Progressives Attempt to Make Church and State One and the Same - Page 10
Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910
Results 91 to 96 of 96

Progressives Attempt to Make Church and State One and the Same

This is a discussion on Progressives Attempt to Make Church and State One and the Same within the Politics forums, part of the Main Category category; Originally Posted by NDS leave the hatred over religion I love religion. But, I hate civil authority over religion. ****************************** ...

  1. #91
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I'm a Socialist and I live in Dallas County, Texas. Go Cowboys.
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    leave the hatred over religion
    I love religion. But, I hate civil authority over religion.

    ******************************

    If you had been a member of the Virginia Legislature in 1786, would you have voted yes or no on the Act for the Establishment of Religious Freedom?


    An Act for the Establishment of Religious Freedom

    Whereas Almighty God hath created the mind free; that all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments, or burthens, or by civil incapacitations, tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being lord both of body and mind, yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do, that the impious presumption of legislators and rulers, civil as well as ecclesiastical, who, being themselves but fallible and uninspired men, have assumed dominion over the faith of others, setting up their own opinions and modes of thinking as the only true and infallible, and as such endeavoring to impose them on others, hath established and maintained false religions over the greatest part of the world and through all time: That to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves is sinful and tyrannical; that even the forcing him to support this or that teacher of his own religious persuasion, is depriving him of the comfortable liberty of giving his contributions to the particular pastor whose morals he would make his pattern, and whose powers he feels most persuasive to righteousness; and is withdrawing from the ministry chose temporary rewards, which proceeding from an approbation of their personal conduct, are an additional incitement to earnest and unremitting labours for the instruction of mankind; that our civil rights have no dependance on our religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics or geometry; that therefore the proscribing ally citizen as unworthy the public confidence by laying upon him an incapacity of being called to offices of trust and emolument, unless he profess or renounce this or that religious opinion, is depriving him injuriously of those privileges and advantages to which, in common with his fellow citizens, he has a natural right; that it tends also to corrupt the principles of that religion it is meant to encourage, by bribing, with a monopoly of worldly honours and emoluments, those who will externally profess and conform to it; that though indeed these are criminal who do not withstand such temptation, yet neither are those innocent who lay the bait in their way; that to suffer the civil magistrate to intrude his powers into the field of opinion and to restrain the profession or propagation of principles on supposition of their ill tendency is a dangerous fallacy, which at once destroys all religious liberty, because he being of course judge of that tendency will make his opinions the rule of judgment, and approve or condemn the sentiments of others only as they shall square with or differ from his own; that it is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order; and finally, that truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of her natural weapons, free argument and debate; errors ceasing to be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them.

    Be it therefore enacted by the general assembly, that no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his belly or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

    And though we well know that this Assembly, elected by the people for the ordinary purposes of legislation only, have no power to restrain the acts of succeeding Assemblies, constituted with powers equal to our own, and that therefore to declare this act irrevocable would be of no effect in law; yet we are free to declare, and do declare, that the rights hereby asserted are of the natural rights of mankind, and that if any act shall be hereafter passed to repeal the present or to narrow its operation, such act will be an infringement of natural right


    I would have voted no, because it didn't obliterate all civil authority over religion.

  2. #92
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    1,289

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Charles Cooper View Post
    I love religion. But, I hate civil authority over religion.

    ******************************

    If you had been a member of the Virginia Legislature in 1786, would you have voted yes or no on the Act for the Establishment of Religious Freedom?

    (deleted by NDS just to make this post take up less room...click the little arrow by 'Charles Cooper' or scroll up to read it in full)

    I would have voted no, because it didn't obliterate all civil authority over religion.
    I post about my dissatisfaction with people argueing constantly and purposelessly over religion and you try again to draw me in? Sorry again, but I don't suffer from the religion bug. You folks who are sure you know what your god would have you do argue among yourselves, leave me out of it.

    But, for the record: I believe freedom 'of' religion must include freedom 'from' religion; whatever anyone believes should be left alone by the government.

    Oh, and for the record: I think you can believe in sacrificing virgins, but I think it's murder if you kidnap a girl and kill her. There's a difference in belief and act.
    People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome.--River Tam

  3. #93
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I'm a Socialist and I live in Dallas County, Texas. Go Cowboys.
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    I I think you can believe in sacrificing virgins, but I think it's murder if you kidnap a girl and kill her.
    It is time enough for the rightful purposes of civil government for its officers to interfere when principles break out into overt acts against peace and good order.

    Involuntary human sacrifice would seem to qualiify as an overt act against peace and good order.

  4. #94
    wolfhunter Guest

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by NDS View Post
    Nobody is frightening enough for me to put them on my 'ignore' list. Mine sits unused. No matter how ridiculous I may feel the drivel that flows from anyone's keyboard, I will either read it or ignore it at my discretion. One thing I've noticed about a fairly substantial group of people on this site is their inability to just let a statement they don't agree with sit. They are so certain that their opinion is the only valid one and their need to proselytize so overwhelming -- they must argue.

    Much of the bickering and open venality here serves no purpose. It would be nice to have this forum address Concealed Carry issues -- including those political topics related to 2nd Amendment rights -- and leave the hatred over religion and other politics for other fora.

    I fear it's rather hopeless to keep any discussion here from being derailed.
    I'll agree and add that I've noticed the opinionated arguers are on BOTH sides of the political and religious aisles. I've noticed a large portion of the threads here have been rife with sniping and arguing lately. I've even caught myself wondering if I should continue visiting and supporting this site, or go find another. I'll admit there have been times that I got caught up in some of this and I'll take this moment to apologize to all the members of this forum.

  5. #95
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    I'm a Socialist and I live in Dallas County, Texas. Go Cowboys.
    Posts
    214

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by HK4U View Post
    The Progressives latched on to the rallying cry “separation of church and state” and have used it to bulldoze over Christians in court
    Nope. You're wrong again.

    The only people who got bulldozed where evil Counterfeit Christians who trespassed on the prerogatives of the Almighty.

  6. #96
    Cocked _and_Locked is offline Parts Maker
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Location
    The High Country
    Posts
    1,029

    Default

    The problem with government and religion in this vein is they are both all about "control" of one thing or another with regard to the people they represent. They are therefore fundamentally in conflict by their very nature. The Virginia legislature recognized this simple fact and tried to get their minds around it.

Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst ... 8910

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •