• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Christian history with being an official religion

I

Infohawk

Lifer
In the Roman Empire, Christians were originally a small minority and were persecuted. But then, Constantine, seeing a sign, "conquer in this symbol" (how very christian to conquer) officially switched to Christianity. He soon started helping out his christian cohorts, giving them special positions and such. Rapidly, Christianity became a way of getting ahead in the bureacracy of the empire.

A lot of christians like to believe people converted because the message was "true." Interestingly, Christianity didn't take over in lands to the east where the ruler had not converted, strongly suggesting that Christianity was adopted based on the ruler's preference and not on any merits of the religion compared with paganism.

Perhaps this history of quasi-official conversion pushes a lot of 700-club types to mix religion with government in contravention of the Constitution.
 
A good starting point would be for you to read the First Amendment. You are apparently unfamiliar with it.

U.S. Constitution: First Amendment

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.

The first phrase in the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." is called the establishment clause.

The courts have the responsibility to interpret the U.S. Constitution in specific instances. In 1947, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled:

"The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164

 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
A good starting point would be for you to read the First Amendment. You are apparently unfamiliar with it.
Click to expand...

Nothing in your post is inconsistent with my post. In fact, it supports my statement that you can't mix Church and State.
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
A good starting point would be for you to read the First Amendment. You are apparently unfamiliar with it.
Click to expand...

There is no "Amendments" anymore under the Bush Regime and Doctrine, surely you should know this and be happy about it.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Riprorin
A good starting point would be for you to read the First Amendment. You are apparently unfamiliar with it.
Click to expand...

Nothing in your post is inconsistent with my post. In fact, it supports my statement that you can't mix Church and State.
Click to expand...

A good starting point would be for you to read the First Amendment. You are apparently unfamiliar with it.
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's already a thread on the 700 Club. Do we really need another?
Click to expand...

WTF did you post substantively if you think this is a repost? This thread is about Roman history with Christianity. You are simply attacking my post with anything you can throw at it. Your constistitutional argument fell through so now you are bleating about repost. If you really think this is a repost you should have said so at first, not posted, and complained if it suited you.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Look, I read your post. Don't just repeat yourself, dirty thread-crapper.
Click to expand...
Well he is correct in repeating it because apparently you don't know know exactly what it says as well as exactly why its there; or at least what you have written in this thread demonstrates that you are clueless in that regard.

The First Amendment is not there to prevent the "mixing of chruch and state." It's there to prevent the state from officially sanctioning a religion. No religion, including Christianity, has been sanctioned officially by the government and just because Bush is a Christain, as have been the vast majority of US presidents, that doesn't make it the official religion of this country. Christianity has always had a major influence in the US and its laws so you should learn to deal with it and move on instead of being stuck with the same old constant refrain like some broken record and harping on it incessantly like some obsessive/compulsive freak..
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The First Amendment is not there to prevent the "mixing of chruch and state."
Click to expand...

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The First Amendment is not there to prevent the "mixing of chruch and state."
Click to expand...

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164
Click to expand...
Click to expand...
How weak and typically superficial.

How about some context for Jefferson's "exclusion clause?"

http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.html

Mr. President

To mess? 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 & 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 & zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more & 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, and 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 and state. [Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from presenting even occasional performances of devotion presented indeed legally where an Executive is the legal head of a national church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect.] 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 and blessing of the common Father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.

(signed) Thomas Jefferson
Jan.1.1802.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Click to expand...

It's nice to know you think work of the Supreme Court is superficial. In any case, none of your postings are inconsistent with my view or the Supreme Court's view of the separation of church and state, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Click to expand...

It's nice to know you think work of the Supreme Court is superficial. In any case, none of your postings are inconsistent with my view or the Supreme Court's view of the separation of church and state, so I'm not sure where you're going with this.
Click to expand...

It's not the Supreme Court I called superficial, it's your replies. You skim the surface in an attempt to make people believe you know what you're talking about (fearmongering all the way), waving your hands hoping that nobody pays attention to the man behind the curtain (which in this case is context).

Separation of Church and State has been rehashed over and over in legal circles and your claim that it's to prevent "mixing church and state" is just wrong. Do some historical research about the times when our government was erected by the founders and the reasons why Jefferson decided on his exclusion clause (Hint: Virtually every European government at the time had an officially sanctioned State religion and Jefferson saw the evil inherent in this type of setup. It prevented equal rights for all, which was his big drive in helping set up US government.).
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Click to expand...

You keep claiming that I see the law as one thing while it is in fact another. The problem is you don't know how I see the law except my statement "mixing church and state." When I said "mixing church and state" I was talking precisely about the ideas mentioned by Jefferson and the Supreme Court. Your claims that I'm unfamiliar with it the First Amendment and the Constitution are thus completely unsubstantiated. Anyway, I am done with your thread-crapping. You can have the last word and bleat that I don't understand and post yet quote some more text, claiming that I don't agree with it, when I actually do. Cheers. 🙂
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Click to expand...

You keep claiming that I see the law as one thing while it is in fact another. The problem is you don't know how I see the law except my statement "mixing church and state." When I said "mixing church and state" I was talking precisely about the ideas mentioned by Jefferson and the Supreme Court. Your claims that I'm unfamiliar with it the First Amendment and the Constitution are thus completely unsubstantiated. Anyway, I am done with your thread-crapping. You can have the last word and bleat that I don't understand and post yet quote some more text, claiming that I don't agree with it, when I actually do. Cheers. 🙂
Click to expand...
Couldn't resist the parting shots, eh? "Bleating." "Thread-crapping." Someday you'll learn that just because you claim something that doesn't make it true.

It sure is interesting watching you backpedal furiously out of yor own thread though.
 
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Look, I read your post. Don't just repeat yourself, dirty thread-crapper.
Click to expand...
Well he is correct in repeating it because apparently you don't know know exactly what it says as well as exactly why its there; or at least what you have written in this thread demonstrates that you are clueless in that regard.

The First Amendment is not there to prevent the "mixing of chruch and state." It's there to prevent the state from officially sanctioning a religion. No religion, including Christianity, has been sanctioned officially by the government and just because Bush is a Christain, as have been the vast majority of US presidents, that doesn't make it the official religion of this country. Christianity has always had a major influence in the US and its laws so you should learn to deal with it and move on instead of being stuck with the same old constant refrain like some broken record and harping on it incessantly like some obsessive/compulsive freak..
Click to expand...

No he is not, the first amendment means very little when the president talks to God.

He actually said that he is following the words that God spoke to him.

Infohawks post raises a valid question, you can look away if you don't like the answer but don't critizise him for his conclusion that is very valid.

The fact that the US is becoming one nation under (the Christian) God is worthy of discussion.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's already a thread on the 700 Club. Do we really need another?
Click to expand...

WTF did you post substantively if you think this is a repost? This thread is about Roman history with Christianity.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this history of quasi-official conversion pushes a lot of 700-club types to mix religion with government in contravention of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not about the 700 Club?
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: Riprorin
There's already a thread on the 700 Club. Do we really need another?
Click to expand...

WTF did you post substantively if you think this is a repost? This thread is about Roman history with Christianity.
Click to expand...

Perhaps this history of quasi-official conversion pushes a lot of 700-club types to mix religion with government in contravention of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

Oh, it's not about the 700 Club?
Click to expand...

Most threads involve Americans, are they all reposts?

THINK riptroll, or at least try to think i hear advil will cure the headaches you might get from trying something completely new with your brain.
 
Originally posted by: Infohawk
Originally posted by: TastesLikeChicken
The First Amendment is not there to prevent the "mixing of chruch and state."
Click to expand...

In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State'."

Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. Page 164
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

I like the way the libbies misinterpret Jefferson's statements.

If Jefferson intended the "separation of church and state (which doesn't appear in the Constitution) as you interpret it, how do you explain this?

As President,Thomas jefferson, among other things, supported government involvement in:

* Legislative and Military Chaplains,

* Establishing a national seal using a religious symbol,

* Including the word "God" in our national motto,

* Official Days of Fasting and Prayer-at least on the state level,

* Punishing Sabbath breakers (is that real enough for you?),

* Punishing marriages contrary to biblical law,

* Punishing irreverent soldiers,

* Protecting the property of churches,

* Requiring oaths saying "So Help Me God," taken on the Bible

* Granting land to Christian churches to reach the Indians

* Granting land to Christian schools

* Allowing Government property and facilities to be used for worship

* Using the Bible and non-denominational religious instruction in the public schools. (He was involved in three different school districts and the plan in each one of these REQUIRED that the Bible be taught in our public schools).

* Allowing clergymen to hold public office, and encouraging them to do so,

* Purchasing and stocking religious books for public libraries,

* Funding of salaries of clergymen in Indian mission schools.

* Funding for construction of church buildings for Indians,

* Exempting churches from taxation,

* Establishing professional schools of theology. [He wanted to bring over from Geneva, Switzerland, the entire faculty of Calvin's theological seminary and establish it at the University of Virginia.]

* Treaties requiring other nations to guarantee religious freedom,

* Including religious speeches and prayers in official ceremonies."
 
Originally posted by: Riprorin
Then why did you bring them up?
Click to expand...

An an example of people that do the sort of thing I'm relating to Roman history. Do you have problems with reading comprehension? Just because a word is in a post doesn't mean that post is about that word. (See Klixxer's post too.)

Anyway, complain to a mod, post substantively, or stop posting. Thanks.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top