Posted on 05/10/2006 6:28:01 AM PDT by bondjamesbond
It wasn't so superficial as taxation... that was one reason among dozens.
You are correct that we didn't break it off due to religion. However, many of our early settlers came here for just that purpose. It is recognition of this central tenet of the inhabitants that led to the first amendment.
The original settlers came to flee religious persecution, not to establish a new religious country. They were still loyal to England, as were most colonists for the next 100 years.
---------------
“The general principles upon which the Fathers achieved independence were the general principals of Christianity… I will avow that I believed and now believe that those general principles of Christianity are as eternal and immutable as the existence and attributes of God.”
• “[July 4th] ought to be commemorated as the day of deliverance by solemn acts of devotion to God Almighty.”
– John Adams in a letter written to Abigail on the day the Declaration was approved by Congress
"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
--John Adams, October 11, 1798
“ God governs in the affairs of man. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? We have been assured in the Sacred Writings that except the Lord build the house, they labor in vain that build it. I firmly believe this. I also believe that, without His concurring aid, we shall succeed in this political building no better than the builders of Babel”
-–Benjamin Franklin, Constitutional Convention of 1787
I never said they intended to establish a theocracy. No, they established what was consistent with their Christian worldview... our country governed by its Constitution.
The Bible makes it very clear that humans have the right to food. It makes a clear distinction between eating food and taking food.
It also makes clear distinctions between people that don't have the means to feed or otherwise do for themselves and those that can but refuse to do so. That parable of the talents is one great example.
The Bible also makes absolutely no assertion that "humans have the right to food." Again, if so, please show where.
What the Bible does say is that for believers God promises us food and clothing. There are also no other promises to believers of anything more in a material sense. Nothing.
I don't know where you are getting your info, but it's not from the Bible.
One of the problems I have with Sullivan and others like him is that their concern about religion in politics is always so one sided. Do you ever see these same people complain about the political activism of a REV Jesse Jackson, or a REV Al Sharpton? Did they ever show any concern when FATHER Robert Drinan was in Congress, or that the Southern CHRISTIAN Leadership Conference was leading the movement to change the law? (Naw, Lefties don't get on me for that one as if I endorse segregation. I am merely drawing the parallel). No, their concern is always and only when Christians involve themselves in CONSERVATIVE activism. Then, and only then, does the separation of church and state become an overriding concern. The word for such people? Hypocrites.
"...they established what was consistent with their Christian worldview..."
Exactly...based upon Biblical principles.
That's great. Now can you make a logical argument or are you going to keep pasting meaningless quotes?
SURELY if the founders wanted this to be a religious government, it would have been written into the Constitution. It wasn't. Therefore, it was not their intent.
Keep up...
Deuteronomy 25:24-25
Alright, enough with the jokes!
I thought you were serious. Silly me...
You are unreachable because you are unreasonable. A wise man once said (paraphrased), "Reason will only lead someone out of ignorance if it was reason which led him there in the first place."
May God bless you.
A very good answer. Very good.
> The Communists are atheists. They want no gods at all.
Except for the State, which makes them theists.
> These rights were considered Divine because they are God given...
Show me where "divine" shows up in the Constitution.
A whole lot of quotes, not a one of which taken from the Constitution.
Why is the Constitution considered so... unworthy to you and those like you? Can you not justify your position with *relevant* quotes?
Reading's not your strong suit obviously.
Except for the State, which makes them theists.
Circular references wont fly.
the·ism - Belief in the existence of a god or gods, especially belief in a personal God as creator and ruler of the world.
"'The Communists are atheists. They want no gods at all.'
Except for the State, which makes them theists."
Wrong. The State is man-made, and the Communists know it. A god is divine, and the Communists reject the idea of a god because they reject any form of divinity. They believe only in what is human and material. Therefore, they hold that a superior group of humans composing the State should make all the decisions for everyone else. They are not theists. Theism would threaten their system by persuading people that there are truths to believe in higher than a man-made State.
The US Constitution is a legal framework. It is government established by men and empowered by the consent of the governed....to secure the inalienable rights endowed upon all ..... by their Creator. To govern a nation protected by Divine providence.
Suggest you read the Declaration of Independence, which the OP was referencing.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.