American Theocracy and Decline

[Carrikature]

At most the Treaty of Tripoli would show that certain founders were inconsistent in their language, not that they never believed/made the statements I quoted. Two very different things to be sure.

Or that the things they believed and the things they codified aren't identical.

[Cow Poke]

It does, but I'm not sure that's the point. It would be a pretty neat trick for a government to uphold a single religion as foundational while also managing to preserve equality and fairness to everyone else.

And, hence, the "separation of Church and State" coming, not from the Constitution, but from an interaction between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.

Of course, insinuating that the U.S. government is theocratic (as firstfloor does) is laughable.

OR that the US has even the POTENTIAL of becoming theocratic!

[Carrikature]

And, hence, the "separation of Church and State" coming, not from the Constitution, but from an interaction between Thomas Jefferson and the Danbury Baptist Association.

I'll confess to being ignorant of that one. I would think the establisment/prohibition clause does it pretty well anyway.

ETA:
I apparently had just forgotten it. The actual letter from Jefferson cites the establishment clause as being the wall of separation of church and state.

OR that the US has even the POTENTIAL of becoming theocratic!

Sadly, I have encountered Christians who want the U.S. to be theocratic, but that's not been common.

[seer]

I'll confess to being ignorant of that one. I would think the establisment/prohibition clause does it pretty well anyway.

Except the establishment clause did not necessarily mean what we claim it means today since many of the early states did have tax supported churches. So no, no national Church, but state churches were OK.

[Cow Poke]

I'll confess to being ignorant of that one. I would think the establisment/prohibition clause does it pretty well anyway.

I agree --- but it doesn't mention separation of church and state, just like the Bible doesn't mention the Trinity or the Rapture.

ETA:
I apparently had just forgotten it. The actual letter from Jefferson cites the establishment clause as being the wall of separation of church and state.

Yes, that's where that term comes from. People think that "Separation of Church and State" is spelled out in the Constitution --- the PRINCIPLE is there in the Bill of Rights.

Source: Letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptist Association

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 whole American people which declared that their legislature would "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. 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.

© Copyright Original Source

(You're obviously aware of this, but for those who might not be, I cite the part of the letter that refers to the 1st Amendment as a "Wall of Separation".)

Sadly, I have encountered Christians who want the U.S. to be theocratic, but that's not been common.

Well, yeah, but only if the Theocracy is SOUTHERN BAPTIST!!!!!

[Cerebrum123]

Er, the majority of the quotes on that site aren't about the constitution. You might want to try a different source if you're aiming to accurately portray what they thought and felt in terms of what the constitution was created to do. They're not the same thing.

Um, ff's post that I was responding to said that you can't have religious freedom unless you are a secular government. There's also the fact that several of the quotes I put directly in my post, while not explicitly mentioning the Constitution of the United States of America, most certainly reflect their attitudes about the Constitution. George Washington and John Adams are the most obvious examples that I quoted.

The early USA government was clearly far more religious than it is today. So to say that you can't have such religious freedom unless the government is "secular" is patently false. Here's a pretty clear example.

Source: North Carolina State Consitution Article XXXII

“No person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

© Copyright Original Source

They then go on to say that no denomination will be sponsored, and that no one has to put any money toward any religious institution they don't want to give to.

Source: North Carolina State Constitution Article XXXIV

Article XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any presence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, of has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship: -- Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."

© Copyright Original Source

It seems pretty clear to me that religious freedom, while somewhat restricted for those holding public office(on both sides, you couldn't be a pastor while running for office for example) still existed despite clear religious sanction in the law code.

Source.

Perhaps more importantly, just because you can show that certain people believed a certain (different) way, that doesn't establish either side's accuracy. Granting that the founding fathers felt as you suggest does not automatically grant that firstfloor is wrong in this case.

This goes to the intent of the authors. From what I understand, many of them felt the same way about the constitution.

[Cerebrum123]

Or that the things they believed and the things they codified aren't identical.

True, but some of the quotes I gave certainly imply that they did codify many of their beliefs.

ETA: Or at least believed that they had done so.

[Carrikature]

I agree --- but it doesn't mention separation of church and state, just like the Bible doesn't mention the Trinity or the Rapture.

That's a pretty good analogy. Could a Christian be forgiven for not accepting the Rapture or the Trinity on virtue of it not being mentioned in the Bible? I don't think most people would say yes, but I could be wrong. Similarly, I don't think most people would forgive a failure to recognize the separation of church and state just because it's not explicitly mentioned.

The conflict between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law is hardly a new one. Unfortunately, the latter is all we technically have access to. Comes up in engineering and construction all the time.

Well, yeah, but only if the Theocracy is SOUTHERN BAPTIST!!!!!

Tbh, I think it was more from the evanglical/charismatic/word-of-faith (or whatever they call themselves these days). One is dancing in the streets (naked?), the other one is no dancing at all. Perish the thought.

[Cow Poke]

[QUOTE=Cerebrum123;67578]The early USA government was clearly far more religious than it is today. [/cite]

Some of those involved in our government at that time were the heart behind the American Bible Society. I cited wiki here, because I didn't want to use any of the numerous citations from religious organizations.

Source: Wiki

American Bible Society was founded in 1816 by people who were committed to the word of God and to the end of slavery. The first President was Elias Boudinot, who was also President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was named President in 1821 and a number of illustrious individuals like Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen, Johns Hopkins University President Daniel Coit Gilman and Edwin Francis Hyde, a former president of the Philharmonic Society of New York, headed up the organization over the years. Francis Scott Key, the writer of the United States' National Anthem, was a Vice President of the organization from 1817 until his death in 1843.

© Copyright Original Source

[KingsGambit]

Incidentally, the aforementioned clause in the North Carolina state constitution blatantly contradicts Article Six of the US Constitution, which says "no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

[Carrikature]

Um, ff's post that I was responding to said that you can't have religious freedom unless you are a secular government. There's also the fact that several of the quotes I put directly in my post, while not explicitly mentioning the Constitution of the United States of America, most certainly reflect their attitudes about the Constitution. George Washington and John Adams are the most obvious examples that I quoted.

The early USA government was clearly far more religious than it is today. So to say that you can't have such religious freedom unless the government is "secular" is patently false. Here's a pretty clear example.

Source: North Carolina State Consitution Article XXXII

“No person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State.”

© Copyright Original Source

They then go on to say that no denomination will be sponsored, and that no one has to put any money toward any religious institution they don't want to give to.

Source: North Carolina State Constitution Article XXXIV

Article XXXIV. That there shall be no establishment of any one religious church or denomination in this State, in preference to any other; neither shall any person, on any presence whatsoever, be compelled to attend any place of worship contrary to his own faith or judgment, nor be obliged to pay, for the purchase of any glebe, or the building of any house of worship, or for the maintenance of any minister or ministry, contrary to what he believes right, of has voluntarily and personally engaged to perform; but all persons shall be at liberty to exercise their own mode of worship: -- Provided, That nothing herein contained shall be construed to exempt preachers of treasonable or seditious discourses, from legal trial and punishment."

© Copyright Original Source

It seems pretty clear to me that religious freedom, while somewhat restricted for those holding public office(on both sides, you couldn't be a pastor while running for office for example) still existed despite clear religious sanction in the law code.

Source.

Whoa whoa whoa. Reread that first cite from the NC Constitution. That's NOT religious freedom. Religious freedom does not mean requiring someone to affirm the truth of God and the Protestant faith in order to hold office.

This goes to the intent of the authors. From what I understand, many of them felt the same way about the constitution.

I think it's been pretty well established that the founding fathers by and large felt a certain way about religion but were generally careful to keep those feelings out of the constitution. They quite clearly believed in humans having inalienable rights given by God, but they didn't rely on the origin of those rights to codify the methods to preserve those rights.

[Carrikature]

True, but some of the quotes I gave certainly imply that they did codify many of their beliefs.

ETA: Or at least believed that they had done so.

I disagree with "did codify". I could grant that they believed they had done so for the sake of argument, though I don't actually agree.

[Cow Poke]

That's a pretty good analogy. Could a Christian be forgiven for not accepting the Rapture or the Trinity on virtue of it not being mentioned in the Bible? I don't think most people would say yes, but I could be wrong. Similarly, I don't think most people would forgive a failure to recognize the separation of church and state just because it's not explicitly mentioned.

Just providing facts, brother, not intending an argument.

The conflict between the spirit of the law and the letter of the law is hardly a new one. Unfortunately, the latter is all we technically have access to. Comes up in engineering and construction all the time.

My beef, as I said earlier, is that people are quick to cite the "establishment clause", and totally ignore the "prohibition clause".

Tbh, I think it was more from the evanglical/charismatic/word-of-faith (or whatever they call themselves these days). One is dancing in the streets (naked?), the other one is no dancing at all. Perish the thought.

And, truthfully, I really wouldn't want MANY of our Southern Baptist "leaders" in charge of our country. There used to be a big billboard on I45 as you headed up to Dallas from Houston, just before Corsicana, Texas. It was for the Collin Street Bakery, famous (or infamous) for their fruitcakes, and it proudly proclaimed "WE SEND FRUITCAKES ALL OVER THE WORLD".

I remember thinking, on many occasions, "Yup -- sounds just like the Southern Baptist Mission Board".

[Carrikature]

[QUOTE=Cow Poke;67584]

The early USA government was clearly far more religious than it is today. [/cite]

Some of those involved in our government at that time were the heart behind the American Bible Society. I cited wiki here, because I didn't want to use any of the numerous citations from religious organizations.

Source: Wiki

American Bible Society was founded in 1816 by people who were committed to the word of God and to the end of slavery. The first President was Elias Boudinot, who was also President of the Continental Congress from 1782 to 1783. John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court, was named President in 1821 and a number of illustrious individuals like Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen, Johns Hopkins University President Daniel Coit Gilman and Edwin Francis Hyde, a former president of the Philharmonic Society of New York, headed up the organization over the years. Francis Scott Key, the writer of the United States' National Anthem, was a Vice President of the organization from 1817 until his death in 1843.

© Copyright Original Source

Just want to point out here that I'm not arguing that the founding fathers weren't religious. My arguments have been oriented to what was actually codified. Extra clarification seldom seems to hurt.

[firstfloor]

Are you even REMOTELY familiar with what's going on in the US? How can you even IMAGINE the US becoming a theocracy?

If you are one of them, you are not going to see the danger. The US constitution was designed to prevent the emergence of a stable potentially oppressive majority. It relies on there being a multiplicity of competing factions because wrong will de done as much by an all powerful people as an all powerful prince. If you place God’s law above man’s law you institute the tyranny of the ‘priests’.

An example of an organization working towards such tyranny is United in Purpose which is a 501c4 whose mission is to unite and equip like-minded conservative organizations to increase their reach, impact, and influence through the latest technology, research and marketing strategies for the purpose of bringing about a culture change in America based on Judeo-Christian principles. - in other words, a Christian Theocracy.