Posted on 12/11/2006 7:30:27 PM PST by Joseph DeMaistre
I have seen the same logic here on FR.
I don't know, but I don't think so. They really resemble each other.
They're brothers.
Another thing, groups such as IPC are actually about the abolition of Christianity from within because their goal is to create backbiting and discord.
Actually noone was required to attend, or else the entire continent of NA would've been building only Anglican churches and not wasting it on Catholic, Congregational, Quaker, and Lutheran churches.
But they WERE required to support it, regardless of affiliation or attendence. Double payment, in a way.
Kind of the way those who send a child to "private school" are now paying double as they pay their school and for the public schools in their area....
The secularists tend to forget the influence the Baptists had upon Jefferson and Madison in the immediate aftermath of the Great Awakening. The mountains for Virginia where they were from had large Baptists congregations, which were severely persecuted by the Anglican established church.
Additionally, the Great Awakening emphasized Christianity more as a spirituality than as an institution. Hence, they opposed the idea of state control of the Church. For all the ignorant talk about how Evangelicals want to create a "theocracy," I've never heard the Evangelicals who I know advocate any sort of institutional union of church and state. Actually, that idea would be anathema to them.
The Bill of Rights of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania explicitly spells out the narrow confines of the separation of Church and State.
"Religious Freedom
Section 3. All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences; no man can of right be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship or to maintain any ministry against his consent; no human authority can, in any case whatever, control or interfere with the rights of conscience, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious establishments or modes of worship.
Religion
Section 4. No person who acknowledges the being of a God and a future state of rewards and punishments shall, on account of his religious sentiments, be disqualified to hold any office or place of trust or profit under this Commonwealth. "
I'm sure the anticlericals in the Democratic Party would recoil if efforts to amend the establishment clause with this language was ever reintroduced. If you read the Anti-Federalist Papers, you will see that several states suggested this language in their post-1787 ratification conventions.
Also. I love the term progressive. The oft forgotten question is,"Progressing towards what? A society that would make Atilla the Hun or the Vikings proud."
I typically call them, "regressive".
But many "essives" would apply.
Oppressive. Suppressive. Aggressive.
I typically call them, "regressive".
But many "essives" would apply.
Oppressive. Suppressive. Aggressive.
>>How about Neo-Barbarians?
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.