[TheRealVille]

The formally mentioned "seperation of church and state" by the founding fathers in various documents of our nation's history, was an attempt to avoid the conflict of interest that the politically knitted the Anglican Church or the Church of Enland and the Crown. The Archbishop of Canterbury was considered the head of the Anglican Church. Because church and state had become politically knit together, corruption of the church ensued. Very often the King of England would appoint a man to become Archbishop as if it were a cabinet post. Therefore the office became a political appointment and the the Church of England fell under the control of the King.

Many colonists came to America to escape the religious tyranny of the state controlled Church of England. I agree the Chruch should not have any controlling interest in government and conversely government must leave their hands off any attempt to govern or legislate matters of the church. However, to say that Christians shouldn't be members of the Congress of the United States or even become president of the United States is patently false. As is the notion that the concept of the seperation of church and state means anything like that. Christian leaders should be prized in government not pilloried by those who don't share a faith in God. The unholy alliance of the Anglican Church and the King of England wielded enormous power over the common folk of England and life became controlled down to the last detail. Information about those who would rebell would merely be turned over to a bishop and discipline would be handed down from the church, which was just another arm of the Crown making the folks miserable. In short you were one who had power and controlled people or you were one the those who were controlled. It was almost like being in jail. Feel free to show where you get that it was founded on Christian principles.

Fast forward to present day. We have the Obama administration DOJ quietly trying to get the Supreme Court to give the Federal Government the authority to tell churches who their Pastors will be LINK--- http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffre...rs-will-be


RV you should be upset about this because it [B]really is[/B] a violation of the concept of the seperation of church and state. But, generally speaking, it totally escapes me what you think is so unacceptable about Christians. If they are real, and not political Tares, you can believe everything they say. You'd rather be lied to and propagandized by the state? I don't get it. We ARE a nation founded on Christian priciples, the problem is YOU don't want that to be true, and you are never going to be able to see the truth because it's not the way you want it to be.

That is 100% false, though you want it to be a truth. Religion has no place in government, and I will stand with the founding fathers in that regard.

[TheRealVille]

The formally mentioned "seperation of church and state" by the founding fathers in various documents of our nation's history, was an attempt to avoid the conflict of interest that the politically knitted the Anglican Church or the Church of Enland and the Crown. The Archbishop of Canterbury was considered the head of the Anglican Church. Because church and state had become politically knit together, corruption of the church ensued. Very often the King of England would appoint a man to become Archbishop as if it were a cabinet post. Therefore the office became a political appointment and the the Church of England fell under the control of the King.

Many colonists came to America to escape the religious tyranny of the state controlled Church of England. I agree the Chruch should not have any controlling interest in government and conversely government must leave their hands off any attempt to govern or legislate matters of the church. However, to say that Christians shouldn't be members of the Congress of the United States or even become president of the United States is patently false. As is the notion that the concept of the seperation of church and state means anything like that. Christian leaders should be prized in government not pilloried by those who don't share a faith in God. The unholy alliance of the Anglican Church and the King of England wielded enormous power over the common folk of England and life became controlled down to the last detail. Information about those who would rebell would merely be turned over to a bishop and discipline would be handed down from the church, which was just another arm of the Crown making the folks miserable. In short you were one who had power and controlled people or you were one the those who were controlled. It was almost like being in jail. You complain about MSNBC, and then throw out this stuff. LOL.

Fast forward to present day. We have the Obama administration DOJ quietly trying to get the Supreme Court to give the Federal Government the authority to tell churches who their Pastors will be LINK--- http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffre...rs-will-be


RV you should be upset about this because it [B]really is[/B] a violation of the concept of the seperation of church and state. But, generally speaking, it totally escapes me what you think is so unacceptable about Christians. If they are real, and not political Tares, you can believe everything they say. You'd rather be lied to and propagandized by the state? I don't get it. We ARE a nation founded on Christian priciples, the problem is YOU don't want that to be true, and you are never going to be able to see the truth because it's not the way you want it to be.

I'll do what you right wingers do, as in your "liberal media" posts, don't give me some far right wing link. That link is so "far right wing" biased, it's not even funny.

[TheRealVille]

You complain about MSNBC, and then throw out that link? :hilarious: That link is the equivalent of a right wing Daily Kos.

[vundy33]

Everybody's brains are scrambled when they get back home, that's normal, if you can accept that. It took me a while to get back to what I thought was normal. It's hard to say this without sounding cheesy. Everbody that says they are a Christian isn't neccessarily right. I would suggest you reestablish your connection with your Southern Baptist roots.

When you think about it, you realize everything can't be true. Either we are evolved or we are created, it can't be both. Anytime you or anybody else, and that would include muslims, is in a situation where you're being made to feel inferior by one or more so called Christians, they are probably not really what they say they are. The central truth of the gospel "good news" is this, God's Son died a substitutionary death on the cross in your and my place. The wages of sin is death but, the gift of God is eternal life through Jesus' perfect sacrifice. That day on the cross he laid down his life for any who would believe in Him. God wanted to share Himself with a people who want to be with Him. It's like the marital situation. What makes marriage sweet is the fact that you both choose each other. You choose her, she chooses you. He created us to make a choice for or against Him. He already chose us in that He allowed His only Son to die/sacrifice Himself on the cross to pay our sin debt off for us, and all we have to do, again, by faith believing, is to choose Him in return.

My sincerest advice to you is that God has not given up on you. When you have a son one of these days, look at him and ask yourself what it would take for you to allow him to die for someone else. If God could give up on you he would never have allowed His Son to die in your place, so you, and all who will accept Him could live.

Actual Christians recognize they are in no way deserving of their saved status with The God of this universe since He paid the entire price Himself that day on the cross.

I would suggest to you that America is still a Christian nation suffering from the errosive effects of our own sinful nature to destroy ourselves. That is what causes the unfortunate consequences of war. God warned Adam and Eve, "in the day that ye sin ye shall surely die" Had man been able to obey God he would have lived forever but, he chose to sin thereby causing his own downfall, again, the "Good News" is that all men may live through the substitutionary death of the Lord Jesus Christ.

Times are changing because we are nearing, IMO that time in man's history when things will begin to cascade into a massive climax of war and rebellion known as the the Great Tribulation, when men will go through a 7 year period of war, disease, famine and a one world oppressive form of government. Hence, all this global community talk.

At any rate, that statement in the US Constitution that says that all men are created equal was born out the recognition of our founding fathers that God created us all and He will accept all who believe. We can be with Him forever, by accepting the truth of our creation at His hand. Gen 2:7 "And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and man became a living soul." The invitation to come, is extended to every man, Muslim, Hindu, Jew, all men of every nation. So, the haters you are talking about are out of character. That doesn't mean we are not to call out wrong when we see it. However, no man who says he hates his brother, is worthy of the kingdom of God. We don't have to agree with them, but, we can not hate them.

In this day and time when through the medium of TV, so much information is pouring into our heads daily it's hard to measue it all. Just because there are so many, saying in effect, there is no God or we can't really know God, doesn't mean they know what they are talking about. God is real and time is most likely short, so the spirit of Anti-Christ has more tools to use to decieve the masses. Every man is aware of the truth of the Lordship of the Living God in his own heart, this awareness is revealed in us by our own conscience. Don't let the lie overpower the truth you've likely already learned at your home church.

Dude, I've been home for over a year and getting ready to leave again. If anything has an effect on me, it's all the bourbon I've been drinking.

I just don't think religion and state need to be combined, just how it is. ESPECIALLY with all of the PCness we got going on these days. I could care less about what Christians want to do and what Muslims want to do, as long as they all get along, I don't care.

I just sense a huge clash coming in the next year or so, and I'm glad I won't be here for it. Much, much bigger than the stupid Wall Street movement. Marshall-law type of thing.

[vundy33]

We are a nation of Christians, plus many other religions.

This!!! I'm fine with that, I just don't want to be a "Christian Nation", because it makes me think decisions could end up being based on religion, and that's a disaster.

And it just sounds like we're closed to everyone else. I know that's not the case, but still.

[SKINNYPIG]

In spite of what any of you think, "religion" has always been and always will be inseparable from government.

[vundy33]

^^^I don't think so. I think you're mistaking "religion" for morality.

[TheRealVille]

In spite of what any of you think, "religion" has always been and always will be inseparable from government.

Wrong!!

[TheRealVille]

In spite of what any of you think, "religion" has always been and always will be inseparable from government.

Me thinks you failed American History.

[TheRealVille]

In spite of what any of you think, "religion" has always been and always will be inseparable from government.

People like you are why people like me exist. Care to show where you are right, according to law.

[SKINNYPIG]

People like you are why people like me exist. Care to show where you are right, according to law.

If I thought for one second that I was responsible for the existence of people like you...I would end my existence. nicker:

[TheRealVille]

If I thought for one second that I was responsible for the existence of people like you...I would end my existence. nicker:

Like I said, fell free to show where you get your information on your above post, or just keep quiet.

[SKINNYPIG]

Like I said, fell free to show where you get your information on your above post, or just keep quiet.

It's reality man. Every government is intertwined with some religion. I mentioned nothing of it being law. Come on man, lighten up for crying out loud...Telling me to do something or keep quiet? Seriously? Geesh! Why are you so uptight?

[TheRealThing]

You complain about MSNBC, and then throw out that link? :hilarious: That link is the equivalent of a right wing Daily Kos.

I freely concede the link is a right wing organization. The action undertaken by the DOJ is none the less for real. The court action is a matter of public record and anyone can look it up. You made my point when you posted remarks by Madison and Jefferson. The concept of the seperation of church and state they lay out is not fraught with bias towards religion. They discuss a wall. That wall is not to be bridged by either side, church or state. You talk as though it is a protective barrier for the state against the church. The WALL has been put in place to protect them from each other. It's a shame you can't see that simple truth. My assessment of the concept of church and state as written in my previous post is 100% correct, not false. It doesn't however, help your stated position of contempt for the church and that's why you could care less if the realm of the church is violated by the state. By the way, post the document, US constitution, or what ever, that has the words seperation of church and state for us.

[vundy33]

If I thought for one second that I was responsible for the existence of people like you...I would end my existence. nicker:

I lol'd so hard...

[vundy33]

I freely concede the link is a right wing organization. The action undertaken by the DOJ is none the less for real. The court action is a matter of public record and anyone can look it up. You made my point when you posted remarks by Madison and Jefferson. The concept of the seperation of church and state they lay out is not fraught with bias towards religion. They discuss a wall. That wall is not to be bridged by either side, church or state. You talk as though it is a protective barrier for the state against the church. The WALL has been put in place to protect them from each other. It's a shame you can't see that simple truth. My assessment of the concept as written in my previous post is not wrong. That's why you could care less if the realm of the church is violated by the state.

Of course he doesn't care, he's not really religious, lol. Just like how most of America doesn't give a shit about our troops fighting their wars they call for unless it effects them personally.

[TheRealThing]

Here is the actual quote from the letter to the Danbury Baptists on which the seperation of church and state is wrongly based; (and I know you posted some of the quote, mixed in with something else I quess)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the [SIZE="5"]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". 1[/SIZE]

It's so plain, how can it be so miscontrued? The PEOPLE declared that THEIR legislature should make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion.

How do you get that seperates our founding principles FROM religion? This is what is really happening. We legislate morality these days, God says homosexuality is an abomination and all those who practice it, or have any part of supporting those who practice it, will suffer His judgement. The American court system says it's an alternative life style and it's honorable. God says it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the ocean than to hurt one of these little ones. The American court system says it's legal to abort/murder the unborn by the MILLIONS.

By the way, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is a LETTER, not an official government document, but, I'm sure you knew that as you did rightly refer to the quote as coming from the letter.

[TheRealThing]

That is 100% false, though you want it to be a truth. Religion has no place in government, and I will stand with the founding fathers in that regard.

Come on RV, at least be original with your argument. I already said this.

[TheRealVille]

Here is the actual quote from the letter to the Danbury Baptists on which the seperation of church and state is wrongly based; (and I know you posted some of the quote, mixed in with something else I quess)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the [SIZE="5"]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". 1[/SIZE]

It's so plain, how can it be so miscontrued? The PEOPLE declared that THEIR legislature should make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion.

How do you get that seperates our founding principles FROM religion? This is what is really happening. We legislate morality these days, God says homosexuality is an abomination and all those who practice it, or have any part of supporting those who practice it, will suffer His judgement. The American court system says it's an alternative life style and it's honorable. God says it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the ocean than to hurt one of these little ones. The American court system says it's legal to abort/murder the unborn by the MILLIONS.

By the way, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is a LETTER, not an official government document, but, I'm sure you knew that as you did rightly refer to the quote as coming from the letter.

I'm not sure why you want to prove my point for me, but, oh well, I'll take it. I'm not against Christians, btw, I'm just against them bringing their religion into government.

[TheRealVille]

The formally mentioned "seperation of church and state" by the founding fathers in various documents of our nation's history, was an attempt to avoid the conflict of interest that the politically knitted the Anglican Church or the Church of Enland and the Crown. The Archbishop of Canterbury was considered the head of the Anglican Church. Because church and state had become politically knit together, corruption of the church ensued. Very often the King of England would appoint a man to become Archbishop as if it were a cabinet post. Therefore the office became a political appointment and the the Church of England fell under the control of the King.

Many colonists came to America to escape the religious tyranny of the state controlled Church of England. I agree the Chruch should not have any controlling interest in government and conversely government must leave their hands off any attempt to govern or legislate matters of the church. However, to say that Christians shouldn't be members of the Congress of the United States or even become president of the United States is patently false. As is the notion that the concept of the seperation of church and state means anything like that. Christian leaders should be prized in government not pilloried by those who don't share a faith in God. The unholy alliance of the Anglican Church and the King of England wielded enormous power over the common folk of England and life became controlled down to the last detail. Information about those who would rebell would merely be turned over to a bishop and discipline would be handed down from the church, which was just another arm of the Crown making the folks miserable. In short you were one who had power and controlled people or you were one the those who were controlled. It was almost like being in jail.

Fast forward to present day. We have the Obama administration DOJ quietly trying to get the Supreme Court to give the Federal Government the authority to tell churches who their Pastors will be LINK--- http://cnsnews.com/blog/terence-p-jeffre...rs-will-be


RV you should be upset about this because it [B]really is[/B] a violation of the concept of the seperation of church and state. But, generally speaking, it totally escapes me what you think is so unacceptable about Christians. If they are real, and not political Tares, you can believe everything they say. You'd rather be lied to and propagandized by the state? I don't get it. We ARE a nation founded on Christian priciples, the problem is YOU don't want that to be true, and you are never going to be able to see the truth because it's not the way you want it to be.

Who said they couldn't? I'm all for Christians holding office, if they wish. What I'm not for, is them making laws that goes against peoples' rights, because their book says it's against God's will. That is exactly what Michelle would like to do. The bible is not America's book of law.

[TheRealVille]

Here is the actual quote from the letter to the Danbury Baptists on which the seperation of church and state is wrongly based; (and I know you posted some of the quote, mixed in with something else I quess)

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of government reach actions only and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the [SIZE="5"]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". 1[/SIZE]

It's so plain, how can it be so miscontrued? The PEOPLE declared that THEIR legislature should make NO LAW respecting the establishment of religion.

How do you get that seperates our founding principles FROM religion? This is what is really happening. We legislate morality these days, God says homosexuality is an abomination and all those who practice it, or have any part of supporting those who practice it, will suffer His judgement. The American court system says it's an alternative life style and it's honorable. God says it would be better to have a millstone tied around your neck and be cast into the ocean than to hurt one of these little ones. The American court system says it's legal to abort/murder the unborn by the MILLIONS.

By the way, Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists is a LETTER, not an official government document, but, I'm sure you knew that as you did rightly refer to the quote as coming from the letter.

Your people brought us abortion.

[TheRealThing]

Your people brought us abortion.

Right, people who are of the firm conviction that abortion is murder and know that they will face God Almighty at the judgement brought us abortion. :please:

[TheRealThing]

I'm not sure why you want to prove my point for me, but, oh well, I'll take it. I'm not against Christians, btw, I'm just against them bringing their religion into government.

All the quote says is that the government shall make no law regarding religion or how we practice religion. How does that make your point? You know it doesn't if you can read. I guess your contempt for the sovereignty of God causes you to be so close minded about all this. I don't know where you pulled that quote from about the Danbury Baptists but it omitted or added things to make it say what an ultra liberal would want it to. When you read the real quote the meaning becomes clear.

2 Thessalonians 2:10-12 (KJV)
10 And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.
11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

The bolded is the ultra liberal's problem, they want to believe a lie and take pleasure in that. There is no other explanation for not accepting the truth even when it's laid out for them.

FWIW I am very glad to hear you're not against Christians, I'm not against you having your opinion either.

[TheRealVille]

Right, people who are of the firm conviction that abortion is murder and know that they will face God Almighty at the judgement brought us abortion. :please:

"Your people", meaning republicans. They are the ones responsible for bringing about abortion. 7 of the 9 justices sitting on the bench at that time were appointed by republicans. 4 of the 5 that ruled in favor of abortion during R vs W were conservatives.

[TheRealVille]

"Your people", meaning republicans. They are the ones responsible for bringing about abortion. 7 of the 9 justices sitting on the bench at that time were appointed by republicans. 4 of the 5 that ruled in favor of abortion during R vs W were conservatives.

Actually, 7 ruled in favor, while 2 dissented. Of those 7 in favor of Roe, five were appointed by republicans, and were conservatives.

[TheRealThing]

Actually, 7 ruled in favor, while 2 dissented. Of those 7 in favor of Roe, five were appointed by republicans, and were conservatives.

Okay, point taken. But, as I have said, I tend to line up with the republicans because they adhere more closely with the traditional values I believe in, not because I am a wide-eyed republican poster boy. Again, it is unfortunate that our court system thinks they can legislate moral issues from the bench. They usually get it wrong and Roe v Wade is a good example of that. It is the perfect example of an invasion by the federal government across the "Wall" of the seperation of church and state, to legislate matters of tlhe church. God is the Author and Finisher of moral affairs and the state should stick with what they do best. Protecting it's citizens from all forms of threat, foreign and domestic.

[TheRealVille]

Okay, point taken. But, as I have said, I tend to line up with the republicans because they adhere more closely with the traditional values I believe in, not because I am a wide-eyed republican poster boy. Again, it is unfortunate that our court system thinks they can legislate moral issues from the bench. They usually get it wrong and Roe v Wade is a good example of that. It is the perfect example of an invasion by the federal government across the "Wall" of the seperation of church and state, to legislate matters of tlhe church. God is the Author and Finisher of moral affairs and the state should stick with what they do best. Protecting it's citizens from all forms of threat, foreign and domestic.

This is exactly the type of thinking I am talking about when I talk about Christians getting in office and try to push their views on everybody else. Roe vs Wade has zero to do with the church, and the "wall" wasn't breached by that ruling. That wasn't a church matter. God is not the author of US law. You prove my point on why it is dangerous to elect Christians to office, we end up with people that think like you, and force your beliefs on the rest of us.

[TheRealThing]

This is exactly the type of thinking I am talking about when I talk about Christians getting in office and try to push their views on everybody else. Roe vs Wade has zero to do with the church, and the "wall" wasn't breached by that ruling. That wasn't a church matter. God is not the author of US law. You prove my point on why it is dangerous to elect Christians to office, we end up with people that think like you, and force your beliefs on the rest of us.

Well, we'll see about that at God's judgement bar. In the meantime, I feel like I have been in the middle of a "Who's on first" debate on vaudeville. There used to be such a thing called common sense, unfortunately for liberals that concept has gone bye-bye.

In 1947, there was a particularly shrewd lawyer representing the ACLU, (imagine that!) in the matter of "Everson v Board of Education of Ewing Township." Which dealt with New Jersey's subsidizing transportation for students attending parochial schools. Even then liberals hated the church so much they sued the State of New Jersey for paying for school buses for any school associated with the church. The lawyer in question was Leo Pfeffer and he used Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists to get the leverage he needed to attack the church. This was the first time the now famous phrase "seperation of church and state" was written in any decision by the courts, or used in any kind of legislation prior to that date. It was an attack on the traditional values of the United States. The ACLU and other anti-Christian organizations and individuals have used it to harass Christians with ever since. It is also used by evolutionists to try to keep a theistic explanation of origins as an alternative to evolution, out of the public schools. Many people today are not aware of the fact that this twisted view of Jefferson's quote in the Danbury letter has a birthday (1947) and the ACLU has beaten the church over the head with it since that day. (1)

Like I have pointed out on here before. Folks of moral fiber will never accept the liberal line of thought, which is nothing more than open rebellion against God. The liberals will never be able to convert most people so they resort to LEGISLATING us into submission. And let's not forget the basic premise of Roe v Wade, which can only be, it's okay to murder sweet and innocent babes literally by the million. No way does that have zero to do with the chruch. No wonder there will be "weeping and wailing and knashing of teeth"

(1) Wallbuilders, Inc.