quote:

However, here in America we've long had religious leaders like Dobson who have repeatedly said that not only do they not believe in the separation of the church and the government, but that the original founding fathers had no such aim in mind at the time of the founding of this country. So, it seems entirely reasonable to wonder what exactly would happen in the US, if these walls were broken down and blurred even more than they already are.

Even conceding your point on Dobson (which I don't), Dobson is NOT a political leader--he's a religious leader. Outside the power of persuasion with his followers, he has no political power whatsoever. He neither makes nor enforces law. Dobson is no threat to democracy.

Based on your last line in the excerpt, it looks like you're arguing a hypothetical. That's far different than arguing from facts in place.


On your second point, read the writings of the framers. Read, for example, George Washington's proclamation on the first Thanksgiving (below). Then tell me they wanted a separation of church and state. In my last post, I point out the two religious clauses in the first amendment. That's what the framers wanted. We have constantly allowed government to quash religious practices and expression in public life. This intrusion over our religious life is far from what the framers intended. If you're arguing that we should move toward a more secular society, you're entitled to make that argument. But the claim that the framers wanted a total separation of church and state is simply denied by history and their own writings.


http://wilstar.com/holidays/wash_thanks.html

George Washington's 1789 Thanksgiving Proclamation



Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits, and humbly to implore His protection and favor; and Whereas both Houses of Congress have, by their joint committee, requested me to "recommend to the people of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer, to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many and signal favors of Almighty God, especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness:"

Now, therefore, I do recommend and assign Thursday, the 26th day of November next, to be devoted by the people of these States to the service of that great and glorious Being who is the beneficent author of all the good that was, that is, or that will be; that we may then all unite in rendering unto Him our sincere and humble thanks for His kind care and protection of the people of this country previous to their becoming a nation; for the signal and manifold mercies and the favorable interpositions of His providence in the course and conclusion of the late war; for the great degree of tranquility, union, and plenty which we have since enjoyed; for the peaceable and rational manner in which we have been enable to establish constitutions of government for our safety and happiness, and particularly the national one now lately instituted for the civil and religious liberty with which we are blessed, and the means we have of acquiring and diffusing useful knowledge; and, in general, for all the great and various favors which He has been pleased to confer upon us.

And also that we may then unite in most humbly offering our prayers and supplications to the great Lord and Ruler of Nations and beseech Him to pardon our national and other transgressions; to enable us all, whether in public or private stations, to perform our several and relative duties properly and punctually; to render our National Government a blessing to all the people by constantly being a Government of wise, just, and constitutional laws, discreetly and faithfully executed and obeyed; to protect and guide all sovereigns and nations (especially such as have shown kindness to us), and to bless them with good governments, peace, and concord; to promote the knowledge and practice of true religion and virtue, and the increase of science among them and us; and, generally to grant unto all mankind such a degree of temporal prosperity as He alone knows to be best.



Given under my hand, at the city of New York, the 3d day of October, A.D. 1789.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: Mr. Dark,

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
When did Dobson ever say that?

Dobson on Larry King, 22 November 2006: ".... The separation of church and state is not in the Constitution. .... It has been picked up and made to be something it was never intended to be." And there is more along those lines; Dobson's public record on the topic is available for anyone (who cares to do the research) to see.

Mr Dark, obviously we disagree on the topic of how much separation there should be between church and state. No problem---- I believe we've both expressed our opinions on this in some detail before, though I cannot remember whether that series of posts came under the religion or politics thread. There's no point in rehashing it all over again at this late date, because it seems extremely unlikely that either of us would change the other's minds.

However, when you say "read the writings of the framers. Read, for example, George Washington's proclamation on the first Thanksgiving (below). Then tell me they wanted a separation of church and state." I would suggest a reading of pretty much anything by Jefferson; obviously the framers themselves were not in agreement on the topic.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: theoctobercountry,

I agree with Mr. Dark wholeheartedly. And I agree with Dobson, wholeheartedly.

The liberals would love to change everything that offends them.

quote:

Originally posted by Salamander:
The liberals would love to change everything that offends them.

True enough---and it is equally true that the conservatives would love to change everything that offends them. No surprise, really.

Oh, now that's where you are a little confused theoctobercountry. I mean this seriously. You love revisionism. Where would you be without it? Conservatives and Christians on the whole, especially true conservatives, want to restore what was lost. What were the original intents of the founding fathers of America. John Adams believed the freedom belonged to those who understood and knew how to use it. There is a moral law that governs human action, even Lincoln aspired to this in his speeches. Liberals think, as many do, that God is a puppet maker of sorts, and to be dismissed in the actuality of what He demands, and that is permitting God to restore the individual to the original intent of the Creator. What Liberal is speaking of such a notion?

Hmmmm.... To "restore what is lost" sounds like one of the very definitions of "change." So, it would appear that you 1) are conservative and 2) desire change---which kind of proves the truth of the completely innocuous statement that conservatives would like to change things that offend them.

This message has been edited. Last edited by: theoctobercountry,

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
...and that is permitting God to restore the individual to the original intent of the Creator.

And that is... what? You see? Someone must determine what God's intent was. So someone has to speak for God. Perhaps a prophet.

Well, this has all been very interesting; the majority of the discourse here over the past day or two has followed the same familiar, tired pattern of personal attacks that have nothing to do with the specifics of the original post.

Perhaps I should reiterate the point I was making in my first post; namely, that I am completely horrified at the current situation in Uganda, where legislation is underway that would permit the government-sanctioned murder of gay people in that country. It is very telling that NO ONE here expressed the least bit of outrage or dismay over this fact.

The situation in Uganda is the result of religion and politics becoming so intertwined that those holding a particular religious viewpoint in that nation feel free to force all citizens to comply with their beliefs, or die.

One of the many American connections to this mess can be seen in the person of pastor Rick Warren. Warren was an early champion of Martin Ssempa, one of the key players in the drafting of this legislation. Ssempa in large part owes his rise to power directly to Warren’s influence. And Warren has very pointedly refused to condemn Ssempa’s drive to kill gay people, preferring to dance around the topic by saying he doesn’t take a stand on such matters----when in fact in the past he HAS taken a very public stand on international political topics.

I’ve given very specific instances of where Warren has said one thing and done another, which makes him the very embodiment of both a hypocrite and a liar. But far, far worse than this is his unwillingness to condemn the wholesale slaughter of gay people. Such a refusal to make a simple public statement is morally bankrupt and abhorrent, and as a result I have nothing but the utmost disgust for Warren---and indeed, for any other person who turns a blind eye to the Uganda situation.

quote:

Originally posted by Doug Spaulding:

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
...and that is permitting God to restore the individual to the original intent of the Creator.

And that is... what? You see? Someone must determine what God's intent was. So someone has to speak for God. Perhaps a prophet.

Douglas Douglas Douglas!: Have you forgotten? How many Bible verses to you want and Bible passages do you need to figure out what God's original intent for man is? Start with Collosians Chapter 1, verses 23,29 God wants us to be transformed into the character of Christ, the original intent of God's plan.

theoctobercountry: Unfortunately you are a victim of the left onslaught on Warren. I have a couple friends involved at Saddleback Church and it ain't no different then when hundreds of gay people marched against the church last year. They took some facts and ran with it. From reports I've read Warren takes a Biblical position on gay marriage. At the same time he has 'personally' spent millions of dollars working alongside of Gay activists who want to do something about the AIDS problem.

I don't know Warren's present position on what is taking place in Ugunda. He's probably extremely troubled. I'd go so far to say that he has condemned it before his church body. But one service that isn't picked up by the media doesn't say much for what his position is. Stay tuned. Something is bound to soon come out with clarity on his present position.

I've read much of Jefferson and Paine. They are clearly the least orthodox of the framers. And they are important figures. However, they are two among many who founded and defined this nation. And even they believed in a natural law that was derived from diety through reason.

quote:

Originally posted by Phil Knox:
Have you forgotten? How many Bible verses to you want and Bible passages do you need to figure out what God's original intent for man is?.

But are we interpreting them correctly?

quote:

Start with Collosians Chapter 1, verses 23,29.

What's Collosians?

I can answer that one:
How about Colossians, smarty pants?

________

Also, looking further into this Uganda situation, I hear the reason for the government to kill gays, is because of the exploding AIDS crisis there. They think of getting rid of homosexuals will halt the millions who have AIDS from increasing in number.

quote:

Originally posted by Mr. Dark:
I've read much of Jefferson and Paine. They are clearly the least orthodox of the framers.

Although not a member of a congregation, Jefferson was a Unitarian in his beliefs, as you know.