That's because the money those parents would have used to educate their children were already paid to the government school with their property tax bill. Parents who send their children to a private school or home school have to pay the government school regardless.Originally Posted by Clapton is God
Rules for men:
1. Give as little as possible. 2. Take as much as possible.
3. Always have an exit. 4. Enjoy your life to the fullest.
I'm actually a fan of Roger Williams. I prefer his liberty of conscience over the term that is primarily used now days which is tolerance. Tolerance implies that the majority view is going to allow a particular minority view while William's liberty of conscience leaves that between the individual and his/her creator or to the individual alone. No view needs to be tolerated because they each are free. I think today's mainstream evangelicals could use a good dose of christian thinkers of that era like Roger Williams.
You may have already read this, but James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is a classic out of the same school of thought.
Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
the USSC applied the bill of rights to the states thru incorporation.
the bill of rights originally did not apply to states
I still don't understand why they can't teach their children the Bible at home and at church. Is the church failing and needs the government to step in? I don't understand this. Why does the government have to do it? Also what theological position is going to be taught? Should the Koran also be taught in school as fact because muslims pay taxes too? How is this different from taking public taxes for the Church of England? People are being taxed for it who don't subscribe to those views.
The other post someone had regarding Roger William's liberty of conscience is perfect for this.
I was attending a Baptist Church and began to research the beginning of the Church after reading Letters To The Editir from three Pastors. One stating there was no separation, the other two saying there was.I'm actually a fan of Roger Williams. I prefer his liberty of conscience over the term that is primarily used now days which is tolerance. Tolerance implies that the majority view is going to allow a particular minority view while William's liberty of conscience leaves that between the individual and his/her creator or to the individual alone. No view needs to be tolerated because they each are free. I think today's mainstream evangelicals could use a good dose of christian thinkers of that era like Roger Williams.
You may have already read this, but James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is a classic out of the same school of thought.
Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
I have always been a strong believer of separation. I knew I was in the wrong Church. They do not follow what Roger Williams and I knew. Not all Baptist Churches are the same and they have a great division at the Baptist Convention.
I will read your article. Thanks
They can teach their children at home,or in the Church. That is why they are tax exempt.. They should lose that status if they cross over into Politics.
We had a huge expose here in our newspaper in the last Presidentila election.
We have Freedom Of Religion.
I'm actually a fan of Roger Williams. I prefer his liberty of conscience over the term that is primarily used now days which is tolerance. Tolerance implies that the majority view is going to allow a particular minority view while William's liberty of conscience leaves that between the individual and his/her creator or to the individual alone. No view needs to be tolerated because they each are free. I think today's mainstream evangelicals could use a good dose of christian thinkers of that era like Roger Williams.
You may have already read this, but James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance is a classic out of the same school of thought.
Amendment I (Religion): James Madison, Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments
Thank you, I not only read the article, but saved it. From what I have seen in so many Churches is the very reason so many are failing, while others are thriving. Those who are accepting the Freedom are thriving,while those who insist on a rigid Dogma,( My way or else,) are losing not only the young, but families,too.
I have spent the last couple of years visiting different Churches. The one I now attend just finished a One Church series where they had Leaders from different Churches come in to discuss how much we think alike. We had a Nigerian Pastor, Missionary and the Pastor's wife. You should hear what they go through. It was truly a learning lesson.
All true.
Ouch. No. The Church of England was the official Church in Virginia from 1619 until 1789 when the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom abolished it. The Baptist movement was not prominent among the wealthy and did not become widespread until the early 19th century. It was never the official Church of any state.States like the Commonwealth of Virginia had official state religion of Baptist a long time ago.
Therefore, since the world has still/Much good, but much less good than ill,
And while the sun and moon endure/Luck's a chance, but trouble's sure,
I'd face it as a wise man would,/And train for ill and not for good.
The concept was from it's inception to keep the gov't out of the Church. It was never to keep the Church out of the gov't. The examples of the Church being an accepted part of our gov't are numerous and widespread across most of the first 150 years of this nation's existence. The idea that the Church is to be excluded from gov't is a recent invention that is not reflective of what the Constitution was clearly stating. The problem that the Revisionists have is that when the Constitution was written, no one thought that anyone whould be so dumb as to have to have this stuff spelled out to them at the level of detail that's needed to day. We can look back at how our nation functioned in cooperation with the Church and see crystal clear evidence that the Church was a strong influence on our gov't and that efforts by the gov't to interfere with the Church were expressly fought against. The Danbury Letters show this with incredible clarity.
Our nation has not always lived up to its ideals, yet those ideals have never ceased to guide us. They expose our flaws, and lead us to mend them. We are the beneficiaries of the work of the generations before us and it is each generation's responsibility to continue that work. - Laura Bush
I was raised Baptist, but in college I had the opportunity to study under a professor who had her PhD in 17th Century political thought from Cambridge. I definitely learned a lot from studying under her. All Baptists are definitely not the same. Primitive Baptists and others are quite different from Southern Baptists, but there are obviously many profound differences from the Christianity that came out of the reformation and modern evangelicals.
The reformed thinkers read the Bible differently. For example, the orthodox Presbyterian Church and Presbyterian Church in America still place an emphasis on church government, covenant theology, and philosophy. Federalism is basically taken from the idea of the covenant. These thoughts are still in many churches, but not many. "God has a plan for your life" and "Jesus died for your sins" is about as deep as it gets for many of the Joel Osteen and Charles Stanley type denominations. Can you even compare Joel Osteen to guys like John Calvin, Roger Williams, and these guys? lol
I"m advocating any church and don't attend myself. I'm just pointing out the differences and the historical influences.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
