Remnant Church?

[Bill 84 318i]

Ahhh I see

Well it NEVER MENTIONS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. It does how ever state there will no establishment of a state endorsed religion, and that we all have the freedom to worship what ever we choose.

What you seem to be confusing for separation, is the former. All that means is you cannot be barred form voting, land or business ownership, or from serving in a public capacity. If you dont partake in Religion A, B, or C. Not that the church in general is to have nothing to do with the influence of legislation and the rule of law. (they very much go hand in hand). look at our core beliefs and general moral code Religious or not. Most of them stem for the 10 commandments. Again I fully agree that the pushing of religious based laws that impose the will of the majority on to the minority, is a perversion. Like Pro life/ pro choice, Alcohol sales on sunday, no hunting on sunday (state of PA) and other such Religious founded blanket legislation.

All that said I personally am in the same camp as Manic that I dont give 2 shits about your religious affiliation, just leave me alone and dont try to press me into it.

Isn't quoting your man TJ your favorite thing?

"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."

[mrsleeve]

Isn't quoting your man TJ your favorite thing?

"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."

Yup and again I have just explained the intention of that quote, in the post of mine you have quoted

[markseven]

:applause: :)

vs. what the radical left says... why are they always left out (no pun intended) of the discussion?

[z31maniac]

vs. what the radical left says... why are they always left out (no pun intended) of the discussion?

I dislike the radical left just as much, which I think you know. The radical left wants to control my way of life just as much as the radical right. Which I strongly disagree with attempts from both sides.

It was just for the purpose of making a point, nothing more nothing less.

[markseven]

I dislike the radical left just as much, which I think you know. The radical left wants to control my way of life just as much as the radical right. Which I strongly disagree with attempts from both sides.

It was just for the purpose of making a point, nothing more nothing less.

Hey man, yep, that's why I didn't quote you. Corvallis quoted that part only, so I asked about it :)

[ck_taft325is]

I'd venture the reason people think it's threatening is because a lot of conservative political groups center around core Christian principles.

Why can't I buy a car on Sunday in OK?
Why can't I go to a liqour store on Sunday, but can go to a bar, get hammered and drive home?

And any number of other legislative items that right-wingers are proposing. Like some of the new abortion bills that are being moved through different state houses as we speak.

So the radical right says, "My view is superior, you should submit your will to God's because it is the right way."
Versus the Atheist who says, "I don't give a damn what you do, just don't force me to do it."


I think that's why people get upset at the entanglement of religion/governance. At least thats what bothers me. But I'm of the "do whatever you like as long as it doesn't hurt others" camp.

I don't see half of what I wrote having to do with anything you just wrote. But, I did just wake up so apologies if I missed something. Totally possibly at this point.

[z31maniac]

. BUT, I don't see why anyone's views are so "threatening" to anyone else. Again, take Atheism for instance. I don't find Atheists particularly threatening to my views.

I was illustrating what the non-religous find "threatening" about the religious.

You probably don't find Atheists "threatening" because they aren't actively trying to affect the manner in which you live your life. Which is the opposite of what the radical right/left is doing.

Notice, I continually mention "radical" because I realize there are many religious folks who share no such intent.

I may have gone off and a tangent as well, I just locked on to that little snippet.

[Dozyproductions]

Ahhh I see

Well it NEVER MENTIONS THE SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE ANYWHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION. It does how ever state there will no establishment of a state endorsed religion, and that we all have the freedom to worship what ever we choose.

So read that again because im not confusing anything. That sounds like a separation of church and state to me.

Besides several of your opinions I agree with the whole don't tread on me crap.

[mrsleeve]

So read that again because im not confusing anything. That sounds like a separation of church and state to me.

Besides several of your opinions I agree with the whole don't tread on me crap.

A state endorsed religion is not synonyms with religion having no bearing on rule of law

[ck_taft325is]

I was illustrating what the non-religous find "threatening" about the religious.

You probably don't find Atheists "threatening" because they aren't actively trying to affect the manner in which you live your life. Which is the opposite of what the radical right/left is doing.

Notice, I continually mention "radical" because I realize there are many religious folks who share no such intent.

I may have gone off and a tangent as well, I just locked on to that little snippet.

Oh, I hear ya buddy. I'm 100% against most "Christians" to be totally honest. In fact, I'm ridiculously anti-Religious. I don't like when anything, left, right, purple, green, Atheists, Christians, Buddha rubbers, what have you, start to get religious.

I think Bill and I could go on for hours over a few beers on how most just like to feel dominant when it comes to worldviews or, "justified" in how they live by whatever means needed. Including using God, or Non-God as a crutch to prop up their side of things.

[Dozyproductions]

A state endorsed religion is not synonyms with religion having no bearing on rule of law

sure but morality is not synonymous with religion. therefore you can make moral code without having to be guided by religion.

[mrsleeve]

sure but morality is not synonymous with religion. therefore you can make moral code without having to be guided by religion.

Agreed. I am a perfect example of this mind set. (your looking back on history with the tint of modern rose colored glasses. You have to take those off and learn view history form a view point of when it was happening not with the benefit of hindsight and 240 years of "progress" compare against. The progress is a strong point for debate though, in all reality we have gone very much backwards in that time)

This still does not change the fact that the founders intended for both the church and Govt to work hand in had to keep order among the citizenry.

At the time of the revolution something like 96% (this number be off a little its been a long time since I have read that book) of Americans (not including the Indians of course) were christian or Catholic, of one denomination or another. Since this large segment of the population included nearly all of the founders them selves, the moral code we based our legal system is largely based in the bible.

Not to mention our hierarchy of govt. Where the people were supposed to retain the bulk of the power. Largely based from the Anglo Saxon Common law form the 14th or 15th century and in part the ancient Israelites "peoples law" . Where if a problem came up it was to be solved where the issue arose. Anglo Saxon law was devised into 10 families for this task. Fast forward to the colonies and you have the CHURCH a local group or 3-30 families to accomplish this task, also not to mention you faith was to be you primary guide in dealing with others in a fair and just way.

[Dozyproductions]

Agreed. I am a perfect example of this mind set. (your looking back on history with the tint of modern rose colored glasses. You have to take those off and learn view history form a view point of when it was happening not with the benefit of hindsight and 240 years of "progress" compare against. The progress is a strong point for debate though, in all reality we have gone very much backwards in that time)

This still does not change the fact that the founders intended for both the church and Govt to work hand in had to keep order among the citizenry.

At the time of the revolution something like 96% (this number be off a little its been a long time since I have read that book) of Americans (not including the Indians of course) were christian or Catholic, of one denomination or another. Since this large segment of the population included nearly all of the founders them selves, the moral code we based our legal system is largely based in the bible.

Not to mention our hierarchy of govt. Where the people were supposed to retain the bulk of the power. Largely based from the Anglo Saxon Common law form the 14th or 15th century and in part the ancient Israelites "peoples law" . Where if a problem came up it was to be solved where the issue arose. Anglo Saxon law was devised into 10 families for this task. Fast forward to the colonies and you have the CHURCH a local group or 3-30 families to accomplish this task, also not to mention you faith was to be you primary guide in dealing with others in a fair and just way.

I can't argue with much of what you said about the localities solving local issues because I'll admit that you know more on the subject than i do but also that I slightly am agreeing with you. I'm trying to put across the thought that the intention of the constitution had nothing to do with working side by side with religion. But since it's meant for the interpretation through the majority, and religion being so prominent back then , that what happened was merely a cause and effect.

Men like Jefferson, Paine, Franklin were men of the enlightenment and were more deists than belonging to one faith. Who knows what their beliefs would be if Darwin's findings were to be publicized during their time. Sure you can say that they used bible morality, in framing the constitution, but that can also be argued. The bible ethics are largely the borrowings of laws and codes from other societies such as Babylonians, Sumerians, Assyrians, Hittites that all shared a common area with the Semites.

[mrsleeve]

Yeah you are correct, on where the bible codes are based in large part form.

I guess to put it simply, that Your faith/Religious leaders were envisioned by our founders to be our primary guide in life, and the biggest influence in our day to day lives.

Govt was supposed to take care of the collective needs of all of us, such as defense, infrastructure, and rule of law. All while not taking any/or as little as possible freedoms and power from the people. As any power granted to the govt, is only on loan form the people with their consent. Sadly this is not the case any longer is it????

In this joint relationship the govt is not burdened with trivial local mattes, mass amounts of crime and so on. Its this joint relationship is what is supposed to allow free men to govern themselves. With out the over bearing govt telling them what to do, eat, use, and regulate and tax them to death. It was all those things that caused us to fight, bleed, and die to separate our selves from Brittan.

What do you see going on here.

[Dozyproductions]

Yeah you are correct, on where the bible codes are based in large part form.

I guess to put it simply, that Your faith/Religious leaders were envisioned by our founders to be our primary guide in life, and the biggest influence in our day to day lives.

Govt was supposed to take care of the collective needs of all of us, such as defense, infrastructure, and rule of law. All while not taking any/or as little as possible freedoms and power from the people. As any power granted to the govt, is only on loan form the people with their consent. Sadly this is not the case any longer is it????

In this joint relationship the govt is not burdened with trivial local mattes, mass amounts of crime and so on. Its this joint relationship is what is supposed to allow free men to govern themselves. With out the over bearing govt telling them what to do, eat, use, and regulate and tax them to death. It was all those things that caused us to fight, bleed, and die to separate our selves from Brittan.

What do you see going on here.

I wish you were close enough to grab a beer with.