The enemy within: evangelical fundamentalism in US armed forces

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by waste gate

Unfortunately some people cannot take criticism of their position well. If you don't agree with them and their stance you are either a bigot, spammer, or a fool. When it gets really hot for these individuals you will be placed on the ignore list or told that your disagreement will no longer be tolerated on the thread. A better response is no response as far as they are concerned.

The problem I have with statements like that is that all to often the "criticism" is a direct putdown; i.e. if anyone takes exception you label them as well.

Here is a different tack: It has been my observation that most people don't really want prayer in public schools, they want their prayer in public schools, and nobody else's. They think it's a travesty for someone to complain about The Ten Commandments posted in a public place, but they also claim to welcome freedom of religion. Then they say that it doesn't mean "freedom from religion", when that is exactly what it does mean for the individual, if not for the society.

I've even heard Christians claim that Christianity is responsible for freedom of religion in America, when the greatest proponent of religious freedom, Thomas Jefferson, denied the divinity of Christ.

The Pilgrims (who were Puritans by faith) came to the new land and founded the Massachussetts Bay Colony to escape persecution by the "established" Anglican Church; but when Roger Williams preached freedom of religion those same Pilgrims forcefully kicked him out of Massachussetts.

In 1779, Thomas Jefferson wrote the Virginia Statute For Religious Freedom. At that time it was against the law to deny the Holy Trinity, and "blasphemy" was punishable by death. True, those laws had not been enforced for some time, but there was always the possibility of revival, and Jefferson did everything he could to eliminate them.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/jefferson_vsrf.html


The law was finally pushed through the legislature by James Madison in 1786. When Jefferson was informed that the preamble was almost altered to use the words "Jesus Christ", Jefferson expressed relief that the addition failed:

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

"Infidel" is taken by most scholars to refer to non-believers.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ligions45.html

True, the Constitution never uses the term "Separation of Church and State", but it also never uses the terms "God", "Christian", or "Christianity".

One of the arguments used for prayer in schools is that there are prayers in Congress; and yet James Madison vehemently opposed those. He mainly opposed the use of chaplains being paid from taxpayers' moneys, and felt that if Congress wanted prayers they should pay the chaplains out of their own pockets. He also opposed chaplains for the military. He lost that battle, and it is indeed the right of the Congress to make laws as they see fit; and the majority were indeed Christians. They have since come to realize that chaplains must represent all faiths (at least all of those represented in Congress itself).

Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history. (See the cases in which negatives were put by J. M. on two bills passd by Congs and his signature withheld from another. See also attempt in Kentucky for example, where it was proposed to exempt Houses of Worship from taxes.

Note that Madison also opposed tax exemptions for churches.
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ligions64.html

Further, Madison opposed establishing Christianity as the basis of American society. He believed that any religion governing what we were to believe could easily lead to that religion making it the law that we follow their doctrines.

In the Memorial and Remonstrance, he makes clear his opinions on Christian influence on the government:

3. Because it is proper to take alarm at the first experiment on our liberties. We hold this prudent jealousy to be the first duty of Citizens, and one of the noblest characteristics of the late Revolution. The free men of America did not wait till usurped power had strengthened itself by exercise, and entangled the question in precedents. They saw all the consequences in the principle, and they avoided the consequences by denying the principle. We revere this lesson too much soon to forget it. Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects? that the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?

And

4. ...Whilst we assert for ourselves a freedom to embrace, to profess and to observe the Religion which we believe to be of divine origin, we cannot deny an equal freedom to those whose minds have not yet yielded to the evidence which has convinced us...

Of all the founding fathers, James Madison is the one most easily identified as an actual bible-believing Christian; yet he promotes the freedom not to believe as equally important.

I pick on Madison simply because he is universally regarded as the "Father of the Constitution", and his thoughts speak more to the original intent than any modern interpretation.