Wonderful. Let's just get down to the real issues in our Republican debates. We can re-live the early Christian debates (more like battles and wars) over the nature of the Trinity and the incarnation, among other issues. In the 4th, 5th, and 6th century, you could find your self very dead, in a painful way, for coming down on the wrong side of those issues. We could have wars over it all, too. There were some great religous wars during and after the Reformation. The Inquisition was fun, too, and you would be burned at the stake if you didn't have your catechism just so.

It seems as if some of our politicians and religous leaders want to bring all of that back. Why? What is there to gain?

Our founding fathers tried their best to get religion out of politics and government, and it was for a very good reason. They had recent experience, which we seem to have forgotten. Read Madison's "Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religous Assessments", Jefferson's "Bill for Establishing Religous Freeedom in the State of Virginia" or Wahsington's letter to the Newport Hebrew Congregation (google will find them) to see what the FF thought and why,

For the deadly debates in the early chuch, see Gibbon's incomparable Chapter 47 in the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire". Gibbon is the master of sarcasm and irony and presents a memorable survey of the silliness.

Do we really want to go back to all of that? I don't think so.

Unfortunately, this seems to be where the Republican party is headed.

But forget the early Church - I'm more concerned that the Christian Right is taking it's cues from the Thirty Years War and the Inquisition.

I think the whole "holier than thou" stuff should be banned from the debates, of both parties. It is actually a dangerous, very un-American direction.

I will continue to take my inspiration from the founding fathers. If you have not read those items from Jefferson, Madison, and Washington, I highly recommend them They are also great ammunition the next time you get into a "discussion" with one of these over-the-top "religous" types. They never have a good answer and are usually stunned.

"For the deadly debates in the early chuch, see Gibbon's incomparable Chapter 47 in the "Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire"."

Its obvious that you've never studied Gibbon, or you would know the difference between wit and sarcasm.

and lots of sarcasm. sometimes they occur in one sentence or one footnote.

Have you read that chapter recently? What do you think of it? What would you say about Gibbon's opinion of the early church, or, for that matter, the more modern church and its doctrines? I'd love to hear, as you imply you know a bit.

I just finished it. I'm no scholar, but I have been through D&F twice.

"Have you read that chapter recently?"

I wrote my Masters Thesis for 18th century Political Theory on the book.

I know what Gibbon is saying and why he says it.

He uses wit to have fun, but he is not being sarcastic. Furthermore, he is clearly talking only about the Eastern Church at the time and an internal struggle that caused warfare between some of the congregations.

True, but I think the key issue here is the idea of freeedom FROM religion.

Religiosity in government is itself idestructive. Having lived in the Middle East, I can think of no worse existence than life under an inevitably corrupt theocracy. A checklist for psychosis, cult membership or religious fervor would have many of the same questions, e.g. Does God speak to you, Do you follow a prophet guided by God, Is your path the only one approved by God, etc.

Religion is not helpful in elected officials seeking to govern a pluralistic society that includes agnotics, atheists, and believers of all sorts. If we go down the slippery slope of introducing religion rather than competence as a criterion for election, we can easily end up in a Christian version of the Taliban rule of Afghanistan,

BAPTIST VERSION OF THE BOOK OF MORMON by a Baptist preacher

EARLY CHURCH SHOCKERS, NO TRINITY, NO CANNON , NO RAPTURE

UNTIL THE NON- CHRISTIAN ROMAN GOVERNER in about 235 ad

Protestant Doctrines within the Book of Mormon.
<link> ... ofbofm.htm
…Born Again Experience, …Plan of Salvation
…Plan of Redemption, …Salvation
…The Lord Jesus Christ, …Repentance
…Faith , …Grace
BOM has no words that contradicts the Bible
<link>
What a book!

Never cared for Gibbon myself. IMHO, one learns more about the prejudices of Victorian England than one does about the decline and fall of the Roman Empire. Might as well read Quo Vadis.

That said, I really wish the Republicans would drop the religious kick they're on and re-embrace the wonders of the Enlightenment political philosophy that our nation is based on. When presidential candidates openly state that the Constitution needs to be altered to conform to the standards of a Hebrew tribal deity... and he continues to be taken seriously, that's a problem. Stand by for book burnings.

Did you know that 52 of the 55 signers of "The Declaration of Independence" were orthodox, deeply committed, Christians? The other three all believed in the Bible as the divine truth, the God of scripture, and His personal intervention. It is the same Congress that formed the American Bible Society, and after creating the Declaration of Independence, the Continental Congress voted to purchase and import 20,000 copies of Scripture to be used in the schools?

See, Thomas Jefferson told the Danbury Baptists that the First Amendment erected a wall of “separation between the church and the state”.

We only get a part of what Jefferson really said. The guy who started the conversation, Thomas Jefferson, was passing on a half-truth. Jefferson had no part in the writing of the Constitution. During the time when Madison, the Father of the Constitution, was putting together this remarkable document, Jefferson was in Europe. Although I am sure that Madison had some idea of Jefferson’s beliefs, the fact is, Jefferson had zero influence on what appeared in the Bill of Rights, and certainly no first-hand knowledge of the discussions.

When the Danbury Baptists wrote to Jefferson who was then President, concerning their fear of a government established denomination, the game of “telephone” began. Jefferson responded to the Baptists with what he believed the 1st Amendment said. Hear-say evidence at best, in-admissible in a court of law.

Although not all of those quoted below signed the document, the fact remains that they were all instrumental in the chartering of this Christian nation. Four US Presidents are quoted below and none of them held the same view that Jefferson purportedly promoted. What, in Hugo Black’s mind, made Jefferson’s “opinion” carry such weight? Could he have had an agenda?

John Adams--- Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

John Quincy Adams-- “The Law given from Sinai [The Ten Commandments] was a civil and municipal as well as a moral and religious code.”

Charles Carroll - signer of the Declaration of Independence -" Without morals a republic cannot subsist any length of time; they therefore who are decrying the Christian religion, whose morality is so sublime and pure...are undermining the solid foundation of morals, the best security for the duration of free governments."

In Benjamin Franklin's 1749 plan of education for public schools in Pennsylvania, he insisted that schools teach "the excellency of the Christian religion above all others, ancient or modern."

Patrick Henry-- “It cannot be emphasized too clearly and too often that this nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason, peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.”

James Madison--Father of the Constitution “We have staked the whole future of American civilization, not upon the power of government, far from it. We’ve staked the future of all our political institutions upon our capacity…to sustain ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.”

John Jay --“ Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers.”

Jedidiah Morse-- "To the kindly influence of Christianity we owe that degree of civil freedom, and political and social happiness which mankind now enjoys. . . . Whenever the pillars of Christianity shall be overthrown, our present republican forms of government, and all blessings which flow from them, must fall with them."

Benjamin Rush-- “I lament that we waste so much time and money in punishing crimes and take so little pains to prevent them…we neglect the only means of establishing and perpetuating our republican forms of government; that is, the universal education of our youth in the principles of Christianity by means of the Bible; for this Divine Book, above all others, constitutes the soul of republicanism. Let the children who are sent to those schools be taught to read and write and above all, let both sexes be carefully instructed in the principles and obligations of the Christian religion. This is the most essential part of education” The great enemy of the salvation of man, in my opinion, never invented a more effectual means of extirpating [removing] Christianity from the world than by persuading mankind that it was improper to read the Bible at schools."

Joseph Story-- At the time of the adoption of the constitution, and of the amendment to it, now under consideration [i.e., the First Amendment], the general, if not the universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the state, so far as was not incompatible with the private rights of conscience, and the freedom of religious worship.”

“I verily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . There never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying its foundations.”

“The real object of the (First) Amendment was not to countenance, much less advance, Mohammedanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects (denominations).”

Noah Webster-- In my view, the Christian religion is the most important and one of the first things in which all children, under a free government ought to be instructed...No truth is more evident to my mind than that the Christian religion must be the basis of any government intended to secure the rights and privileges of a free people.”

"The moral principles and precepts contained in the scriptures ought to form the basis of all our civil constitutions and laws. . . All the miseries and evils which men suffer from vice, crime, ambition, injustice, oppression, slavery, and war, proceed from their despising or neglecting the precepts contained in the Bible."

Robert Winthrop, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled either by a power within them or by a power without them; either by the Word of God or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or by the bayonet."

Samuel Adams--Let...statesmen and patriots unite their endeavors to renovate the age by...educating their little boys and girls...and leading them in the study and practice of the exalted virtues of the Christian system."

John Marshall--"The American population is entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer to it, and exhibit relations with it."

George Washington-- It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and Bible.”

James Wilson, Signer of the Constitution; U. S. Supreme Court Justice, "Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of that law which is divine. . . . Far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. Indeed, these two sciences run into each other."

Case Dismissed.

Bullshit. Most of the founders were Deists.

In any event, society has moved on. May we please leave tribal superstitions in the past now? Believe as you wish. I'd never dream of stopping you. But if you or your kind ever attempt to force me to accept your faith, or even tell me what books I can't read, there will be violence. Lots of it.

That's freedom. I can say no. And I do.

So now we know you don't support the constitution of this nation.....

Did I say anything about "forcing you to accept my faith" or " saying what you "can't read"....NO

But you can't stop me from sharing my faith, if you want to reject it that is your problem....I have done my part....

And don't mistake being Christian with being passive......
that would be one of the biggest mistakes you made....

So you accept the re-write of history over the evedence provided.

I support the Constitution very much. In fact, my job is to murder people who threaten it. But the Constitution is based in the Greco-Roman democratic/republican tradition filtered through the lens of the Renaissance and Enlightenment. It draws next to nothing from the Bible, but does owe a great debt to the pagan Athenians who invented the institution of democracy.

And while I'd like to believe that Christians wouldn't force conversion or burn books once they gained the kind of political power that they seek, the history of your faith proves otherwise. You misunderstand me if you think I believe you to be passive. My fear is that you'd all become the same intolerant, murderous bastards that you've been for the majority of your history. My fear is that you'd turn the United States into another Northern Ireland, another Bosnia, another Middle East. That's what happens when monotheistic religions take political power. Freedom is NEVER a guarantee under a theocracy. More often than not, it is the first thing burned at the stake.

Hence, I support a strong seperation between church and state as an excellent step in ensuring maximum freedom for the greatest number. I would much rather have my government held accountable to the people than to a Magical Man in the Sky.

Nothing in the above means that I would deny you your faith. Quite the contrary. Like a true freedom-loving American, I may disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it. That's what I get paid for, after all. :-) I just don't think you'd extend me the same courtesy, when it came right down to it.