|
Post by stevec on Dec 2, 2015 23:35:08 GMT -6
lol, Ken, your claims are ridiculous and without historical merit.
Name one act by the British that restricted freedom of religion?
With so many Christian sects in the colonies, we were protecting ourselves from eachother, that's why freedom of religion was #1 in the Bill of rights.
Name one single founding father or prominent person, for that matter, killed for religious reasons during the Revolution?
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 5, 2015 19:22:21 GMT -6
Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. So, with the stroke of a keyboard you think redress and freedom of speech and freedom of religion are not connected? Your narrow view of restriction as a reason is too narrow in my IMO loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel03.htmlThey are intricately intertwined we all are learning here
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 7, 2015 22:22:17 GMT -6
Again Ken, any religious connection to The Revolution was purely for political and propaganda purposes. If you think it was a noble cause, go right ahead. Again, you have not provided a single instance where the British infringed on religious rights or harmed anyone for their religious beliefs.
The ironic thing is that the religious protections in the Constitution were put there to protect Christians from other Christians. It was motivated by Christian persecution of fellow Christians in Europe and by religious divides in the colonies. So much for your noble cause, it doesn't paint a pretty picture - Christians fearful and suspicious of other Christians.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 9, 2015 20:42:19 GMT -6
Again Ken, any religious connection to The Revolution was purely for political and propaganda purposes. If you think it was a noble cause, go right ahead. Again, you have not provided a single instance where the British infringed on religious rights or harmed anyone for their religious beliefs. The ironic thing is that the religious protections in the Constitution were put there to protect Christians from other Christians. It was motivated by Christian persecution of fellow Christians in Europe and by religious divides in the colonies. So much for your noble cause, it doesn't paint a pretty picture - Christians fearful and suspicious of other Christians. I quoted from the Library of Congress which declares how the Christian faith was intricately intertwined with the revolution. If you don't want to accept it, I can't help you. Again... Certainly there wasn't a form for redress of grievances and I believe that the rest are just as important and are intertwined with each other.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 10, 2015 8:13:30 GMT -6
Again Ken, any religious connection to The Revolution was purely for political and propaganda purposes. If you think it was a noble cause, go right ahead. Again, you have not provided a single instance where the British infringed on religious rights or harmed anyone for their religious beliefs. The ironic thing is that the religious protections in the Constitution were put there to protect Christians from other Christians. It was motivated by Christian persecution of fellow Christians in Europe and by religious divides in the colonies. So much for your noble cause, it doesn't paint a pretty picture - Christians fearful and suspicious of other Christians. I quoted from the Library of Congress which declares how the Christian faith was intricately intertwined with the revolution. If you don't want to accept it, I can't help you. Again... Certainly there wasn't a form for redress of grievances and I believe that the rest are just as important and are intertwined with each other. That included in the Constittution tp prevent Christians from killing eachother - AFTER THE REVOLUTION.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 10, 2015 9:58:37 GMT -6
By your answer, I will take it as a "you are right, Ken". You can try to fight it, but your answer demonstrated that deep down in your heart you know I was right.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 11, 2015 15:34:01 GMT -6
Ken,
If you believe the right for one group of Christians to hate other Christians was a noble cause, then the Revolution was a major success.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 12, 2015 17:32:07 GMT -6
If you say so.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 12, 2015 17:38:19 GMT -6
It is interesting that although people say there is a separation of Church and State, the President elect has almost always accepted their charge with a hand on a Bible. How one can say that there is a separate of Church and State when every Supreme Court meeting is preceded by prayer as is the convening of The Congress, is a dichotomy of thought.
No, I think it is todays elimination of precedent that has confused and misguided the American People.
Debt 17:15, God said "...you shall set as King over yourselves; you many not put a foreigner over yourselves who is not your countryman.
US Constitution in Article II, Section 1, Paragraph 5 say "No person except a natural born citizen... shall be eligible to the office of President
It is evident that the Bible was key in this process..
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 12, 2015 23:35:31 GMT -6
Are there any historical references that might justify your theory?
While you're at it, I asked you to provide names of prominent people who suffered at the hands of the British on religious grounds.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 13, 2015 20:50:39 GMT -6
Are there any historical references that might justify your theory? While you're at it, I asked you to provide names of prominent people who suffered at the hands of the British on religious grounds. That question has been duly answered (religion being intertwined with the position to rebel against the King as stated by a reliable source). As far as historical references, more to come.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 14, 2015 17:05:43 GMT -6
lol, so nobody suffered in the hands of the British for religious reasons during the Revolution. I don't know what question you were answering, but I guess that's the preacher part of you deciding to change the question to fit any answer.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 15, 2015 17:39:11 GMT -6
Actually, I see it for what it really is, trying to make an issue where there is no issue to deviate from the original purpose (first it was slavery and now its religion). I am completely satisfied with my answer. They used to believe that Kings were God's mouthpiece to the point that all property even belonged to the King. The Bible reduced the King to another man giving it a great foundation to be able to have the revolution. As the referenced material said, I have enough support to validate my position. Knowing that it will never suffice for you, it remains enough for me. Moving forward.
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Dec 15, 2015 21:06:41 GMT -6
Actually, I see it for what it real trying to make an issue where there is no issue to deviate from the original purpose (first it was slavery and now its religion). I am completely satisfied with my answer. They used to believe that Kings were God's mouthpiece to the point that all property even belonged to the King. The Bible reduced the King to another man giving it a great foundation to be able to have the revolution. As the referenced material said, I have enough support to validate my position. Knowing that it will never suffice for you, it remains enough for me. Moving forward. People die in revolutions. Does the Bible condone killing people for political reasons? That seems to be what you are saying.
|
|
|
Post by ken on Dec 25, 2015 13:32:15 GMT -6
Actually, I see it for what it real trying to make an issue where there is no issue to deviate from the original purpose (first it was slavery and now its religion). I am completely satisfied with my answer. They used to believe that Kings were God's mouthpiece to the point that all property even belonged to the King. The Bible reduced the King to another man giving it a great foundation to be able to have the revolution. As the referenced material said, I have enough support to validate my position. Knowing that it will never suffice for you, it remains enough for me. Moving forward. People die in revolutions. Does the Bible condone killing people for political reasons? That seems to be what you are saying. Don't know how you get that conclusion. Came across these other tidbits... In my viewpoint, the closer you get to the actual creation of the Declaration of Independence and the laws that ensued from that document, the closer you get to the actual meaning of what the Fathers meant. I think these Supreme Court Cases given the precedent of what the fore-fathers intended.
|
|