The founders of our country fled religious persecution from state/national churches. IMO, it's not a real stretch to think that what they wanted to prevent was not single individuals in government offices from being guided by their own religious convictions, but rather the establishment of a single church/denomination from becoming the "national" church, and thus putting them back in the same boat. It wasn't just the threat of a single religion, like Christianity, but the threat of a single denomination (Catholic, Baptist, or whatever) becoming the national church and thus persecuting not only non-Christian religions, but also Christian denominations different than themselves.

 

I think the context and primary meaning of this statement has been lost and twisted to fit a cause completely different from it's original intent. But, that's just my take and I could be wrong.

OK, I'm not letting that slide.

 

The founders of Mass, of RI, and several other colonies fled persecution from state/national churches. That doesn't mean that you can say that Virginian Founding Fathers like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc were religious refugees or even the decendents of them. They weren't . Nearly all of the founders belonged to that national church you claim they were fleeing, both before and after the revolution.

The founders of our country fled religious persecution from state/national churches. IMO, it's not a real stretch to think that what they wanted to prevent was not single individuals in government offices from being guided by their own religious convictions, but rather the establishment of a single church/denomination from becoming the "national" church, and thus putting them back in the same boat. It wasn't just the threat of a single religion, like Christianity, but the threat of a single denomination (Catholic, Baptist, or whatever) becoming the national church and thus persecuting not only non-Christian religions, but also Christian denominations different than themselves.

 

I think the context and primary meaning of this statement has been lost and twisted to fit a cause completely different from it's original intent. But, that's just my take and I could be wrong.

 

Actually most of the framers of the Declaration and Constitution were not immigrants fleeing anything.

 

Read about the debate between Madision and John Leland (Baptist Pastor) before the 2nd Constitutional convention. Madison wanted to establish Christianity and 4 churches as the expressions to be maintained. Leland convinced him to have total Liberty for Religion or even no religion.

 

Most of these men were children of the Enlightenment and Age of Reason. They were not as driven by the Great Awakening as they were the historical experiment of Democracy and Liberty for all.

OK, I'm not letting that slide.

 

The founders of Mass, of RI, and several other colonies fled persecution from state/national churches. That doesn't mean that you can say that Virginian Founding Fathers like Washington, Jefferson, Madison, etc were religious refugees or even the decendents of them. They weren't . Nearly all of the founders belonged to that national church you claim they were fleeing, both before and after the revolution.

 

:thumb:Like I said, I could be wrong.

:thumb:Like I said, I could be wrong.

It's OK, it isn't like you're the first person to say that. I'm pretty sure it had come up earlier in the thread. It's just one of those (many) things you get taught in 3rd grade Social Studies that isn't true.

It's OK, it isn't like you're the first person to say that. I'm pretty sure it had come up earlier in the thread. It's just one of those (many) things you get taught in 3rd grade Social Studies that isn't true.

 

You know, it has been quite frustrating for me to learn just how inaccurate much of the history I learned in school actually is/was. I hear stories about how they're trying to revise history books now to gloss over certain things nowadays, and knowing that it had already been done to some degree when I was in school...it's just irritating to me. I mean, what's the point in this huge emphasis on history in school if you're going to revise it and change it and make it only partially true. It's ridiculous. How can they spout the old line about learning from history when what we learn is a half-truth at best?

 

OK, enough of that rant...

It's OK, it isn't like you're the first person to say that. I'm pretty sure it had come up earlier in the thread. It's just one of those (many) things you get taught in 3rd grade Social Studies that isn't true.

 

And, in any case, that wasn't the main point of my post anyway. I was really just voicing my opinion on the separation of church and state thing. Whatever their backgrounds, I think most of the founders of America weren't against individuals having or relying on religious convictions and guidance for influence when making decisions in a public or government office. What they were against was one specific church gaining autonomous control over the whole government of the country...at least, that's what I think.

You know, it has been quite frustrating for me to learn just how inaccurate much of the history I learned in school actually is/was. I hear stories about how they're trying to revise history books now to gloss over certain things nowadays, and knowing that it had already been done to some degree when I was in school...it's just irritating to me. I mean, what's the point in this huge emphasis on history in school if you're going to revise it and change it and make it only partially true. It's ridiculous. How can they spout the old line about learning from history when what we learn is a half-truth at best?

 

OK, enough of that rant...

 

 

Because we all like the myths that go with our heroes and our greatest moments. It doesn't make those ideals, people or moments bad but it strips away the humanity of them. I prefer knowing the truth about Davy Crockett rather than the Fess Parker version. (I still love Fess Parker though but I know it's much more myth than reality)

And, in any case, that wasn't the main point of my post anyway. I was really just voicing my opinion on the separation of church and state thing. Whatever their backgrounds, I think most of the founders of America weren't against individuals having or relying on religious convictions and guidance for influence when making decisions in a public or government office. What they were against was one specific church gaining autonomous control over the whole government of the country...at least, that's what I think.

 

 

I think faith was important for many of them but not all. But I also think they did not want religion to bea test for who qualifies. Hence the prohibition of religious tests for office in the Constitution.

Come down to the Mill towns and factory communities and I will show you the Bad Economy. Between NAFTA and Free Trade Act, we have decimated the small towns of America whose labor force was the sweat behind the industrial movement.

 

Of course I hold Clinton as much and in some ways more responsible than Bush because he signed the deals.

 

I don't doubt that there are economically depressed areas in the country. The economy is never good everywhere nor is it ever bad everywhere. However, any objective assessment would have to conclude that overall the economy is doing well (even with the problems in the housing market) which is why I objected characterizing the economy as being a "bad economy".

 

I would also note that if both Republicans and Democrats are supporting the policies you feel are responsible for the economic problems you percieve, then there isn't logical reason to prefer one party over the other based on these policies.

I don't doubt that there are economically depressed areas in the country. The economy is never good everywhere nor is it ever bad everywhere. However, any objective assessment would have to conclude that overall the economy is doing well (even with the problems in the housing market) which is why I objected characterizing the economy as being a "bad economy".

 

I would also note that if both Republicans and Democrats are supporting the policies you feel are responsible for the economic problems you percieve, then there isn't logical reason to prefer one party over the other based on these policies.

 

 

I didn't say I did.

 

 

I hold each equally responsible but not as responsible as I hold the pressed shirts. Their business will keep producing profits but the many people they trampled on to make a larger profit will be lost as we see the middle class shrink even more in this country.

I didn't say I did.

 

 

True. It was MoreheadEagle that listed a "bad economy" (among other reasons) as a reason for change.

Romney, or any of the Repubs aren't getting my vote. For 8 years we've had enough war, bad economy, etc. I figure it's time to change.

 

And the congress had absolutely nothing to do with this, right?

:rolleyes::rolleyes:

The founding fathers felt that people had the freedom to express any religion they wanted to, but they also stressed the importance of Christ and the Bible. Now you can't even say Merry Christmas during the holidays without offending somebody. Hmmmmm, I don't know could it be...SATAN!!!!

 

Exactly!

I hold each equally responsible but not as responsible as I hold the pressed shirts. Their business will keep producing profits but the many people they trampled on to make a larger profit will be lost as we see the middle class shrink even more in this country.

 

So, your blaming free enterprise more?

I hold each equally responsible but not as responsible as I hold the pressed shirts. Their business will keep producing profits but the many people they trampled on to make a larger profit will be lost as we see the middle class shrink even more in this country.

 

So, your blaming free enterprise more?

 

 

Free Enterprise has to have some checks just as the US implemented in the beginning of the 20th century to help labor have a voice. The excuse of free enterprise to trample the work force is never a good thing.