If their conclusion is true --that the founders wanted the same interp of separation as do Christians United for Separation of Church and State and the People for the American Way--then why did they allow Sunday blue laws? Why did they start public ed for the purpose of equalizing all children's reading ability so they could ALL have access to the Bible and not be misled from truth or tyrannized by a state-church? (That was a stated purpose.) Why did they do Christmas pageants, etc. in the public schools? and learn carols? Why do so many of our oldest public buildings and state constitutions acknowledge a Supreme Being? Why did Ben Franklin advocate for chaplains at the Constitutional Convention in 1787? Why does Thomas jefferson refer to a Creator bestowing us all with inalienable rights? Why do so many of G. Washington's speeches have allusions to God and faith? Why his first Thanksgiving proclamation?
Our founders didn't want a state-church or a church-state --but they were God-believers -- or at least God-respectors --and Bible respectors. The first school board of D.C. with Jefferson on it, listed as texts the Isaac Watts Hymnal, the Common Book of Prayer and the Bible.
The Northwest Ordinance included provision for the founding of public schools --so kids could be taught the Bible and religion --among other things.
Today's church-state separators have an entirely different idea. They want "the naked public square." They want NO one to be able to hear the Gospel of Jesus Christ except they seek it out in a church. They have removed the Christmas creche from the courthouse lawn; next, they will work to get it off of private lawns and church lawns--because it won't be politically correct --or allowable --to promote your religion except in the church building--and later, maybe not even there.
"God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance and have eternal life."--the Bible
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
29 comments:
The Northwest Ordinance included provision for the founding of public schools --so kids could be taught the Bible and religion --among other things.
Wrong! It provided for free public schools period.
Nice spin, though, as usual.
No, Muck-scholar --the northwest ordinance specifically provided for public schools for the purpose of teaching religion. I actually heard the quotation by a speaker at the Ohio School Board Ass'n Conference --and elsewhere --probably David Barton's work.
My uncle was an agnostic, PhD, teacher of education grad students at u. of Pittsburg-- and HE said the public schools were established to teach all kids to read --so they could read the Bible.
You who say our founding fathers were secularists are the revisionists and the spinners.
barb,
Wording in our 1st Amendment is
clear, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of (a)
religion, nor interfering with the
free exercise thereof"...
>>
James Madison followed Jefferson:
"The best and only security for religious liberty in any society is a multiplicity of religious sects. Where there is such a variety of sects, there cannot be a majority of any one sect to Oppress and Persecute the rest".
Obviously, both men were students of Great Religions, and the bloody histories in All Of Them. When men
assume the mantle of Authority, declare their 'Infallibility', demand Obedience to that Pious Claim, they must enforce it to maintain their evil Power.
>>
Islam Is No Different! They Enforce
Obedience! They rule with bloody hands! It's an Old Saudi/Wahhabi Discipline; they reinforce... with petroleum wealth, Oil!
__________________________________
You are doing a fine job with the Egyptian Muslim, "mohamed". You struck home when you pointed to the
Sunni & Shia killing each other.
Also, Hamas & Fatah in Palestine,
and Hezbollah in Lebanon.
Stay on it, he respects you. reb
(Print)
www.lazyonebenn.blogspot.com
Of course the early Americans were all of Christian background (or no faith) --the ones in charge had respect for The Good Book --and throughout our history we have had respect for the Christian religion in general.
You know, Snake-hunter, I can probably pull up more quotes like the one that says that democracy won't work for any but a religious people. (or people with a world view shaped for generations by Judeo-Christian worldview--as in Europe.)
And we have opened our arms to people of other faiths and their freedoms here have been the same as ours.
There is one religion that gets the most gov't money by claiming to be no religion--but it is actually a worldview also --secularism or secular humanism. We give a ton of taxpayer money agencies that have an anti-religious view while claiming to be neutral or just 'secular' --such as public universities -- and to Planned Parenthood which exist largely to provide abortions and a philosophy of sex ed with sexuality experimentation that no bonafied religion would approve for their youth.
If most of the fallen soldiers are of Christian faith --even superficially -- then we ought not begrudge the use of crosses, etc. in their memorials. Our history is what it is --respectful of the Bible and Christian faith--it has a large part in shaping our national character and views of equality and human rights --making us the best nation in the world.
We ought not now retroactively bite the religious hand that feeds us --or kill the goose (Judeo-Christian worldview) that laid the golden egg --which is america.
We are open to other religions--and if they are in our schools, we DO have to adapt to accommodate the minority faiths. We can't treat their religions as invalid --at the same time we cannot /ought not ask Christians (or any other group) to pretend that all religions are equally TRUE, when we don't believe that.
Only one religion has the Messiah of the Christians and Jews who did so many miracles --whose followers did so many miracles --that thousands were converted in that first century A.D. Only one religion provided the ultimate sacrifice to atone us with our Creator God so that we might be immortal agai--as He was. Only one resurrected God-man in all of history. This is the TRUTH that must be proclaimed. We are saved by accepting the free gift.
I found this curious comment on my blog from microdot. Can you give any insight into who the alleged stalker might be so that we can help you track him/her down and send the name off to Interpol?
By the way, Madam B is running off on other blogs claiming she is being "stalked" by a dangerous unstable blogger.
ART. 3. Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
Northwest Ordinance 1787
barb says:
The Northwest Ordinance included provision for the founding of public schools --so kids could be taught the Bible and religion --among other things.
Quite the s t r e t c h Madam B, quite the s p i n.
Religion, morality, and knowledge, being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged.
What's wrong with your eyes? Thanks for looking it up --it says right above that RELIGION, morality and knowledge --are the function of education.
I can see where you are separating religion and morality as being fostered elsewhere --but many of us see the education as teaching the 3 --and in reality, education does that. Religion is TAUGHT. Morality is TAUGHT. Other knowledge is TAUGHT. They are all indispensable to happiness and good government.
And their public schools DID teach religion and morality.
O I wouldn't want to name anyone as being hostile or offensive to me, Mud-loader. I never claimed that anyone was stalking me.
I have wondered about the mental health of a certain bitter blogger because he is so generally miserable about evangelicals in general. And he censors his blog extremely from any opposing viewpoints.
You followed from my blog to Mohamed's blog to tell him I was a bigot --remember? Told him the same here, as I recall --something similar.
You're the one who posts spam on my blog, remember? huge posts on Aztec sacrifices and mating habits of birds and huge technical descriptions of obsessive compulsive disorder. Remember??
You're the one who censors me off your blog.
So I think the evidence is available --that I'm not stalking you, as previously claimed by either you or Microdeluded.
I wouldn't call you a stalker ----if I did, and I don't think I did, but if I did (sounds like O.J. doesn't it?) it would be in saying, "Me, stalking him?? I'm not the stalker --HE IS!" because Microd thought erroneously that I was following YOU around --hardly! I'm more interested in discussing the issues -instead of playing games.
I see you as just miserable and obsessed with people who share my world view --obsessed with Christian belief, for that matter. And as I told Microd --it started on your blog with my name in your headlines before I ever heard of your blog --last november after i wrote to the Blade concerning the election and the Blade's conclusion that voters rejected creation science advocates running for state board of ed. In my Blade letter, I noted that the public didn't even know there WERE creation science advocates as candidates --because media didn't tell us --and candidates for boards of ed. and for judgeships, in particular, keep low profiles about any controversial issues.
You took me on that day. And a friend told me she stumbled across your blog by googling my name.
And that started our romance!
I really have grown fond of you, muck-raker --and wish you eternal joy! Christmas joy year-round --which I have.
Just to bring back some of your old Christian friends and their Jesus-filled preaching LINK
Well, MR --what do you have to say about the Northwest Ordinance! they did provide public schools for the purpose of teaching religion, morality and knowledge -right?
Let's stay on the issues.
Stay on topic???
Pot-kettle.
Of course it did not found public schools to teach the Bible. Perhaps you were one of those many righteous Republicans who scolded Bill Clinton for asking for the meaning of 'is?'
By the way, didn't you just love those righteous preachers on th evideo? Goosebumps and chills down your spine!!
Sooooooooooo righteous. Soooooooanti-gay. Jesus himself couldn't have said it better!
Sorry, I didn't have time to listen to the video--I went to it --didn't recognize the first preacher --and moved on. Maybe I'll get back to it sometime.
Facts say you are wrong --about the intentions behind the first public ed.
We do have a God who gave humanity a death sentence because of the choice to use our free will to sin. He doesn't like homosexuality--or any other sin. We aren't designed for homosex but for procreative heterosex and He warns us that it works best within marriage. Since He made us, He can call the shots --and He has provided an easy out --a reprieve --a 2nd chance at immortality.
don't miss out, Mud-rake. It would be foolish. He loves you --but not enough to let you off the hook if you remain a mule for your entire life and are never sorry about it.
...speaking of GODLESS! Did you read the latest finding about TRANSGENDERED bugs??
Sinful! Disgusting.
Why would God have created bugs that apparently don't know if they are male or female?
Must be one of those God-mistakes, eh?
Read about it: HERE.
He doesn't like homosexuality--or any other sin. We aren't designed for homosex but for procreative heterosex
Oh really? So God doesn't like 'odd' sex? He made his creation male and female so that they could procreate the 'right' way?
Hmmm. That's odd. How about those strange female lizards who don't need to copulate with males to produce their off-spring?
Another God-mistake? fake lizard sex
Most of the bugs are part of the curse, so you can expect them to sin, Muck-raker!
That's not a serious answer, muck-rake.
God made us to procreate and designed us for that possibility. All the other ways a human can think of to copulate are outside the plan. I don't care what you dig up from the muck of fallen nature to account for homosexuality. It won't wash.
Right up your alley: God Hates Fags
That's not biblical as the Bible does not say that "god hates.... (homosexuals.")
It says He hates the sin --all sin --but this one is the height of worship of creature more than Creator.
He has compassion on the one who is miserable with that orientation and wants to change it and feels shame for being weak in this area. Many have re-oriented.
Is she your sister or sister-in-law? Seems the two of you are peas in a pod.
I wondered whom you were talking about --since I didn't visit your link. then I figured out who you thought my sister was and visited the video to see.
I've heard of this one unique group, of course, and hardly any other Christian group agrees with their message or their method. She is very misguided.
Because --No, God does not hate gays --doesn't hate America. He loves the world so much that He sent Christ to die for us, while we were yet sinners.
Paul said that homosexuals deserve death ALONG WITH ALL OTHER SINNERS AND THUS THAT'S WHY WE ALL DO, IN FACT, DIE. Our mortality is the curse of mankind's sinful nature.
Jesus' message is "good news" of love that redeems us --but that love does not redefine or CONDONE our sin --it forgives it and tells us to "go now and sin no more."
The attorney in your video refers to America as "the evil angel." Jesus talked about an angel of light who would deceive many (Lucifer) --I suspect that was the one who inspired Mohammad's writings and the one who inspired Joseph Smith (though I really don't believe he had any supernatural encounter, but was just creative in his claims. If he was inspired it was a diabolical source.) One might metaphorically see Darwin and Secular Humanists' founders as "angels of light" who deceive many. They appear as enlightening but instead erode faith in Jesus who is "the light of the world."
Anything that erodes our faith in Jesus Christ as God's Savior of the World is a deceiver.
Blogging for Theocracy
Some people choose homosexuality, but I believe for the vast majority of homosexuals, it is some kind of genetic anomaly that they have no control over. You can just tell it in their facial construction and in their body makeup. It's obvious. We were watching 20/20 the other night and they featured fundamentalist programs to deprogram gay people. This one poor lonely, obviously gay guy, bought their spiel, and now lives this sad lonely life. I'm ambivalent to gays. I'm not gay so it has no bearing on my life whatsoever. I felt sorry for the poor guy who now has to live this self imposed monastic existence because he's been "deprogrammed", when it is most obviously in his genes. I just don't think "God" cares whether people are gay or not, He allows the genetic anomaly, so it must not be that big of a deal to God. I think the religious and cultural intolerance toward homosexuality is man derived because it is so foreign and different from the norm.
Steve, you are believing Oprah and the deceased Ann Landers --and the discredited gay researchers, LaVey and that other guy with CDC or the NCI or wherever he was found --he also found a religiosity gene, he decided -- Dean Hamer.
More recent studies say, "no gay gene" --"no gene marker" to date. That is the latest on the science of the orientation.
There are far more common denominators to gayness from environmental influence. Parents, absent or emotionally distant and disparaging parents of the same sex; over-identification with same sex parent fostered by that parent drawing child into his/her interests and thought patterns to extreme degree (I've witnessed that scenario) ; sex addiction to activities started in puberty; molestation by anybody can warp; poor self-image for one's given sexuality combined with peer labeling and the result of looking for any social port in the storm of alienation from same sex during formative years; media promotion causing youth to question their orientation; bad hetero experiences --just feeling "abnormal," feeling socially different in general. Also, not having any conviction or teaching to not think or act homosexually because it isn't God's plan for our design. Being drawn into the lifestyle by others, usually older (like the fathers they lack, in the case of gay men.)
I don't agree that gays "look" different than normal--though people who have less stereotypically feminine or masculine attributes of face and body will wonder about themselves, be ostracized by some, be vulnerable for gay identification. Some think, they call me a fag; maybe I am.
Because everyone is attracted to attractive people of both sexes --it reflects on our own self-image, self-esteem, if we have attractive and/or admirable friends. It is normal to desire a social niche with your own sex first during formative years --and the opposite sex later. If a child is growing up comfortable with the opposite sex and not with the same sex, there are reasons --and they aren't genetic (except in the case of hermpaphroditism -or genes not matching body --very rare and not the cause of homosexuality.)
The religious disapproval of homosexuality is Bible-based.
Reason tells you that there is something very against the natural in a fixation of anal sex and oral sex with the same men--St. Paul called them lovers of self --because they go to any lengths to have orgasms with people of the same body type--they are orgasm fixated --such that they would signal guys in a dirty park bathroom for anonymous quickies. Like the hetero sex addicts who go to prostitutes --or the pedophiles seeking an online kid. why do we now think homosex is ok while the other perversions are still sick?
Why condone the one and not the others? Don't say because the one is consenting adults. How many gays had their first sexual same-sex experiences in adolescence? Most of them, I bet. They took the wrong fork in the road.
I had a typo there in hermaphroditism.
I think they are going to stumble upon the gay gene in the not too distant future. It is an unmistakable skeletal presentation that they all seem to exhibit. I remember a few years ago one of the news programs was interviewing that gay pastor Ted Haggard; this was long before his downfall. The topic of the interview ironically was his rather extreme stance against homosexuality. My wife, who has impeccable "gaydar" said immediately- "that guy is gay". And you can just see it in the skeletal structure of his face.
Even if it isn't genetic, and is a sin as you say, then it's no more a sin than "lying" or "fornication" or a hundred other things a person in a fallen state may succumb to. We don't judge those sinners because it says to "judge not, lest ye be judged". So why make special emphasis toward homosexuality. If it is a sin, God is the final judge, not you nor I.. So I don't care about homosexuals and never will. I think people around the world are so bent out of shape about homosexuality, not because of any religious doctrine, but because it is such a strange and foreign behavior and it makes people feel threatened. People just use religion to justify their animosity toward homosexuals.
steve- barb is severly OCD with homosexuality as her focus
I don't buy it, Steve --the facial structure similarity of homosexual people --because I don't SEE it. We ALL have facial structure similarities --
My gaydar detects it in the eyes --an expression --and speech and mannerisms which are the obvious indicators for some but not all gays --for the ones who sort of identify as the opposite sex --women feeling mannish and men feeling and acting feminine. It's sad when people have the mannerisms but not the orientation--and get pegged as gay when they are not at all.
In fact, that's the theory that troubles me --boys who are considered non-macho by peers or parents --get stigmatized as gay--this is where the name-calling becomes so harmful. (and likewise for girls) Kids have a lot of self-image/self-esteem problems growing up as it is. Now we're telling them if they are effeminate --or of a certain body structure --or facial structure --they are probably gay. And self-image becomes predictive --prescriptive. When what many boys need, is a chance to mature physically --and then they, too, WILL seem more manly. Boys are so much LIKE girls physically in childhood --and the late bloomers and those without male role models can get confused --and feel "different" --and idolize the ones they wish they were more like (the macho and popular) and that's what they say, "I always knew I was 'different'" --well we ALL feel "different" from the norm actually --especially the highly sensitive and intelligent are aware of uniqueness. I dont' want anyone giving my grandsons wrong ideas about their uniqueness.
I don't fear gays at all and certainly don't fear them because they are different. I DO fear they will make our young people feel they are different sexually just because of their normal desire for same sex friends in youth --their normal admiration of same sex friends and desire to be like them --their normal erratic and strong sexual urges for any sexual release in adolescence. Some have thought, no doubt, that if they had pleasure --orgasm --in a homosexual encounter that they are intrinsically gay --and that experience becomes an addictive preference for some --who could have eventually enjoyed normal relations with the opposite sex.
I don't think they'll find that gene, Steve.
As for it being no worse than other sins --RIGHT --BUT we aren't having pride parades and asking to be approved for other sins, are we?
I'm just saying that you should prepair yourself for when they do find a genetic corralation to homosexuality. Only a few years ago they were 100 percent positive that stomach ulcers were the result of stress and diet. A researcher discovered that it was produced by the bacteria Helicobactor pylorus. He was laughed at and derided by the scientific community. Now it is a 100% known FACT that stomach ulcers are caused by the helicobacter bacteria. The same conclusion awaits homosexuality, that it is indeed intrinsic genetic causation.
There can be no other explanation for homosexual desire. It is un-natural and foreign and nobody would engage in such activity unless their chemical make up sent their brains and glands the signals to reinforce such desire. I'm a heterosexual and when I see a hairy man, I'm repulsed. Not in my wildest dreams would could I imagine any kind of homosexual encounter.. It's chemicals and brain signals. It's nature. I'm attracted to women and always have been. Well I'll have to finish this train of thought later, I have to go finish my chem lab report.
steve writes There can be no other explanation for homosexual desire.
Well, yes, there can be. My husband feels as you --that homosex repulses him --the idea is (shudder)repugnant.
Do you also think other sexual fetishes are genetic? and pedophilia? bestiality? necrophilia?
Iim sure God could alter our genes to give us abnormal desires as a punishment --but I don't think that's the case.
It's all about parental and cultural influence --environmental causes that could have been avoided by wiser parents, more protection, better teaching, careful nurture, affirmation for normal sexuality --etc. etc.
Post a Comment