Original intent?

45degreeN · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:04 am Post subject: Original intent?

As a student of the American history, I agree with those who point out that each of the original colonies had their own state sponsored churches. That the consitutional prohibition was a states rights issue not a separation of church and state issue. Many states had religious requirements for office holders. Now of course they dont.

America in the early years was far different than it is today, the individual states were far more contentious than they are today. They saw themsleves as a union of states primarily, not as a single union. Since the civil war states rights have been gradually etched away in favor of federalism.

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 8:16 am Post subject: Re: Original intent?

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6901 Location: USA

P1234567890 · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 1:15 pm Post subject:

FFT · Posted: Sun Dec 17, 2006 4:42 pm Post subject:

"de facto" basically means "in reality."

In reality, non-Christians are not going to get elected president. I wouldn't be surprised to see some progress on Governorship seeing as a Muslim managed to get elected to the Senate (which of course on its own knocked the Rapture Index up quite a bit Laughing

).
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6901 Location: USA

P1234567890 · Posted: Mon Dec 18, 2006 12:07 pm Post subject:

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6901 Location: USA

I suppose it would depend on how you define 'christian' P123.

It seems to be a theme on this board for people to throw around the word 'christian' to describe anyone or anything that ever even thought of, mentioned, heard about, or brushed up against the word 'christ'.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

FFT · Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 1:31 pm Post subject:

The only relevant definition of Christian, in this case, is that which the majority of Americans use. Feel free to use whatever definition you like, it's irrelevant.
_________________
When Science was in its crib, Religion tried to strangle it. When Science was in its infancy, Religion tried to abuse it. Now that Science is grown up, Religion wants to be in its good graces.

Theology is philosophy/ethics for people who already know what conclusion they want to come to.

RevJP · Moderator Joined: 18 Apr 2003 Posts: 6901 Location: USA

That is your opinion FFT, which is itself irrelevant.

The definition of 'Christian' is entirely releveant to those who are really Christians, particularly when being lumped together with those who are not truely Christian.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog

Ana · Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 2:37 pm Post subject:

It's a theme on this board for people to want 'a man of God' in the president's chair - the reality is, a very large proportion of Americans feel this way too. This, I believe, is what P is talking about. Maybe some people are more specific and want a 'Lutheran' in the chair (if there is a candidate who advertises him/herself as such), or a 'Presbyterian', or whatever, but I think most simply prefer any Christian in the chair ('Christian', in this case, referring to one who professes belief in the teachings of Jesus Christ).
_________________
Truth doesn't care about theology, and theology doesn't care about truth.

FFT · Posted: Tue Dec 19, 2006 3:22 pm Post subject:

45degreeN · Posted: Thu Dec 21, 2006 12:56 pm Post subject: Original intent

Prior to the consitution, all the governors were in fact some form of Reformed Christian and after the constitution was adopted the state requirements lost their force in favor of the federal rules which barred religious tests and such.

The point is that the so called separation of church and state was really more like the differrences between the state requirements [each state had their own accepted religion]and the federal lack of requirements. There was never an original intent to bar religious expressions by the federal government just forbidding it from taking its own choice of religions and making it a rule.