Conservatives here in the U. S. often claim that our country was founded on Christianity to justify weakening the separation between church and state. Weren't many signers of the Declaration of Independence and early presidents either Unitarians - liberals similar in the belief of one God, undivided - or even atheists? /QUOTE]
Even though you mention the Declaration of In dependence I believe you wanted to say the US Constitution which is the binding document regarding federal, state, and individual rights. I’m not aware of any Conservative philosophy that states the US was founded on Christianity nor any Conservative philosophy that tries to weaken the separation of church and state.
A Conservative would consider the admonishment of the founding fathers i.e., interpret the constitution as they intended it to be interpreted. Their many letters and documents relating to the Constitutional Convention provide a means to interpret their intent. The intent of the founding fathers definitely was to establish and maintain a separation of church and the FEDERAL government. This despite the frequent references to god in their writings. In fact that is one of the powers granted to the individual states. States can dissolve the separation if their state constitutions permit it. As I mentioned in a previous thread, Mass. Had a state sponsored church until about 1840. Citizens were required to support the church via taxation whether they belonged to it or not.
An examination of historical documents reveals that most of the members were religious, some deeply so. I would guess some were atheists, but I don’t know.
What can be gathered from their writings is that all forms of government and law were considered. US law is based on English common law (except Louisiana-Napoleonic Code). English common law was the result of a slow evolution from the god granted powers of the King to the god granted powers of the individual. In this sense, the constitution adhered to a Judeo-Christian heritage. In our Declaration of Independence, some of these rights are called inalienable rights. They are not rights granted to the people by the government, but god given rights to all. These inalienable rights are not granted to us by the constitution but nonetheless, assumed to exist.
I see adherence to J-C ethics as a non-religious adherence to traditional values. It is these traditional values that have allowed our country to achieve greatness. It is these traditional values that Conservatives wish to maintain insofar as they do not conflict with contemporary knowledge.
As an example, at this point in time I am reluctant to consider gay marriage as a constitutional right. If scientific evidence eventually indicates that homosexuality is a genetic trait, I would change my opinion. What one does in privacy should not be a concern to anyone.
I can understand that the statements of some religious leaders may frighten liberals. If these statements indicate there should be a federal government-church connection, the statement would contradict the intent of the constitution.
In essence liberals and conservatives are in agreement re: separation of federal government and church. The issue is really; what can be deemed a violation? Therein lies the rub, and is why we have a Supreme Court. Weren’t the founders clever?[
In regards to states' rights:AFAIK, the states do not have the power to violate the Bill of Rights, whatever racists and Christian bigots would like people to believe.
Did someone sneak in a new government while I wasn’t looking?What GENIERE suggests cannot, under any circumstances, be the intent of our original government.
Geeez Zero I’m glad you told me that. In the upcomming election, I was wondering who I would vote for to represent me in the state legislature. I always assumed they were enacting laws. Now that I know differently I’ll be sure to raise a fuss.States do not have the legal authority to create their own laws as suits the whims of their individual populace
Does that mean you have a freedom I don’t have?On a more general note, I feel that freedom only exists when it extends to us all.
I think this is where I say; I am steadfastly opposed to claiming that America is a Christian nation. Is someone saying otherwise?Claiming to be a country based on principles including religious freedom stands directly oppposed to the claim that America is a Christian nation.
Does that mean that liberals want to get in the lives of people?Further, it stands quarely against the notion of many conservatives, that the government should stay out of the lives of the people.
Geeez Zero I’m glad you told me that. In the upcomming election, I was wondering who I would vote for to represent me in the state legislature. I always assumed they were enacting laws. Now that I know differently I’ll be sure to raise a fuss.
The intent of teh founding fathers was to avoid government/religious entanglement. I also think it is at least as important to look at the entire history of the country, and take a look at the prevailing trend, which is increasing religious freedom by increasing government neutrality.Originally posted by kat
Rage, Zero- Wasn't he speaking of the intent of the founding fathers as opposed to the present status?
As much as it pains me to say it, Geniere, especially since I generally agree with you, you're wrong on this one - worse yet, Zero is right.Originally posted by GENIERE
As the 1st amendment forbids the FEDERAL government from enacting legislation re: religious rights, the power to enact such legislation is given to the states via the 10th amendment.
Maybe Kat, but he's wrong on the intent of the founding fathers. There were of course those who wanted the Constitution as weak as possible, but it wasn't written that way. And maybe its one of those 'might=right' scenarios, but the civil war re-affirmed that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.Rage, Zero- Wasn't he speaking of the intent of the founding fathers as opposed to the present status?
Feel free to come back, of course...your contributions are always welcome!Originally posted by GENIERE
The Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the citizens of the US. Pretty straightforward. Rights are rights for all citizens regardless of what state you live in. The states do not have the power to decrease those rights, only increase them.
Well Russ I’m not sure where I indicated otherwise, but I’m tired of this post and won’t take the time to scan through it.
I attempted to respond to the original post, but Zero’s posts always seem to drag one off topic.
I’m out of this thread.
You could at least pretend not to hate my guts when you post stuff like that...and of course I'm right!Originally posted by russ_watters
As much as it pains me to say it, Geniere, especially since I generally agree with you, you're wrong on this one - worse yet, Zero is right.
So, where do you think the urge comes from to interpret the Constitution to take away freedoms? The most obvious intent of the founding fathers was to support freedom for the people. The separation of church and state is a powerful tool for freedom.Originally posted by Loren Booda
The Constitution was created as a document outlining a government insuring freedom for all citizens of the United States. A citizen is an individual - not a state, church or business. We the People separated from England for autonomy from those institutions: the monarchical heirarchy, the Church of England, or Machiavellian opportunism - whatever form they take.
Fair enough - you must have misspoken then, but eh, it happens. No biggie.Originally posted by GENIERE
Well Russ I’m not sure where I indicated otherwise, but I’m tired of this post and won’t take the time to scan through it.The Bill of Rights exists to protect the rights of the citizens of the US. Pretty straightforward. Rights are rights for all citizens regardless of what state you live in. The states do not have the power to decrease those rights, only increase them.
I attempted to respond to the original post, but Zero’s posts always seem to drag one off topic.
I’m out of this thread.
Unitarianism is a religious movement that emerged during the Protestant Reformation in Europe. It emphasizes the unity of God and rejects the concept of the Trinity, believing that God is a singular being rather than three distinct persons. Unitarianism also places a strong emphasis on individual conscience and the use of reason in matters of faith.
The roots of Unitarianism in America can be traced back to the early 19th century when a group of religious leaders began to question traditional Christian beliefs. These leaders, including William Ellery Channing, rejected the doctrine of the Trinity and advocated for a more rational and individualistic approach to religion. Unitarianism became a prominent movement in New England and eventually spread to other parts of the country.
No, Unitarianism and Universalism are two distinct religious movements that merged in 1961 to form the Unitarian Universalist Association. While both movements share similar beliefs in the unity of God and the importance of individual conscience, Universalism also emphasizes the idea of universal salvation, while Unitarianism does not have a specific stance on the afterlife.
It is difficult to determine the exact number of Unitarians in America as the movement encompasses a diverse range of beliefs and practices. However, it is estimated that there are approximately 1 million Unitarians in the United States, with the majority being members of the Unitarian Universalist Association.
No, America is not a Unitarian nation in the sense that it does not have an official or dominant religion. While Unitarianism has had a significant influence on American religious and social history, the country is known for its religious diversity and separation of church and state. Unitarians make up a small percentage of the overall population and do not hold a dominant position in American society.