Our Fathers' intent was to ensure that there would not ever be a National Religion (i.e. Church of England established by King Henry the Eighth). This is what they had come from.
The “indulgent Providence” would seem to be God’s active participation in the affairs of a civil society submitting to the virtues and precepts as spoken of in The Bible of their own volition and not an entity of the government set up to force a formal “religion” to be adhered to by society.
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. (This is our First amendment to the US constitution)
Yes, that’s a very interesting thought. And many volumes have been written about the separation of church and state. I think there wil be a lot said here, too. My favorite is the Bible.
Washington and our Founders knew that the only way for our Republic to survive was to have Godly people with integrity be elected to serve for the greater good.
Yes, but they also set up separation of powers and checks & balances because they assumed that sometimes bad people would be elected. We've been ignoring those safeguards lately, which is a huge problem.
Curious business about churches... they are corporations, so there are a lot of laws regarding corporate functions. The Episcopal cannon law, as well as of the other main denominational sects, are copied into NY State religious law. Odd as it sounds, it was one of the consequences of freedom of religion: no denomination would be selected as the state church. All of them could incorporate - as well as Jewish and other sects. Colonial churches were not allowed to incorporate (they couldn't enter contracts, such as hiring ministers, or own property in the name of their churches). The exercise of religious conscience was very public -- very much visible in the emancipation movement. Its presence expressed in having chaplains' opening prayers in civil and gov't functions was very present. It looks like we've wandered given people claiming offense, and fear their access to rights may depend on whether they are Christian, use that to eliminate Christianity from public presence - especially schools.
Separation of Church and State has never been in the Constitution. Today we have the Freedom from Religion Foundation running around telling everyone they cannot worship openly as they see fit. They claim we are violating the Constitution while at the same time they are violating everyone's right to worship or not freely.
Absolutely agree. Now, please tell me what laws are being passed or proposed that would force you to follow anyone's precepts? In addition, please let me know if you would be uncomfortable with Sharia law which is what they are playing around with here in Michigan.
Easily. ALL abortion laws are religion based. Louisiana passing a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted on the wall in every schoolroom in a public school. Unless you're going to mandate they put up the Five Pillars Of Faith for Islam, the Nine Beliefs for Hindus, and an assortment of other religions as well, you're violating the First Amendment.
And, yes, I'd be VERY uncomfortable with anyone trying to enforce Sharia law as law.
You can do whatever you want, inside your congregation...but you cannot try to enact into law your beliefs to govern the general public.
Finally, if you're a TRUE Christian, you know that there are only TWO Commandments, as Jesus himself said in the second chapter of Matthew:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I must say, you have an interesting take on the commandments. I don't think I have ever heard that take. As for the abortion issue, it is based on actual science, but that is more an emotional issue and the intense desire to devalue life than anything else. Hanging the Ten Commandments is not promoting a religion. Our laws, which from the English laws by the way, were based on the Ten Commandments. Now, your take that we don't have to obey the Ten Commandments is terribly interesting. If you understand what Christ was saying when he said he came to fulfill the law, you would know that he was referring to all the laws pertaining to sacrifices. He never said you can now freely make graven images, steal, murder, covet, lie, etc.
Thank you Tara. Separation of Church and State then meant something different than it means today. (Separation "of" doesn't mean "from").
In my opinion, the founders intended that religion should not have a role in the exercise of our government, not that the people shouldn't freely and openly practice their religious beliefs while in the normal business of conducting our nation's government and laws.
Short, sweet, and a good piece for the weekend. I was expecting a daily story on a Presidential Debate from long ago, when things were still civil. If that was ever the case. I watched last night with one question in mind . . . tell me how you can make my life - and all American’s lives better if you are elected. I don’t think either answered my question.
Our Fathers' intent was to ensure that there would not ever be a National Religion (i.e. Church of England established by King Henry the Eighth). This is what they had come from.
Our Founders definitely meant for the State to stay out of Church business.
I believe you are correct and also for the church to stay out of government business.
The “indulgent Providence” would seem to be God’s active participation in the affairs of a civil society submitting to the virtues and precepts as spoken of in The Bible of their own volition and not an entity of the government set up to force a formal “religion” to be adhered to by society.
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. (This is our First amendment to the US constitution)
Yes, that’s a very interesting thought. And many volumes have been written about the separation of church and state. I think there wil be a lot said here, too. My favorite is the Bible.
Exactly Right ✅️ 👏 👌 💯 👍 🙌
Washington and our Founders knew that the only way for our Republic to survive was to have Godly people with integrity be elected to serve for the greater good.
Yes, but they also set up separation of powers and checks & balances because they assumed that sometimes bad people would be elected. We've been ignoring those safeguards lately, which is a huge problem.
Curious business about churches... they are corporations, so there are a lot of laws regarding corporate functions. The Episcopal cannon law, as well as of the other main denominational sects, are copied into NY State religious law. Odd as it sounds, it was one of the consequences of freedom of religion: no denomination would be selected as the state church. All of them could incorporate - as well as Jewish and other sects. Colonial churches were not allowed to incorporate (they couldn't enter contracts, such as hiring ministers, or own property in the name of their churches). The exercise of religious conscience was very public -- very much visible in the emancipation movement. Its presence expressed in having chaplains' opening prayers in civil and gov't functions was very present. It looks like we've wandered given people claiming offense, and fear their access to rights may depend on whether they are Christian, use that to eliminate Christianity from public presence - especially schools.
Separation of Church and State has never been in the Constitution. Today we have the Freedom from Religion Foundation running around telling everyone they cannot worship openly as they see fit. They claim we are violating the Constitution while at the same time they are violating everyone's right to worship or not freely.
You can worship as you see fit, but you cannot coerce others to join you by passing laws that force them to follow your precepts.
Absolutely agree. Now, please tell me what laws are being passed or proposed that would force you to follow anyone's precepts? In addition, please let me know if you would be uncomfortable with Sharia law which is what they are playing around with here in Michigan.
Easily. ALL abortion laws are religion based. Louisiana passing a law requiring the Ten Commandments to be posted on the wall in every schoolroom in a public school. Unless you're going to mandate they put up the Five Pillars Of Faith for Islam, the Nine Beliefs for Hindus, and an assortment of other religions as well, you're violating the First Amendment.
And, yes, I'd be VERY uncomfortable with anyone trying to enforce Sharia law as law.
You can do whatever you want, inside your congregation...but you cannot try to enact into law your beliefs to govern the general public.
Finally, if you're a TRUE Christian, you know that there are only TWO Commandments, as Jesus himself said in the second chapter of Matthew:
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
I must say, you have an interesting take on the commandments. I don't think I have ever heard that take. As for the abortion issue, it is based on actual science, but that is more an emotional issue and the intense desire to devalue life than anything else. Hanging the Ten Commandments is not promoting a religion. Our laws, which from the English laws by the way, were based on the Ten Commandments. Now, your take that we don't have to obey the Ten Commandments is terribly interesting. If you understand what Christ was saying when he said he came to fulfill the law, you would know that he was referring to all the laws pertaining to sacrifices. He never said you can now freely make graven images, steal, murder, covet, lie, etc.
Thank you Tara. Separation of Church and State then meant something different than it means today. (Separation "of" doesn't mean "from").
In my opinion, the founders intended that religion should not have a role in the exercise of our government, not that the people shouldn't freely and openly practice their religious beliefs while in the normal business of conducting our nation's government and laws.
Article 124 of the constitution guaranteed freedom of religion, including separation of (1) church and state, and (2) school from church.[3]
(Oh did I mention that was from USSR constitution in Russia)
Because that wording certainly isn’t in ours. Never has been and never intended to be!
Nor do I. I always thought it meant Church and State do not govern each other. They should work in parallel to do what is best for the country.
Thanks Tara.
Thank you, Tara.
Short, sweet, and a good piece for the weekend. I was expecting a daily story on a Presidential Debate from long ago, when things were still civil. If that was ever the case. I watched last night with one question in mind . . . tell me how you can make my life - and all American’s lives better if you are elected. I don’t think either answered my question.