross of Jesus Christ. **************************************** Rev Fred Nile MLC (02) 9230 2132 or 0418 619 731 Gordon Moyes MLC 9230 2132, 9263 5438, 9419 3464 or 0407 433 499 (From the christian democrat party)Jee-sus, why didn't we throw the bloody Brits out the same way the US did? Casey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asuryan Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Beautiful post! Very enlightening, very well written. I'm sure it will come handy for a lot of discussions, very soon... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts