• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Why Jefferson wrote "separation of Church and State"

if so why not show the proof???

It's all here in these last few pages. WHy are you asking for that humiliation to be reposted?
 
the none at all was not a consideration since that vast majority were church goers


A lot of the reason they were church-goers is because it was accepted during that time. And plus, they were able to separate the church family from a set of beliefs. For example, look at Thomas Jefferson, he actually wrote his own version of the New Testament, the "Jefferson Bible," which you can find online to read for free if you like. Jefferson thought the persona known as Jesus was a great teacher and leader -- but Jefferson did not believe Jesus was anything other than a man. The Jefferson Bible makes that quite clear. And Jefferson was pretty typical of other "leaders" of his time -- they were beginning to leave religion behind -- at least the part that concerned the hocus-pocus and magical stuff. There's no Resurrection in Jefferson's bible. They put the body of Jesus in the cave, roll the stone into place and then walk away. That's it.

Those men from that era -- the era of Enlightenment -- were leaving theism behind. That's when the movement started, even if it didn't mature all that quickly.

Yes, some of them were atheist -- Paine almost definitely -- but others as well. To understand that, you need to study what atheism really is. Buddhists are atheists. Many of the Founders were atheists as well.
 
It's all here in these last few pages. WHy are you asking for that humiliation to be reposted?

yes i'm sure anyone can find it in the last few pages!! IF someone does let them show it to us
 
A lot of the reason they were church-goers is because it was accepted during that time. And plus, they were able to separate the church family from a set of beliefs. For example, look at Thomas Jefferson, he actually wrote his own version of the New Testament, the "Jefferson Bible," which you can find online to read for free if you like. Jefferson thought the persona known as Jesus was a great teacher and leader -- but Jefferson did not believe Jesus was anything other than a man. The Jefferson Bible makes that quite clear. And Jefferson was pretty typical of other "leaders" of his time -- they were beginning to leave religion behind -- at least the part that concerned the hocus-pocus and magical stuff. There's no Resurrection in Jefferson's bible. They put the body of Jesus in the cave, roll the stone into place and then walk away. That's it.

Those men from that era -- the era of Enlightenment -- were leaving theism behind. That's when the movement started, even if it didn't mature all that quickly.

Yes, some of them were atheist -- Paine almost definitely -- but others as well. To understand that, you need to study what atheism really is. Buddhists are atheists. Many of the Founders were atheists as well.

no idea what your subject or point is?? If you figure it out and it relates to topic please let us know.
 
who said that???

You did. Somehow this discussion on natural rights got into a discussion of who created morality. Jesus did not create morality for me that is for certain.
 
translation: As typical liberal I lost debate so will try to change subject to grammar

Grammar laws, moral laws, .... these are all social constructs. Some people just like to project them to their god/gods. But that's not where they come from.
 
You did. Somehow this discussion on natural rights got into a discussion of who created morality. Jesus did not create morality for me that is for certain.

He also claimed that people are only moral due to Christianity.
 
no idea what your subject or point is?? If you figure it out and it relates to topic please let us know.

It related to your comment that the "vast majority were church-goers." I was explaining how that wasn't relevant.
 
without 1A the govt would have been able to prevent free exercise, thus less religion not more. See how easy that was?
That leads to the conclusion that the U.S is more religious than Iran. I don’t think you want to make that claim, do you?
 
That leads to the conclusion that the U.S is more religious than Iran. I don’t think you want to make that claim, do you?

nobody mentioned Iran, let alone said US was more religious. Insanity?
 
nobody mentioned Iran, let alone said US was more religious. Insanity?

Your claim was that free exercise of religion leads to more religion than lack of free exercise. By that logic, the U.S, which has free exercise, should be more religious than Iran, which does not.

Since Iran is far more religious than the U.S, then your claim does not hold. Understand?
 
Your claim was that free exercise of religion leads to more religion than lack of free exercise. By that logic, the U.S, which has free exercise, should be more religious than Iran, which does not.

Since Iran is far more religious than the U.S, then your claim does not hold. Understand?
Keep in mind you are using liberal logic so how good can the logic be? free exercise of religion like free TV leads to more within the same country. If Iran had free exercise they would have more too. But this does not mean you can compare the amount in each country since they have vastly different religious histories.
 
.....or any religion to use the government, to support its own ends, but rather to keep the two spheres separate.

Wow. So many ideas as what could have occurred in the 1800s. I thought that The Established Churches were being granted funds for their Church numbers and as Immigration became part of the U.S around that time, many Churches were using attendance numbers to receive more Government assistance. This the Churches were doing not for sincere Godly reasons but for funding reasons. And so, Mr. Jefferson addressed this to which the Establishment Clause was amended into The U.S Constitition... That Congress shall not assist any 1 particular Church or religion, even though, like you said, Congretionalism was The Established Faith/Religion in The U.S.
 
Wow. So many ideas as what could have occurred in the 1800s. I thought that The Established Churches were being granted funds for their Church numbers and as Immigration became part of the U.S around that time, many Churches were using attendance numbers to receive more Government assistance.
Where did you get that idea? In the states with an official church, taxes to support that church were general taxes, not tied to attendance. And I am not aware of tax monies going to churches in states without an official religion and certainly not based on attendance. If such a thing did occur (and I have no idea if any state did it that way) it certainly was not true of most states.


And so, Mr. Jefferson addressed this to which the Establishment Clause was amended into The U.S Constitition...
Jefferson was in France and had no involvement with the Constitution or its amendments.
Congress shall not assist any 1 particular Church or religion, even though, like you said, Congretionalism was The Established Faith/Religion in The U.S.
I said no such thing. Congregationalism was the official religion of Connecticut. Most other states did not have an established church and certainly not the U.S. as a whole.
 
Jefferson was in France and had no involvement with the Constitution or its amendments.

.

Well, Madison was very important to Constitution and he was mentored by Jefferson all his life.
 
It doesn't matter what Jefferson thought. He was absolutely outraged when the Supreme Court declared it was an all powerful lifelong oligarchy for which all elected officials, including the President and Congress, and everyone and everything are all subordinate and inferior to the self-declared final and infinite authority of the Supreme Court. The reason cited by the Supreme Court? BRITISH LAW, not the US Constitution.

Everyone now accepts that we do not really have 3 equal branches of government. There is 1 branch of government with absolute authority over all other levels of government and democracy and legislative process are only are relevant or are as irrelevant as the self-assigned demigods of the Supreme Court dictate.
 
It doesn't matter what Jefferson thought. He was absolutely outraged when the Supreme Court declared it was an all powerful lifelong oligarchy for which all elected officials, including the President and Congress, and everyone and everything are all subordinate and inferior to the self-declared final and infinite authority of the Supreme Court. The reason cited by the Supreme Court? BRITISH LAW, not the US Constitution.

Everyone now accepts that we do not really have 3 equal branches of government. There is 1 branch of government with absolute authority over all other levels of government and democracy and legislative process are only are relevant or are as irrelevant as the self-assigned demigods of the Supreme Court dictate.

Wow. Pretty much everything you said there was wrong. Kind of impressive.

If you want to start a thread. Bout Marbury v Madison, i’ll Be happy to discuss it with you there.
 
Everyone now accepts that we do not really have 3 equal branches of government. There is 1 branch of government with absolute authority over all other levels of government and democracy and legislative process are only are relevant or are as irrelevant as the self-assigned demigods of the Supreme Court dictate.

Well, its really not that bad although it's true that he who interprets the law(SCOTUS) writes the law. But they seem to appreciate the idea of separation of powers. And, if they violated it too much executive and legislative could take action for sure. Mostly whats happened is the country has drifted left and so has the SCOTUS which has made it easier for executive and legislative branches to avoid the political fallout by letting SCOTUS take some of the heat for rubber stamping the leftward drift.
 
Well, its really not that bad although it's true that he who interprets the law(SCOTUS) writes the law. But they seem to appreciate the idea of separation of powers. And, if they violated it too much executive and legislative could take action for sure. Mostly whats happened is the country has drifted left and so has the SCOTUS which has made it easier for executive and legislative branches to avoid the political fallout by letting SCOTUS take some of the heat for rubber stamping the leftward drift.

Nonsense. Marbury v Madison is 215 years old and the Republican party has controlled the Supreme Court since 1969.
 
Nonsense. Marbury v Madison is 215 years old and the Republican party has controlled the Supreme Court since 1969.

No idea what your point is??How could Republicans control it with 4 liberals and one centrist???
 
Where did you get that idea? In the states with an official church, taxes to support that church were general taxes, not tied to attendance. And I am not aware of tax monies going to churches in states without an official religion and certainly not based on attendance. If such a thing did occur (and I have no idea if any state did it that way) it certainly was not true of most states.



Jefferson was in France and had no involvement with the Constitution or its amendments.

I said no such thing. Congregationalism was the official religion of Connecticut. Most other states did not have an established church and certainly not the U.S. as a whole.

I meant Mr. Franklin.

But within each State, there surely was not a large number of individual churches prior to the revival eras. And if church was being funded by 'taxes' then surely the ones with the more attendees would be the ones that would not 'go under'. It was competition for the church doors to remain open. And the way it would remain open was based on 'newly arriving' attendees. And besides the fact that one Church could receive the majority of attendees to which larger facilities could be provisioned for, the newly arriving were also bringing with them the spirit to 'revive' as these new comers were as sparks in the dark. They were the 'new' fashionistas in the U.S. And so as the U.S was becoming Internationalized by the newly arriving Europeans and others, they began losing their focus on why they left England in the first place, which was to be focused around The Word of God and its' principles and to be separated from the corruption of Parliament vs- Monarchy. And as they were being dazzled by the newly arriving and as they sought to offer 'entertainment' and hospitality, they began losing their Holy Biblical principles towards and when dealing with 'others', the strangers. As they began to be more joyful for 'visitors' they began to let go of Constitutional values towards one another to which Mr. Franklin suggested the separation of Church and State. State was to remain Government while Church could be caught up in the wave of revivalism to the which even 'pagan' religions began entering in. And what would have occurred if these 'pagan' religions or faiths needed funding from the Government? And out of this revival swarming and frenzy, came the likes of the Free lover movements and the literature associated with them.

-

American feminist Victoria Woodhull (1838–1927), the first woman to run for presidency in the U.S. in 1872, was also called "the high priestess of free love". In 1871, Woodhull wrote: "Yes, I am a Free Lover. I have an inalienable, constitutional and natural right to love whom I may, to love as long or as short a period as I can; to change that love every day if I please, and with that right neither you nor any law you can frame have any right to interfere".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_love


To 'love' whom I want...
to love as long or short as I want
or even to change that love every day
if I want??


This was definitely NOT traditional U.S standards pre revival and pre Establishment Clause.

When The British people got word of what their 'separatists' which separated from England were doing, they were shocked in aghast and couldn't even form any words to describe the 'lowness' the separatists got themselves into.


They were witnessing just how deep human depravity could be and not to mention the Napoleanic wars which was occurring which was promoting Napolean's idea of atheism within France and other places.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom