View Full Version : Christians Who Mix Church and State Hate Christianty
This sums it up nicely: (http://www.techcentralstation.com/070105Z.html)
It's a small step from the idea that the government endorses Christianity to an idea that is much worse: that Christianity endorses the government. Christians are the big losers in that transaction. Western Europe is filled with Christian symbols -- Christian Democrats are a leading political party in several countries -- but almost entirely devoid of Christians. Christianity does not thrive when political parties take its name and capitol lawns showcase its precepts. On the contrary, it thrives when it stays as far from those things as possible.
The government thrives, too. Religious conservatives and secular liberals should be able to agree on this much: teaching good morals is not a job for the Texas legislature or the Kentucky courts -- or any legislature or court. Making just laws is hard enough, and our government isn't so good at that. Teaching virtue is incomparably harder. Personally, I'd rather they stuck to the laws.
King of Atlantis
07-04-2005, 06:53
agreed. ~:cheers:
btw, is this a side argument to the liberals hate christianity thread?
Kanamori
07-04-2005, 06:59
Of course it is. Perhaps a bit mocking too, if I am not mistaken.
~:grouphug:
btw, is this a side argument to the liberals hate christianity thread?
I suppose so. I had a bit of a skin-rash reaction to the title and content of the other thread, and felt like posting something counter.
King of Atlantis
07-04-2005, 07:02
ya the title of that thread made me mad too, especially as i am a liberal cristian. :embarassed:
GodsPetMonkey
07-04-2005, 07:07
ya the title of that thread made me mad too, especially as i am a liberal cristian. :embarassed:
That's the point of a troll thread :embarassed:
King of Atlantis
07-04-2005, 07:10
whats a troll thread? Something made to piss people off??
sorry for being a newb :bow:
It's a small step from the idea that the government endorses Christianity to an idea that is much worse: that Christianity endorses the government. I don't really get that statement. I'm certainly less comfortable with the government endorsing Christianity than the reverse. Sects of Christians endorsing candidates or government policies gets to the heart of our republic.
I think the author is confused. On the subject of nativities on public property, I again disagree. If I lived in a town that did so and a group of muslims or jews wanted to put up some seperate respectful display of their own then I'd say fine. We could even fence off an empty space and say 'This space intentionally left blank for atheists.'
The 'elevator music' argument also seems misguided to me. A devout Chrisitian would like nothing better to have their religion in their life as much as possible. Having public displays and the like does not necessarily cheapen it. Does wearing a cross cheapen your religion if you wear it outside of church? Of course not.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2005, 15:06
whats a troll thread?
This one ~;)
ya the title of that thread made me mad too, especially as i am a liberal cristian.
Why it said nothing of cristans ~;) Look you misunderstand the article if you think its says that all liberals are secularists. It was not made to insult but to stimulate debate. Sorry if any of you took it that way. Again I didnt write the title.
It's a small step from the idea that the government endorses Christianity to an idea that is much worse: that Christianity endorses the government.
Really? ~:confused: Dont christians and their churches support most democratic governments? You are again provong the poit of the other article here. Keep your dan christianity at home seems to be the message. Your christian or religous values have no place in government. The founding fathers would be turning in their graves to hear that.
Don Corleone
07-04-2005, 15:16
Well, I suppose if I let Gawain have it in his thread, I should weigh in on this one as well.
Nowhere in the First Ammendment is the "Silence Clause". While I agree government sponsoring a religion is a really bad idea, why does the secular side always have to go fundamentalist with that idea as well?
It is possible to have religious practice without the government sponsoring it. But as the secularists would have it, you're not allowed to mention God in a public setting, you cannot wear any identifiable symbols that might indicate you're of a relgious nature (any religion), any religious holidays must be co-opted and redefined, any historical reference to religious practice must be altered to avoid the R-word, children need to be expelled from school when they mention the C-word during 'winter holiday', saying a prayer on publicly owned grounds should be a felony... and so on.
Surely, those of you on the secular side can see this is as dogmatic and repressive as the worst the religious right has to offer.
Of course it's a bad idea. Look at the few theocracies in the world, not happy places for anyone, except the strange people who think that oppressing people and killing anyone who opposes the government is the purpose of their faith.
Don Corleone
07-04-2005, 16:17
Of course it's a bad idea. Look at the few theocracies in the world, not happy places for anyone, except the strange people who think that oppressing people and killing anyone who opposes the government is the purpose of their faith.
So the answer to that then is to silence anyone who has beliefs other than the here and now? We should suspend school children for saying "Merry Christmas"? We should expel the class valedvictorian for thanking God on a personal level in their speech?
Secular fundamentalism is every bit as intolerant and every bit as dangerous as any other kind.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2005, 16:20
Look at the few theocracies in the world, not happy places for anyone, except the strange people who think that oppressing people and killing anyone who opposes the government is the purpose of their faith.
No ones advocating theocracy here.
It is possible to have religious practice without the government sponsoring it. But as the secularists would have it, you're not allowed to mention God in a public setting, you cannot wear any identifiable symbols that might indicate you're of a relgious nature (any religion), any religious holidays must be co-opted and redefined, any historical reference to religious practice must be altered to avoid the R-word, children need to be expelled from school when they mention the C-word during 'winter holiday', saying a prayer on publicly owned grounds should be a felony... and so on.
Surely, those of you on the secular side can see this is as dogmatic and repressive as the worst the religious right has to offer.
The founding fathers believed that democracy cannot work without a religous populace. How does that square with this? Now they are always reminding us that christain holidays are based on pagan ones. It seems they would return to celebrating them as the pagans did and call that progress and new thinking. ~:confused:
Big_John
07-04-2005, 16:59
children need to be expelled from school when they mention the C-word during 'winter holiday':shocked: :shocked2: saying the "c-word" during christmas is ALWAYS a bad thing!!! and children no less!!! :shocked2: :shocked3: :cry:
lol
but i agree with you. people should be free to express their beliefs as much as they want in public spaces. the interesting discussion is for private spaces, say, the workplace; what are the limitations that the owner of such a space can implement? can GM demand that all employees refrain from wearing/practicing religious indicators? what if they baned all christian paraphernalia, but everything else was ok? how is the private space of a workplace different from the private space of someone's home? i assume there are laws that define the parameters of rules that an employer can implement on their own property?
Hurin_Rules
07-04-2005, 17:23
I say, bring on the close cooperation between church and state. It will just hasten the end of the church.
To see why, one need only look at medieval history. The Church became a secular power, the popes became princes, and by the end of the period people reviled the clergy for their luxury, power and arrogance. Any movement of protest--national, political, social--could instantly tap into this reservoir of anticlericalism and gain momentum. Hence, you have the Reformation. We can see parallels in the Muslim world. When religious fundamentalism goes hand in hand with secular power, as it did in Afghanistan and currently in Iran, the government ends up being hated, and by proxy the church as well. If I were a Christian and wanted to see Christianity grow and prosper, I'd adivse my religous leaders to stay as far away from politics as possible.
The real power of religion lies in its moral authority. This authority always vanishes--whether sooner or later--when one enters the political arena.
Why it said nothing of cristans ~;) Look you misunderstand the article if you think its says that all liberals are secularists. It was not made to insult but to stimulate debate. Sorry if any of you took it that way. Again I didnt write the title.
As posted by Gawain: Liberals Hate Christianity. That's the title of the article, and that's the title of the thread. Gawain chose to put it up there. All else is spin and backpedalling.
It is possible to have religious practice without the government sponsoring it. But as the secularists would have it, you're not allowed to mention God in a public setting.
There's nothing in the article linked here that suggests nobody's allowed to mention God or be religious. And I haven't seen anyone in this thread making that argument. Bit of a straw man you're propping up.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2005, 17:51
As posted by Gawain: Liberals Hate Christianity. That's the title of the article, and that's the title of the thread. Gawain chose to put it up there. All else is spin and backpedalling.
I used the title of the article as the title of the thread . How outragous and disingenuos of me. Again I admit it was provocative but it was not meant in anyway as a troll. This seeems to have hit a nerve with you for some reason. I never even said I agreed with everything the article said but posted it as I thought it was an intesting view point. When I first got here it seems many had the same opinion as you seem to have of me. Im one of those who likes to throw things up against the wall and see what happens. I like to think that my biggest contribution here is finding interesting topics to discuss but then again maybe Im wrong and Im full of myself but you certainly are inncorrect as to why I posted that arcticle.
As Bob Grant says "Someone has to ask these questions. it has to be me. " ~;)
When I first got here it seems many had the same opinion as you seem to have of me. Im one of those who likes to throw things up against the wall and see what happens. I like to think that my biggest contribution here is finding interesting topics to discuss.
And yet the topics you pick, G, are of a uniform slant and singular viewpoint. I have never seen you ask hard questions of any branch of the conservative movement, except perhaps those Republicans who dare to be moderate. All the while you post article after article blaming every ill of our country and the world on "liberals," a term you use so loosely that it loses all meaning.
If your idea of being "provocative" is to post a never-ending string of self-congratulatory articles from The Spectator and its ilk about how everyone left of Rush Limbaugh is an anti-Christian traitor who sends love letters to Al Qaeda, well, mission accomplished.
And yes, posting a thread titled "Liberals Hate Christianity" and then backpedalling from it with a bit of "oh that's not what I meant" seems like just the sort of semantic wriggling that you would be quick to pounce on in anyone less conservative than you. If I ran across an article titled "Conservatives Hate Puppies," and chose to run that as the title of a thread, I would be tacitly endorsing the title. And I didn't see anything in your original post tempering either the title or the article; not the slightest hint that you had anything but admiration for the content.
You say your thread "seems to have hit a nerve" with me. Well, gosh Gawain, you're a smart guy, why on Earth would I take offense at a theocon declaring that everyone less conservative than he is hates all Christianity? What could possibly honk me off about that?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2005, 18:25
And yet the topics you pick, G, are of a uniform slant and singular viewpoint. I have never seen you ask hard questions of any branch of the conservative movement, except perhaps those Republicans who dare to be moderate. All the while you post article after article blaming every ill of our country and the world on "liberals," a term you use so loosely that it loses all meaning.
Well just like Rush I dont hide my ideaoligy. Im a diehrad conservative and proud of it. Yes I attack liberal ideaolgy and with pleasure.But saying you have never seen you ask hard questions of any branch of the conservative movement, except perhaps those Republicans who dare to be moderate is wrong. Well maybe you havent seen it but I certainly have asked somre of those questions of Republicans. I do indeed see liberalism as a very bad thing as its constituted today. Again I make no bones about it.
If your idea of being "provocative" is to post a never-ending string of self-congratulatory articles from The Spectator and its ilk about how everyone left of Rush Limbaugh is an anti-Christian traitor who sends love letters to Al Qaeda, well, mission accomplished.
I never heard of the spectator. Look you dont like my politics thats obvious but why do you resort to attacking me instead of the articles themselves? Im mean heck Hurlins threads are a never ending series of attacks on US policies but I dont complain. He keeps us on our feet on these matters. This forum is for debating I thought. There are plenty here to represent your side so stop bitiching.
And yes, posting a thread titled "Liberals Hate Christianity" and then backpedalling from it with a bit of "oh that's not what I meant" seems like just the sort of semantic wriggling that you would be quick to pounce on in anyone less conservative than you.
Well I cant help what you think.
You say your thread "seems to have hit a nerve" with me. Well, gosh Gawain, you're a smart guy, why on Earth would I take offense at a theocon declaring that everyone less conservative than he is hates all Christianity? What could possibly honk me off about that?
Who are you calling a theocon the author I hope. Well thats how you read the article. Again I cant help what you think because if thats what he said then Im a liberal as Im certainly not as religous as he . Again I never meant to insult anyone. How many times must I say it. Believe what you like.
I certainly have asked somre of those questions of Republicans.
To quote you, "Can you prove that?"
This forum is for debating I thought. There are plenty here to represent your side so stop bitiching.
Gawain, in your eyes everyone who isn't a diehard conservative is a liberal. I don't know about you personally, but in your forum persona you dedicate yourself to a boiled-down dualism of if not A then B. So when you say "your side," I seriously doubt you have the foggiest notion of what my side is. Oh, right, it must be liberal, 'cause it ain't die-hard conservatism. I forgot. There are only two, right?
And of course the forums are for debate. But unless some common ground is established, it ain't much of a debate. Hurrin has made plenty of posts attacking my government, and that's his right. But you attack everyone who isn't as conservative as you are, and I'm a member of that group. (Frankly, most of humanity is a member of that group.) So yes, it honks me off.
I don't mind conservatives any more than I mind liberals. Both are irritating (and profoundly wrong) when taken to extremes. But the libs on this board don't attack me personally, Gawain, and you do.
You are again provong the poit of the other article here. Keep your dan christianity at home seems to be the message. Your christian or religous values have no place in government. The founding fathers would be turning in their graves to hear that.
The article does not suggest that Christian values be kept at home, but rather that there should not be an official endorsement of Christianity. Since it would, you know, be bad for the State and for the Church. That's kinda the point.
The founding fathers were products of the enlightenment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Age_of_Enlightenment), and they knew exactly what they were doing. They had watched the wars of religion in England, and they wanted to avoid it here. Of course they wanted a moral, religious society. They just didn't want any religion mandated by the state. Why is that so hard to understand?
King of Atlantis
07-04-2005, 18:56
Bringing your religious values into government is much better than bringing your religion into it.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2005, 19:00
Gawain, in your eyes everyone who isn't a diehard conservative is a liberal.
And what is a diehard conservative , me? I favor legalising prostitution and drugs. Does that make me a liberal? We all have our own perception of these things.
I don't know about you personally, but in your forum persona you dedicate yourself to a boiled-down dualism of if not A then B.
Again thats your perception not mine. I am more judgemental than many but I see many gray areas.
So when you say "your side," I seriously doubt you have the foggiest notion of what my side is. Oh, right, it must be liberal, 'cause it ain't die-hard conservatism. I forgot. There are only two, right?
No you are more liberal than me thats all. Im afraid you dont understand me in the least.
And of course the forums are for debate. But unless some common ground is established, it ain't much of a debate. Hurrin has made plenty of posts attacking my government, and that's his right. But you attack everyone who isn't as conservative as you are, and I'm a member of that group. (Frankly, most of humanity is a member of that group.) So yes, it honks me off.
I attack no one I only attack their ideas. Look at what your saying here. Again your ruthlessly attacking me with things you have no way of proving like.
But you attack everyone who isn't as conservative as you are, and I'm a member of that group. (Frankly, most of humanity is a member of that group.)
Can you back that up? Maybe most of Europe but certainly not most of the US.
I don't mind conservatives any more than I mind liberals. Both are irritating (and profoundly wrong) when taken to extremes
Well its nice to see we agree on something. Anything taken to extremes is bad.
To quote you, "Can you prove that?"
Depeneds on what you call conservatives ~;)
I bemoaned the fact that having all three branches of government controlled by 1 party even be it conservatives is dangerous for one. I was against the invasion of Iraq. Agaim im in favor of legalizing drugs and prostition and attack conservtives on these matters and that just off the top of my head. You wont believe this but I consider myself a moderate conservative but a strict constitutitionalist.
But the libs on this board don't attack me personally, Gawain, and you do.
I think this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black. Personal attacks are not my style and if I am guilty of doing this to you , you have ny apologies.
The article does not suggest that Christian values be kept at home, but rather that there should not be an official endorsement of Christianity. Since it would, you know, be bad for the State and for the Church. That's kinda the point.
The founding fathers were products of the enlightenment, and they knew exactly what they were doing. They had watched the wars of religion in England, and they wanted to avoid it here. Of course they wanted a moral, religious society. They just didn't want any religion mandated by the state. Why is that so hard to understand?
I understand and in fact agree entirely. However that is not whats going on today. Also as to the part on by the state. This refers only to the federal government and not to the states as many would think. Some states did indeed have an official religion.
I attack no one I only attack their ideas.
So let me get this straign, Liberals Hate Christianity was just attacking an indea, not any people. Riiiight. Because, you know, "hate" is such a neutral word, and "Christianity" is a neutral term as well. And lord knows it's not as though "liberal" has been applied to everything under the sun.
How could anyone have misunderstood your intent? All you did was post a thread titled Liberals Hate Christianity.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-04-2005, 19:15
So let me get this straign, Liberals Hate Christianity was just attacking an indea, not any people.
First off I didnt write the article. Secondly even you admit that the term liberals has a broad meaning and definton to different people. One should only take offense if the shoe fits.
How could anyone have misunderstood your intent? All you did was post a thread titled Liberals Hate Christianity.
You tell me as you seem to be the one that has.
Spetulhu
07-04-2005, 20:43
What does liberal have to do with hate? Isn't that a rather extreme emotion?
On the contrary, it thrives when it stays as far from those things as possible.
this statement is complete and utter nonsense.
Jesus commanded Christians to be bold and effect righteous change upon the world
to bury one's head in the sand and not fight for what is good is to fail at being a Christian.
The article does not suggest that Christian values be kept at homeThat was one of the main points that I got from it. The whole 'elevator music' analogy. He was arguing that public religious displays somehow cheapen religion- ie: keep it locked away.
The rest of his arguments were strawmen, as I've addressed previously. A small town allowing a nativity on public property is not akin to atheists erecting a sign in town square saying "There is not God, you're all stupid."
Goofball
07-05-2005, 00:19
The founding fathers believed that democracy cannot work without a religous populace. How does that square with this?
Methinks the founding fathers were dead wrong on that assumption. Just look around the world today for proof.
With very few exceptions, you can say of most countries that the more religious the populous, the less democratic and more oppressive the government.
Don Corleone
07-05-2005, 00:32
You're absolutely right Goofball. America and Canada are two of the most religious countries on the planet, and Lord knows how undemocratic and oppressive we all are.
Boy, you guys really have it in for believers in any form, don't you. Like I said, fundamentalism is fundamentalism, and secular fundamentalism is as scary & oppressive as any other kind.
First off I didnt write the article. Secondly even you admit that the term liberals has a broad meaning and definton to different people. One should only take offense if the shoe fits.
Org Forum Rules:
Link (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=45416)
Although The Guild does not and cannot review all messages posted, and is not responsible for the content of any message, we at The Guild reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages...
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2005, 02:27
Although The Guild does not and cannot review all messages posted, and is not responsible for the content of any message, we at The Guild reserve the right to delete any message for any reason whatsoever. You remain solely responsible for the content of your messages...
So whats wrong with that thread. You found the title offensive? Do you know how many things I find offensive here abd never say a word? To e this was the point of that thread.
Boy, you guys really have it in for believers in any form, don't you. Like I said, fundamentalism is fundamentalism, and secular fundamentalism is as scary & oppressive as any other kind.
You guys can read into it anything you like. I can post a speech by Gobbels if I like that doesnt mean I back everything he says but it would make for an intersting discussion. Again I was only posting an article I thought would provide a good debate. Believe it or not I didnt think anyone would take real offense at it. Ive poeted things here that I totally dissagree with just to see where it leads.
Gawain, you're quoting from this thread. To prove a point about your thread titled Liberals Hate Christianity, for which you refuse to take the slightest level of responsibility.
You've made it very public that you despise liberals and their ideas. And you've made it clear that anyone might be a liberal, depending on your mood and which way the wind is blowing. And then you title an entire thread based on the idea that all of those people who fall under your rubric of "liberal" -- all of them -- hate Jesus Christ and his teachings. Anyone who isn't insulted by your smug assumption of spiritual and moral superiority wasn't listening carefully.
It's almost not worth mentioning, but when you asked why I called you a diehard conservative, it was because three posts earlier you wrote:
Well just like Rush I dont hide my ideaoligy. Im a diehrad conservative and proud of it.
I'll leave it to you to be the expert on you.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2005, 03:03
You've made it very public that you despise liberals and their ideas.
Maybe to you but I never said that. I did say I hate despise their ideas though. I dont hate liberals in the least as people. In fact most of my friends are liberals.
And you've made it clear that anyone might be a liberal, depending on your mood and which way the wind is blowing.
Yup including myself.
And then you title an entire thread based on the idea that all of those people who fall under your rubric of "liberal" -- all of them -- hate Jesus Christ and his teachings
Sorry I didnt read it that way. Again I certainly dont believe that all liberals hate christains as most preists are probably liberal.
Anyone who isn't insulted by your smug assumption of spiritual and moral superiority wasn't listening carefully.
Im not even a christain anymore ~:confused:
It's almost not worth mentioning, but when you asked why I called you a diehard conservative, it was because three posts earlier you wrote:
As far as the constitution goes I am. I doubt you will find a more caring or sympathetic person though on the face of the planet. Ive given people my last dollar. I was a hippe back in the 70s . I know whay it is to be a liberal believe me. Yopu just want to fight and Im getting tired of defending myself here. Believe as you like. Ive already apologised twice if I offended you. Im done here.
Yopu just want to fight and Im getting tired of defending myself here. Believe as you like. Ive already apologised twice if I offended you. Im done here.
No, a mere fight was not my intention. What I wanted was to give you a rhetorical comeuppance for posting that garbage, and the fact that your apologies fell along the line of "you shouldn't be offended but on the off chance that you are, I'm sorry that you are offended, not that I posted anything even slightly off-mark."
There are hundreds of thousands of people posting all sorts of scribblings on the net. Of all those screeds, you chose the one titled Liberals Hate Christianity. You do have some responsibility for what you choose to bring in and post in its entirety. Going back to your Goebbels comment, if you reprinted a speech by him, I have no doubt that you would preface it with some manner of "I don't believe this, but here's an interesting viewpoint," and that would be that. It would still be tasteless, but it would be framed properly for discussion.
You, on the other hand, found a nice little tract about how anybody who has political variance from the author hates (not disagrees with, not "has a problem with," but hates) Jesus Christ. You said nothing about disagreeing with it, and your only preface was "This should be interesting." And now you've got Panzer taking that ball and running with it, which must make you feel great.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2005, 03:28
oing back to your Goebbels comment, if you reprinted a speech by him, I have no doubt that you would preface it with some manner of "I don't believe this, but here's an interesting viewpoint," and that would be that. It would still be tasteless, but it would be framed properly for discussion.
Actually I posted one and actually took credit for it. I made it look like I agreed with him. You wouldnt believe how many people agreed with me that the jews were the root of all evil based on what Gobbels wrote. You know do you not that one thing you certainly cant accuse me of is being anti Jewish.
Of all those screeds, you chose the one titled Liberals Hate Christianity.
I admitted I did it for sensationalism or shall we say shock value. I however didnt think the article really made that point. Again only a fool would believe all liberals hate christianity or that I believe that. I know that you are no fool so I cant see wherre your coming from .
"This should be interesting."
It should have been but you and others simply attack the title or myself. If you like I will quote the parts I find pertinant or true.
Again only a fool would believe all liberals hate christianity or that I believe that. I know that you are no fool so I cant see wherre your coming from.
Go have a gander at what Panzer's posting in that thread. He doesn't know you're just playing an intellectual game, being "provocative."
I suspect you have a much better idea of why I'm offended than you're letting on. I've spelled it out in painstaking detail. To flog the dead horse any further will just leave marks on the ground.
Here's a question: Given the theoconservatives' level of constant outrage and umbrage, what level of Christian involvement in our government will satisfy them? At what point will sensible theocons say, "Okay, that's enough public religion. Now we're happy." At what point will they say, "That's good, but to go much further will be inviting religious dischord."
And assuming they were able to convert anything they like into state-sponsored religious expression, how long would it take the various groups to start bickering over whose Bible to distribute? Whose prayers to mandate? When would the in-fighting occur?
PanzerJaeger
07-05-2005, 04:01
Reciprocation threads are extremely weak most of the time, and this one is no different.
The title of the thread is idiotic, and the text doesnt reach much farther.
A good analysis by Xiahou though, the other 30-ish posts werent necessary.
I don't really get that statement. I'm certainly less comfortable with the government endorsing Christianity than the reverse. Sects of Christians endorsing candidates or government policies gets to the heart of our republic.
I think the author is confused. On the subject of nativities on public property, I again disagree. If I lived in a town that did so and a group of muslims or jews wanted to put up some seperate respectful display of their own then I'd say fine. We could even fence off an empty space and say 'This space intentionally left blank for atheists.'
The 'elevator music' argument also seems misguided to me. A devout Chrisitian would like nothing better to have their religion in their life as much as possible. Having public displays and the like does not necessarily cheapen it. Does wearing a cross cheapen your religion if you wear it outside of church? Of course not.
Reciprocation threads are extremely weak most of the time, and this one is no different.
Then why on earth are you posting in it?
PanzerJaeger
07-05-2005, 05:26
The best way to end ignorance is to confront it.
Then consider everyone who has posted in this thread duly confronted.
PanzerJaeger
07-05-2005, 05:40
On the contrary, they seem to be performing a similar task.
King of Atlantis
07-05-2005, 05:47
GAH! Though i didnt like the title of Gawain's thread, I must say this debate is pointless. Unless anybody here is actually saying all liberals hate christianity, then there is no real point to this argument.
~:cheers:
Honestly, this thread should be closed- it was pretty clearly created for the sole purpose of picking a fight with Gawain. Myself and others tried several times to actually debate the topic to no avail- the creator is too busy grinding his axe. :rolleyes:
This thread is officially pathetic.
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2005, 06:50
We certainly started out with total seperation of church and state.
Religious Oaths and Tests
In addition, many states required tests to keep non-Christians or in some cases Catholics out of public office:
* The New Jersey Constitution of 1776 restricted public office to all but Protestants by its religious test/oath.
* The Delaware Constitution of 1776 demanded an acceptance of the Trinity by its religious test/oath.
* The Pennsylvania Constitution of 1776 had a similar test/oath.
* The Maryland Constitution of 1776 had such a test/oath.
* The North Carolina Constitution of 1776 had a test/oath that restricted all but Protestants from public office.
* The Georgia Constitution of 1777 used an oath/test to screen out all but Protestants.
* The Vermont state charter/constitution of 1777 echoed the Pennsylvania Constitution regarding a test/oath.
* The South Carolina Constitution of 1778 had such a test/oath allowing only Protestants to hold office.
* The Massachusetts Constitution of 1780 and New Hampshire Constitution of 1784 restricted such office holders to Protestants.
* Only Virginia and New York did not have such religious tests/oaths during this time period.
Spetulhu
07-05-2005, 06:53
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gawain of Orkeny
The founding fathers believed that democracy cannot work without a religous populace. How does that square with this?
Methinks the founding fathers were dead wrong on that assumption.
Didn't they also say democracy needs a well-educated populace, able to make decisions based on facts?
Gawain of Orkeny
07-05-2005, 07:13
Didn't they also say democracy needs a well-educated populace, able to make decisions based on facts?
Are you insinuating that religous people cant be well educated. Ill remind you that almost all if not all colleges were christain institutions back then.
Spetulhu
07-05-2005, 10:19
Are you insinuating that religous people cant be well educated. Ill remind you that almost all if not all colleges were christain institutions back then.
I just thought they put the education first, nothing more.
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.