Ameritianity - America's Christian Responsibility

Ameritianity Home

NEWTS BILLIONAIRE SUPPORT

OBAMA SOTU 2012

MITT ROMNEY - 2012

ROMNEY ON HIS FAITH

Mitt's Favorite Songs

INCOME OPPORTUNITY

TODAYS DEMOCRAT PARTY

AGENDA 21

An American Coup

Reader Comments

Video Library

The How of Christianity

"Acceptionalism?"

Planned Destruction

Love America?

Business in America

Humanism vs Christianity

Executive Power

IMPEACH? YES!!

HealthCare Part 1

HealthCare Part 2

ROMNEY on Pollution

Muslim Schools & Your Tax

Americanism v. Obama

Obama in El Paso 05.10.11

Obama catches Osama

Blacks Who Love America

Alinsky Praises Obama

Narcissistic Power

Editorial: 03/22/2011

Anti-White Male Programs

The American Flag

HealthCare Compact

2012 Candidates

...and the Bible says...

Educational Freedom

Abortion & Taxpayers

Children of America

George Washington Vision?

Islam v. American Freedom

Immigration

Self-Defense/1 Samuel 17

Support Freedom Alliance

Christian Manifesto

Christian Freedom?

Video Fun?

Editorial 01/25/2011

MLK 2011

Lib-Talkers Video

Black Race Exploiters

Discussions

"No Sharia" say Muslims

Left Honor Christian Left

Liberalism & America 2010

Liberal Christian Speak

Liberalism in the Church

Liberal "Leaders"

Obama 11/02/2010

"Americanism" Defined

Christian Military Family

The Economic Facts

Repeal of ObamaDontCare

Views on the Mosque

More Views on the Mosque

No to Anchor Babies

Billions on "Education?"

Catholic Voters

Lord of The Harvest

The Science of Creation

The DEFICIT Party

What's Happening?

Tired But Never Defeated

Anti-Americans at Work

Our American Heritage

Athiests Lose One

Left's Object of Worship

A Planned Parenthood Loss

"Leak City" 07/30/2010

The Faces of Power?

Obama's Stated Plans

80 Socialists in Congress

Muslim Sharia Law??

Muslim Admission?

Phyllis Schlafly

Patriotism Today

Christian Family News

Kagan Not For Court

President of No Nation

Financial Crisis Facts

Manhattan Declaration

Mount Vernon Statement

The Holy Spirit

Rumors of Armageddon

Mayflower Compact

USA Day of Prayer

Jesus in the O.T.

Abortion & Small Families

Radical/Liberal Rule Book

Christian Nation?

Obama & Christianity

Un-American Activities

Video & Audio

New World Order?

Christianity in the USA

Paradigm

Waterboarding For LIFE

Links

The Muslim & the Blackman

Healthcare & Prosper

"Health?" Care?

Nationalized Healthcare

More Power than President

Latest Obama Appointees

Another Obama Czar

Obama & Educating Kids

Sacrifice for Others

"It Can't Happen Here?"

Arrogance?

No Obama Mandate

Success in the USA

Remembering 9/11

THE Baptist Standard

WBRC

NATIONAL DAY OF PRAYER


Judge rules National Day of Prayer unconstitutional                                        AllianceDefenseFund


written by Ameritianity, April 16, 2010


The letter to the Danbury Baptists was about not establishing a particular "DENOMINATION" as a state "DENOMINATION." The term "RELIGION" had nothing to do with non-Christians at the time. No other world religion was even an issue.

If you are going to quote Thomas Jefferson, why not include these quotations. All too often those who promote the theory of an absolute separation Church and State like to stop at the words themselves. Yet, the founder they most often like to quote is Thomas Jefferson. Jefferson clearly believed our nation is founded on a Christian basis and that the "Freedom of Religion" was freedom to worship the "Creator God" in the way the individual chose. It was about not having "State Denominations" at the exclusion of other Christian Denominations. Here are some additional words of wisdom from Jefferson:

"The Christian religion, when divested of the rags in which they [the clergy AND THOSE WHO SAY THEY SPEAK FOR "BAPTISTS"] have enveloped it, and brought to the original purity and simplicity of it's benevolent institutor, is a religion of all others most friendly to liberty, science, and the freest expansion of the human mind." --Thomas Jefferson to Moses Robinson, 1801. ME 10:237

"Among the most inestimable of our blessings, also, is that... of liberty to worship our Creator in the way we think most agreeable to His will; a liberty deemed in other countries incompatible with good government and yet proved by our experience to be its best support." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to John Thomas et al., 1807. ME 16:291

"Religion, as well as reason, confirms the soundness of those principles on which our government has been founded and its rights asserted." --Thomas Jefferson to P. H. Wendover, 1815. ME 14:283

To further deny the theory of "Absolute Separation of Church and State," others stated that the laws of government applied to religious groups too:

"The declaration that religious faith shall be unpunished does not give immunity to criminal acts dictated by religious error." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1788. ME 7:98

"If anything pass in a religious meeting seditiously and contrary to the public peace, let it be punished in the same manner and no otherwise than as if it had happened in a fair or market." --Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Religion, 1776. Papers 1:548

Even in Texas, our Constitution invokes "Almighty God" and "religious Denominations."

TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Preamble.

Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State of Texas, do ordain and establish this Constitution.

Article I, section 4.

No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

Article I, section 6.

All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent. No human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any religious society or mode of worship. But it shall be the duty of the Legislature to pass such laws as may be necessary to protect equally every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship.

"RELIGION" at the time of the founding of our nation was "Worshiping Almighty God." It is the Liberal Progressiveness of such terms that has created so much confusion. Simply use the original meaning of "Christian Denomination" in place of "Religion" and things become very clear.


written by Ameritianity, April 16, 2010
"...forbidden "religious" tests for public office..."

Once again, replace your present definition of "Religion" with "Christian Denomination" and the arguement goes away. Also, while there is not constitutional "religious test," certainly the people have the right to know what a candidates beliefs are before voting for him.

As to Muslims, surely the "Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion" would not apply to a "Religion" that neither supports our Constitution (they promote sharia law) nor the concept of "Freedom of Religion."


written by Ameritianity, April 17, 2010
You are a victim (Liberals love to find or create a victim) of that child’s game where they stand in a line, whisper something in the ear of the person next to them, and so on, until you get to the end of the line and what the person says is much different than what was originally spoken.

You ignore the obvious. Immediately upon the work of the Constitutional Convention and the First Congress, our nation had prayer in Congress, we had prayer in public school, we had Christmas and Easter holidays, we participated in Christmas plays in school, we had chaplains in the military who were free to pray in Jesus Name, Sunday was a day of rest and most business rested. All states at one time had laws that recognized that killing unborn babies was obviously evil. Pastors could freely speak without fear of attack by the IRS over a "CODE" that no one voted for and which clearly violates our Constitution.

“…shall not be established by…” … another phrase that you fail to define. “Recognition of the existence of” is not the “establishment of.” Christianity was not “established” by government. Baptists, Methodists, Catholics, . . . none were established by government. Our Founding Fathers “recognized the existence of” the Supreme Being of God. It is "self-evident." They “recognized” that the founding settlers of our nation shared the religion of Christianity and the issue at the time was that of the question of “establishing” a dominant “Christian Denomination” nationally or at the state level. Even the letter to the Danbury Baptists address Catholicism v. Non-Catholics.

Even the Mayflower Compact mentions “the advancement of the Christian Faith.” Our founding documents speak of the “endowment of our Creator,” “Devine Providence,” “And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.”

You would have us believe that 150 to 200 years of the American Experience was wrong and that only in the past few years, with the rise of Liberal/Progressivism in politics and religion, we have come to realize the “REAL and CORRECT” interpretation of the Bible and the USA. And, we have allowed those who share your perspective to control the discussion for many years. Those days are over.

Perhaps you and your followers should rise up and seek to overthrow the prohibition against murder, rape, libel, slander, theft, burglary and other law.



Gene, how will you handle the Muslim demand which is taking place in Europe today?
written by Ameritianity, April 17, 2010
As to Muslims, surely the "Constitutional Right to Freedom of Religion" would not apply to a "Religion" that neither supports our Constitution (they promote sharia law) nor the concept of "Freedom of Religion."

Gene...interesting use of another word...
written by Ameritianity, April 17, 2010
"commandments in the Constitution" . . . trying to get us used to a new progressive view of the Constitution by implying that it contains "commandments" as if it is Biblical? It is interesting that just in the past 35-50 years has the Liberal/Progressive interpretation seemed to get any traction and now you want to make it appear that what you have gained cannot be dismissed or reversed because we are now dealing with "commandments."


READ THE ENTIRE DISCUSSION







Do you have a testimony, essay, or story that you would like to share? Click below to send it to Ameritianity.


SEND E-MAIL

FREEDOM OF ASSEMBLY AND SPEECH

© 2008-2011 Ameritianity.com


FAIR USE NOTICE: For all videos and anything used on this site by "Ameritianity:" "This blog or any content herein or on our facebook site may contain copyrighted material. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. This constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit. This blog does not always agree with certain personal views of the published authors, but I will overlook such views many times in order to gain knowledge from the more important subject matter of the article/op-ed."