Forum Thread

"What Wall of Separation Between Church and State?"


Reply to ThreadDisplaying 16 - 25 of 25 Prev 1 2
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just something of interest to all who want to restore the wall of separation between church and state.

    The following was added to the introduction of the article I cited (The Rapidly Eroding Wall of Separation Between Church and State) after it mentions the correct (but overruled) opinions of Justices Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer, Kagan and Sotomayor, because they were right and the five Republican-appointed justices that overruled them were wrong.

    And I quote:

    ---------

    It is amazing that this is not obvious to all Americans, because the fact is that this argument was settle long ago.

    For example, take the issue of Congressional Chaplains. In spite of theocratic Christian Dominionists' claims that the establishment of Chaplains of Congress proves that the Founders meant for Christianity to be the State Religion, that is simply not true.

    James Madison became a firm opponent of chaplains assuming Christian preeminence and he stated that the appointment of Christian Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress is not consistent with the Constitution, or with the pure principle of religious freedom. His statement reminds us that: “The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.” Madison stated that a system in which Chaplains are to be paid by American taxpayers, and in which Chaplains are elected by a majority of the members of Congress, when the majority are Christian, involves the principle of a national establishment of religion and is therefor un-constitutional. And Madison also stated that the establishment of a Christian Chaplainship to Congress “is a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles: The tenets of the [Christian] chaplains elected [by the majority] shut the door of worship against the members whose creeds & consciences forbid a participation in that of the majority.”

    Jefferson’s and Madison’s views about that prevailed, and that is why Congressional Chaplains are supposed to be selected as individuals and not as representatives of any religious community, body, or organization. They are supposed to offer generic prayers, without obviously favoring or representing any particular religion. And the same thing is true regarding U.S. Military Chaplains.

    Even today the requirements and duties of U.S. military chaplains reflect the Jeffersonian view, even though some evangelical Christian Chaplains today simply ignore that fact.

    Nevertheless, Chaplains must be “Sensitive to religious pluralism and able to provide for the free exercise of religion by all military personnel, their family members and civilians.” Chaplains must “Facilitate the religious requirements of those from all faiths; support and ensure the free practice of religion by being willing to function in the diverse and pluralistic environment of the military, tolerant of diverse religious traditions, and respectful of the rights of individuals to determine their own religious convictions.” And Chaplains must practice an “Interfaith Ministry, and be responsible for religious observances in an environment that is culturally, racially and religiously diverse.

    The facts of the matter are clear, and the historic facts totally refute the claims of the Christian Dominionists who are fighting for the superiority, preeminence and dominance of their religious beliefs.

    (Unquote)

    Thus the article gives us all the evidence we need to correct Christian Dominionists who have been claiming since the 1950s that Christianity was meant to be the "State Religion."
    .
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Just came by to see this, & Lo & Behold, I was just reading this book for the last few days: // "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" by Chris Hedges, Free Press (Simon & Schuster) New York, 2006 // Here are a few random excerpts:

    "Dominionism takes its name from Genesis 1:26-31 in which God gives human beings "dominion" over all creation. This movement departs from traditional evangelicalism. It is an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power. Dominionists now control at least 6 national television networks, each reaching tens of millions of homes. plus more than 2,000 religious radio stations, as well as the Southern Baptist Convention. (p.10) ---- Some committed militants to abandon democratic liberties & pursue redemptive violence. Like all fascist movements they call for moral supremacy of a "master race" -- in this case, American Christians. (p. 11) ----- to be continued -- soon.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    eternal flame Wrote: Just came by to see this, & Lo & Behold, I was just reading this book for the last few days: // "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" by Chris Hedges, Free Press (Simon & Schuster) New York, 2006 // Here are a few random excerpts:

    "Dominionism takes its name from Genesis 1:26-31 in which God gives human beings "dominion" over all creation. This movement departs from traditional evangelicalism. It is an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power. Dominionists now control at least 6 national television networks, each reaching tens of millions of homes. plus more than 2,000 religious radio stations, as well as the Southern Baptist Convention. (p.10) ---- Some committed militants to abandon democratic liberties & pursue redemptive violence. Like all fascist movements they call for moral supremacy of a "master race" -- in this case, American Christians. (p. 11) ----- to be continued -- soon.
    Yes kind of scary; the worst part of it is that such "master race" is not aware that their belief in something they can not proof other than "words" written in a book by "humans" who had a lot of fantasy in the olden days. I do not call that a "master race" but instead a ignorant/arrogant/stupid race instead.
    But I guess that "master race" can walk on water and fly into space while dead without energy or substance; so they must be a "master race" indeed.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    eternal flame Wrote: Just came by to see this, & Lo & Behold, I was just reading this book for the last few days: // "American Fascists: The Christian Right and the War on America" by Chris Hedges, Free Press (Simon & Schuster) New York, 2006 // Here are a few random excerpts:

    "Dominionism takes its name from Genesis 1:26-31 in which God gives human beings "dominion" over all creation. This movement departs from traditional evangelicalism. It is an ideology that calls on the radical church to take political power. Dominionists now control at least 6 national television networks, each reaching tens of millions of homes. plus more than 2,000 religious radio stations, as well as the Southern Baptist Convention. (p.10) ---- Some committed militants to abandon democratic liberties & pursue redemptive violence. Like all fascist movements they call for moral supremacy of a "master race" -- in this case, American Christians. (p. 11) ----- to be continued -- soon.
    .
    I am very familiar with the work of Chris Hedges because he is a regular contributor on OpEdNews.com. I like much of what he writes, but I roll my eyes sometimes because he tends to exaggerate and use sensational headlines, terms and labels.

    Christian Dominionism is indeed a theocratic plague on America, because Dominionist leaders are in fact Theocrats, as I’ve been pointing out for a long time. In fact, I have been pointing that out on OpEdNews for the last seven years, writing articles and posting “quicklinks” to articles from the message I promote, just as I have done here and on other forums. And over those seven years many writers there have gotten the message (or at least parts of it). The problem is, some have gone overboard and use labels like “Fascists” and “Christofascists” to describe Christian Dominionists on the "Christian Right."

    I go by the message which exposes and rebukes Dominionists because they are actually bigots, being intolerant not only of other religions, but even of other Christian denominations and sects that don’t agree with them. And they are hypocrites who claim to do “many wonderful works in the name of the Lord,” as Jesus predicted they would, even though they actually serve Mammon.

    In my view modern Christian Dominionism is actually a revival of what really began between 50 CE and 180 CE when Pauline Christianity became dominant. Then the Christian Crusaders were Dominionists, as were the patriarchs who ruled the theocratic Roman Church during the Dark Ages. The Inquisitions were a demonstration of it, as was all the European "Christian" military industrial imperialism that followed. And both the theocratic Puritans in New England and the Anglicans in Jamestown Virginia Colony were Dominionists as well.

    That’s why Benjamin Franklin, in an essay on "Toleration," wrote: "If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Roman Church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. The Puritans found it wrong in the Bishops of the Church of England, but fell into the same practice themselves in New England [in America]."

    Old Ben was absolutely right.

    Today Christian Dominionists are actually similar to the most extremist Jewish Zionists and the most extremist “Muslims” who wage false Jihad, in that they all think their religion entitles them to rule. The truth, however, is that they are ignorant of God, ignorant of their religion, and ignorant of their very souls.
    .
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    As you can see, I have just begun reading that book, by Chris Hedges. Just to be sure, I double-checked the definition of "fascist" today: And here it is: "authoritarian & nationalistic right-wing system of govt. Synonyms: totalitarian, dictatorship, despotism, Nazism, anti-Semitism, right-wing.
    Once we get deeper into the idea of US right wing religion, & what it "plans" for all of us, you will be surprised, angry, terrified, or upset about it.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    eternal flame Wrote: As you can see, I have just begun reading that book, by Chris Hedges. Just to be sure, I double-checked the definition of "fascist" today: And here it is: "authoritarian & nationalistic right-wing system of govt. Synonyms: totalitarian, dictatorship, despotism, Nazism, anti-Semitism, right-wing.
    Once we get deeper into the idea of US right wing religion, & what it "plans" for all of us, you will be surprised, angry, terrified, or upset about it.
    .
    .
    I'm not sure that was addressed to me or not. But I'm not surprised by what Hedges says. He's got a degree in divinity from Harvard and he knows what he's talking about regarding Christianity, and in 2007 he learned about the bigotry and hypocrisy of the "Christian Right."

    The thing about that is that while it may be just a coincidence, Hedges wrote the book you are reading in 2008 about a year after I posted an article on OpEdNews about why the religious right is wrong. At that time, what I posted on OpEdNews was What IS the World Coming To? which was actually re-posted from the home page of the message I still promote, which was then at a different site that no longer exists. But the article Why the Religious Right Is Wrong actually came out of the author's first book published in January 2002 titled Real Prophecy Unveiled: Why the Christ Will Not Come Again, And Why the Religious Right Is Wrong. And the article was linked to what I posted at OpEdNews in early 2007.

    I mention that because even though it may be coincidence, many progressive writers have published articles saying many of the things that are said in the message I promote, which was first published online in 2002. Parts of it have been plagiarized a lot, which is a good thing, really, because the important thing is that the message is spread. The author wrote anonymously, so he's not looking for personal credit. But I think those who copy from it should mention the source, if and when the message is their source of information.

    Now, as for the use of the word "fascist," the thing is that while the leaders of the "Christian Right" are Dominionists and Theocrats who ignore the Golden Rule, the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, most of them are not fascists. Some are, granted, but most are just bigoted hypocrites and Theocrats.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Hi Guy: It's good to see you back again. This topic should be well worth exploring. Especially while elections are taking place right now, & we can see some of the archetypes in action. Can't tell for sure if it is a grotesque old horror show, or just a vivid recurring nightmare : )
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    Guy Dwyer Wrote:
    eternal flame Wrote: As you can see, I have just begun reading that book, by Chris Hedges. Just to be sure, I double-checked the definition of "fascist" today: And here it is: "authoritarian & nationalistic right-wing system of govt. Synonyms: totalitarian, dictatorship, despotism, Nazism, anti-Semitism, right-wing.
    Once we get deeper into the idea of US right wing religion, & what it "plans" for all of us, you will be surprised, angry, terrified, or upset about it.
    .
    .
    I'm not sure that was addressed to me or not. But I'm not surprised by what Hedges says. He's got a degree in divinity from Harvard and he knows what he's talking about regarding Christianity, and in 2007 he learned about the bigotry and hypocrisy of the "Christian Right."

    The thing about that is that while it may be just a coincidence, Hedges wrote the book you are reading in 2008 about a year after I posted an article on OpEdNews about why the religious right is wrong. At that time, what I posted on OpEdNews was What IS the World Coming To? which was actually re-posted from the home page of the message I still promote, which was then at a different site that no longer exists. But the article Why the Religious Right Is Wrong actually came out of the author's first book published in January 2002 titled Real Prophecy Unveiled: Why the Christ Will Not Come Again, And Why the Religious Right Is Wrong. And the article was linked to what I posted at OpEdNews in early 2007.

    I mention that because even though it may be coincidence, many progressive writers have published articles saying many of the things that are said in the message I promote, which was first published online in 2002. Parts of it have been plagiarized a lot, which is a good thing, really, because the important thing is that the message is spread. The author wrote anonymously, so he's not looking for personal credit. But I think those who copy from it should mention the source, if and when the message is their source of information.

    Now, as for the use of the word "fascist," the thing is that while the leaders of the "Christian Right" are Dominionists and Theocrats who ignore the Golden Rule, the Constitution and the intent of the Founders, most of them are not fascists. Some are, granted, but most are just bigoted hypocrites and Theocrats.
    Guy I fully understand; also your last para is absolute correct.
  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        

    The current issue of the Atlantic magazine mentioned that a new book about the separation of church and state was recently published. It's called "The Religion Clauses". and I just put it on reserve at my local library.

    "The relationship between the government and religion is deeply divisive. With the recent changes in the composition of the Supreme Court, the First Amendment law concerning religion is likely to change dramatically in the years ahead. The Court can be expected to reject the idea of a wall separating church and state and permit much more religious involvement in government and government support for religion. The Court is also likely to expand the rights of religious people to ignore legal obligations that others have to follow, such laws that require the provision of health care benefits to employees and prohibit businesses from discriminating against people because of their sexual orientation. This book argues for the opposite and the need for separating church and state. After carefully explaining all the major approaches to the meaning of the Constitution's religion clauses, the book argues that the best approaches are for the government to be strictly secular and for there to be no special exemptions for religious people from neutral and general laws that others must obey. The book argues that this separationist approach is most consistent with the concerns of the founders who drafted the Constitution and with the needs of a religiously pluralistic society in the 21st century"-- Provided by publisher.

  • Are you sure you want to delete this post?
        
    I wrote many times about that; what is happening here will have great consequences. Throwing "religion" into "governing" always will cause friction or make things ungovernable. The total stupidity to inject "the bitch" into the Supreme Court which certainly will not benefit this country, but makes it even worse. She already proved such by not allowing limiting church attendance due to the virus. Separation of "church" and State is an must; if not, you get an "church" dictatorship, which has been proven in history that such is asking for disasters. Churches don't preach "common sense"; far from it; it only indoctrinates to get an dumb "herd" mentality working for them. Sorry, "governing" should be done with both feet on the ground; "fantasy" is not needed in "governing".