Our Founding Fathers on Christianity

mikeandgerry wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:If the Founders used the word "religion" in the Constitution then they knew what it meant.

In his autobiography Thomas Jefferson contradicts your assertion. Once again I quote:

Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination.

-Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom

So you are saying that when the founders wrote the first amendment they didn't know what "religion" meant. You are being absurd.

Let me parse Jefferson's simple declarative sentence for you because you are clearly not up to reading it yourself.

A bunch of guys are proposing we add a section that defines the author of religion as Jesus.

The majority rejected that proposal.

They wanted to assure that..

Jews had rights

Muslims had rights

Hindus had rights

Christians had rights

Infidels had rights

What they're saying is that they do not want to define what religions had rights. They are saying that religious freedoms are independent of denomination and dogma. You are suggesting that only denominations that the founders knew about, or that you approve of have rights.

Dude! I am not arguing that religions have rights. I am arguing that religions are defined by tradition. Definitions are changing and thus "Joe's church", which believes that human sacrifice is a holy sacrament, cannot be protected by the first amendment. I am arguing that religion is being used by the left as a trojan horse.

What part of that don't you understand?

Similarly, The Episcopal Church, which for hundreds of years declared homosexuality a sin, has now succumbed to political and popular pressure, has changed course in its beliefs. You are now saying that those beliefs should influence federal rights. What happened to the separation of church and state?

mikeandgerry wrote:Dude! I am not arguing that religions have rights. I am arguing that religions are defined by tradition. Definitions are changing and thus "Joe's church", which believes that human sacrifice is a holy sacrament, cannot be protected by the first amendment. I am arguing that religion is being used by the left as a trojan horse.

What part of that don't you understand?

Religions are not defined by traditions. Religion is defined by its practitioners. You don't get to decide how other people practice religion. That is what the first amendment is about.

Simple question. If Jesus comes back tomorrow and defines a new set of beliefs for Christians, do you think that the US government does not have to protect Christians in practicing those beliefs until enough time has passed for them to become "traditional"?

mikeandgerry wrote:Similarly, The Episcopal Church, which for hundreds of years declared homosexuality a sin, has now succumbed to political and popular pressure, has changed course in its beliefs. You are now saying that those beliefs should influence federal rights. What happened to the separation of church and state?

Mormons didn't recognize the rights of blacks to obtain the priesthood until 1978.

I suppose that was "political and popular pressure" too.

Bigotry is bigotry.

ErikLaurence wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:Dude! I am not arguing that religions have rights. I am arguing that religions are defined by tradition. Definitions are changing and thus "Joe's church", which believes that human sacrifice is a holy sacrament, cannot be protected by the first amendment. I am arguing that religion is being used by the left as a trojan horse.

What part of that don't you understand?

Religions are not defined by traditions. Religion is defined by its practitioners. You don't get to decide how other people practice religion. That is what the first amendment is about.

Simple question. If Jesus comes back tomorrow and defines a new set of beliefs for Christians, do you think that the US government does not have to protect Christians in practicing those beliefs until enough time has passed for them to become "traditional"?

Religion was defined by the Founders through tradition. I am talking about religion in the generic sense, not a specific religion.

I am not arguing for a judeo-christian theocracy. That is what Jefferson was saying: No theocracies. But he also implied that religion was a welcome, good and respected institution so long as it didn't interfere directly with a secular government.

If Jesus came back tomorrow and did as you say and one of his new beliefs was that liberals were sinners that should immediately be put to death by Christians, wouldn't you want the secular government to act with some restraint on their beliefs?

ErikLaurence wrote:
Bigotry is bigotry.

Yes, and the most intolerant are found in the Democrat party.

mikeandgerry wrote:Religion was defined by the Founders through tradition. I am talking about religion in the generic sense, not a specific religion.

Do you have a reference for that? You are pretty loose with saying what the founders thought but really light on the supporting evidence to support your assertions. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Thomas Jefferson, 1782.

mikeandgerry wrote:I am not arguing for a judeo-christian theocracy. That is what Jefferson was saying: No theocracies. But he also implied that religion was a welcome, good and respected institution so long as it didn't interfere directly with a secular government.

But you are arguing in support of laws based on the specific dogmas of the Abrahamic religions.

mikeandgerry wrote:If Jesus came back tomorrow and did as you say and one of his new beliefs was that liberals were sinners that should immediately be put to death by Christians, wouldn't you want the secular government to act with some restraint on their beliefs?

Your right to practice religion stops when it interferes with the rights of others to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

mikeandgerry wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:
Bigotry is bigotry.

Yes, and the most intolerant are found in the Democrat party.

I actually find democrats and republicans equally bigoted.

ErikLaurence wrote:
Do you have a reference for that? You are pretty loose with saying what the founders thought but really light on the supporting evidence to support your assertions. "But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg". Thomas Jefferson, 1782.

Oh dear God, please! I need a reference that the Founders knew what the word "religion" meant? Only a liberal would ask for a link on this. lol

/ErikLaurence wrote:But you are arguing in support of laws based on the specific dogmas of the Abrahamic religions.

No, I am not.

I am arguing that the fence separating religion from government is a picket fence. Thus, the internalized beliefs of any religion are part of the individual adherent and it is rightfully reflected in their citizenship practices. In other words, homosexuality could be outlawed because it is within the state's right to do so if it pursues it. There is no prohibition against it despite your reading of the 14th amendment.

But, because the Constitution leaves certain matters to the states, the people establish certain laws that are valid yet at times incongruous with other states. The left will prevail in the issue of gay marriage rights not because of the first amendment protection of religion, but because just one state adopted the legality of gay marriage rights in civil law. Since other states must recognize these marriages they will eventually follow suit.

I have given you a warning about the approach of the left in using the first amendment freedom of religion as a conduit for the resolution of civil rights issues. The adoption of certain religious practices by religious groups that have been infiltrated by politically motivated leadership runs counter to the expectation of the Founders. (No, I don't need a link because we all have an expectation that institutions are run ostensibly for the furtherance of their spiritual goals, not political goals.) The slipery slope the left opens is a flexibility to all cultural values that will place our current culture at risk of domination. Krushchev was right that the west will hang itself if not careful.

The immediate adoption of all practices of all religions without some scrutiny would have been offensive to the Founders. Their world was predominantly western culture. (Again I do not need a link or reference for this assertion.) They knew and understood the unchanging nature of the world's major religions and the cultural morality that eminated from them.

The definition of religion then wasn't an issue. Now it is. Cultural morality is changing. Our Ancestors believed that blacks weren't fully human and allowed slavery and also excluded them from voting as full citizens. They also excluded women from voting. Both changes in cultural morality were followed by Constitutional amendments. Why should gay rights be any different?

Ultimately it protects gays and the Constitution.

ErikLaurence wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:If Jesus came back tomorrow and did as you say and one of his new beliefs was that liberals were sinners that should immediately be put to death by Christians, wouldn't you want the secular government to act with some restraint on their beliefs?

Your right to practice religion stops when it interferes with the rights of others to "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness".

I don't recall anything in the Constitution to that effect. Nothing in the document protected slaves or women. But I would agree with you. However, those Rastafarians probably still question the government stomping on their maryjane smoking sacreament. What say you there?

mikeandgerry wrote:
Oh dear God, please! I need a reference that the Founders knew what the word "religion" meant? Only a liberal would ask for a link on this. lol

I asked for a reference for your assertion that the founders defined religion by "tradition".

mikeandgerry wrote:Religion was defined by the Founders through tradition.

mikeandgerry wrote: homosexuality could be outlawed because it is within the state's right to do so if it pursues it. There is no prohibition against it despite your reading of the 14th amendment.

If being a homosexual is defined by ones actions you are incorrect. The supreme court struck down all the nations remaining sodomy laws in 2003 in Lawrence v Texas.

If homosexuality is not defined by ones acts what exactly are you making illegal?

mikeandgerry wrote: However, those Rastafarians probably still question the government stomping on their maryjane smoking sacreament. What say you there?

I say it is exactly the same situation as Catholicism and sacramental wine during prohibition. Except of course the Rastas don't give as much money to pols as the Catholics do so they haven't gotten the same special treatment.

ErikLaurence wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote:

ErikLaurence wrote:
Bigotry is bigotry.

Yes, and the most intolerant are found in the Democrat party.

I actually find democrats and republicans equally bigoted.

Yes, they are both bigoted. It is human nature. You should consider whether or not bigotry is a survival mechanism or not and, if so, does it not have some value?


The US has a right to a single culture. Multiculturalism is not a sustainable social model. A melting pot is good, a patchwork is to divide both your nation and your culture. Mexican immigrants should want to be Americans, not Mexicans in American or even Mexican- Americans. Racial bigotry is senseless but cultural bigotry is not.

The Founders came from an era which saw the oppression of the Roman Catholic church, The Church of England, the British Government, and other institutions on the people. Most were raised in Judeo-Christian settings but many rejected the institutions of their youth. They were rejecting the authoritarian institution but not the philosophy of religion. My greatest dissappointment with our culture today is that it is rejecting religion based on historical oppression and perceived oppression. The reality is they haven't faced true oppression, they have merely been conditioned to think so. The media has chosen to parade sin after sin in front of people daily. The people eventually turn to it as normal. Deists in 1776 would have found homosexuality a perversion. Today, not so. Hopefully, it is the will of the people not just the will of the media elites. The shift in cultural morality must be documented in the Constitution for the security of this nation.

ErikLaurence wrote:

mikeandgerry wrote: However, those Rastafarians probably still question the government stomping on their maryjane smoking sacreament. What say you there?

I say it is exactly the same situation as Catholicism and sacramental wine during prohibition. Except of course the Rastas don't give as much money to pols as the Catholics do so they haven't gotten the same special treatment.

From Wikipedia:

In 1998, then-Attorney General of the United States Janet Reno, gave a legal opinion that Rastafari do not have the religious right to smoke ganjah in violation of the United States' drug laws. The position is the same in the United Kingdom, where, in the Court of Appeal case of R. v. Taylor [2002] 1 Cr. App. R. 37, it was held that the UK's prohibition on cannabis use did not contravene the right to freedom of religion conferred under the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms.

On January 2, 1991, at an international airport in his homeland of Guam, Ras Iyah Ben Makahna (Benny Guerrero) was arrested for possession and importation of marijuana and seeds. He was charged with importation of a controlled substance. The case was heard by the US 9th Circuit Court November 2001, and in May 2002 the court had decided that the practice of Rastafari sanctions the smoking of marijuana, but nowhere does the religion sanction the importation of marijuana. Guerrero's lawyer Graham Boyd pointed out the court's ruling was "equivalent to saying wine is a necessary sacrament for some Christians but you have to grow your own grapes."[18]

In July 2008, however, the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Rastafari may be allowed to possess greater amounts of cannabis legally, owing to its use by them as a sacrament.[19][20]

The world is certainly changing rapidly.

Be certain of what you want. You will probably get it.