Remember that the Southern Baptist Conservatives of Virginia are the regular Baptists in Virginia, the other ones are the liberal theology nuts.
Gary Demar’s theocratic / Reconstructionist worldview explains his mythological view of American history.
Baptist Roger Williams (17th century) did indeed coin the “wall of separation” language, and liberal, heretical (yes, that’s what conservative, theocratic Christians of colonial America called them) Baptists fought with flesh and blood for over 150 years to separate church from state and establish the world’s first secular nation.
The First Amendment contains a summary of the historic Baptist principle of separation of church and state. Many late 18th century conservative Christians, believers in theocracy, did not like America being founded as a secular nation, and accused the founders of being heretics and atheists. They were particular galled that our liberal founding fathers refused to acknowledge God in the Constitution. And they - like conservative theocrats today - did not like Baptists’ view (affirmed in the First Amendment) that separation of church and state is a two-way street (prohibits government favoritism of religion, as well as prohibits the free exercise of religion).
See http://www.baptisthistory.org and
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/rel_liberty/history/overview.aspx
http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/persecutionoutline.htm
http://www.brucegourley.com/baptists/quotesscs.htm
http://www.brucegourley.com/christiannation/theocracy.htm
....Particular mention was made in the resolution of David Barton of Wallbuilders, W. Cleon Skousen, author of The 5000 Year Leap, and “some Reconstructionist authors” who the committee said had engaged in “systematic efforts” to revise American history. I’m one of those Reconstructionist authors. One person’s revisionism is another person’s correction. Those of us engaged in the Christian history issue are attempting to bring long needed balance to the subject. I contend that America’s founding, and it’s a long founding going back more than 400 years, is not all sweetness and light. It was neither all Christian nor all secular.
Adherence to a "separation of church and state" is a near-creedal requirement for many Baptists - in some cases, even trinitarianism gets ranked lower, if at all. That belief can be traced back at least as far as the "Trail of Blood", which lists it among the 10 "fundamental doctrines" of a "true" church:
Far too many Catholics are taught that Protestants monolithically believe "there was no authentic Christian church during most of the medieval period." Yes, many Restorationists believe that. Yes, some Anabaptists believe that....The Reformers, on the other hand, did not believe that the Church was absent for 1500 years. They believed it's theology needed reforming (hence the name), not that Christ's church was absent.
-- Alex Murphy, February 20, 2007
I had thought the "trail of blood/Baptist successionism" claim was based on doctrine (Christology, Soteriology) and not polity (autonomous government, closed/members-only communion, credo-baptism by immersion). Generally speaking, Baptist preachers in 19th-century America eschewed the formal doctrinal training other clergy received....It wouldn't surprise me if "Trail of Blood" author J. M. Carroll had no idea (or cared) what these groups actually believed....Note that specific beliefs re Christology, soteriology, etc aren't among them:Related threads:FUNDAMENTAL DOCTRINES
1. A spiritual Church, Christ its founder, its only head and law giver.
2. Its ordinances, only two, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They are typical and memorial, not saving.
3. Its officers, only two, bishops or pastors and deacons; they are servants of the church.
4. Its Government, a pure Democracy, and that executive only, never legislative.
5. Its laws and doctrines: The New Testament and that only.
6. Its members. Believers only, they saved by grace, not works, through the regenerating power of the Holy Spirit.
7. Its requirements. Believers on entering the church to be baptized, that by immersion, then obedience and loyalty to all New Testament laws.
8. The various churches -- separate and independent in their execution of laws and discipline and in their responsibilities to God--but cooperative in work.
9. Complete separation of Church and State.
10. Absolute Religious liberty for all.
-- Alex Murphy, February 20, 2007
As far as I can tell, there was no discussion at the Baptist General Association's meeting of the historical background of the phrase "separation of church and state" (it was not coined either by Roger Williams or Thomas Jefferson and is not found in the Constitution) or the actual wording and meaning of the First Amendment that states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. . . ."Thanks topcat54.
I think what they need to do first is to stick the noses of the federal court Judges in to the first amendment and let them see for their selves that separation and state and church is not even there.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
There it says Congress shall not. it needs no interpretation.
Congress, Congress, Congress. If these Federal court judges are so stupid that they do not understand what Congress is, how in the world did they ever get in a position of power?
Congress does not make laws for the states, they make laws for the united states, the states ( The People )make their own laws where it is not prohibited by the constitution.
The first amendment only prohibits congress from making such a law for the united states, it does not prohibit the states from doing anything.
And was i slamming Judges? we vote congressmen in who are just as stupid.