Re: If you're going to become a doctor you will need to learn alot about the...

ClemsonTiger1988®

Ultimate Clemson Legend [101133]

TigerPulse: 100%

Posts: 98728

Joined: 2009

I'm concerned about you.

Feb 13, 2025, 5:26 AM

1. Strengthen American families

This is great, but there is no indication that Jesus or any of his followers were married or desired to start a family. In fact, Paul argued that celibacy was the best practice.

2. Promote work and self sufficiency

Again, nothing wrong with this. However, Jesus was homeless. “The son of man has nowhere to lay his head”. His disciples laid down everything including their jobs and left their families. “They immediately left their nets and followed Him.” How would such a person be viewed in society today?

3. Protect religious liberty

1. 1 Tim 5:

"8 But if any provide not for his own, and specially for those of his own house, he hath denied the faith, and is worse than an infidel."

IMO:

We men, fathers and heads of our homes, are responsible to provide for our wives and children as part of our obligation to God. A man can't please God without providing for and protecting his family. You know this, you do this and you might admit that even when it comes to going to church you see your wife and children make it. I can't believe you'd criticize anyone who agrees with what you do.

I know that's tradition and I'm an old fogey but that's just how I was raised.

2. 2 THESSALONIANS 3:

The Apostles
"10 For even when we were with you, this we commanded you, that if any would not work, neither should he eat."

3. So you didn't read the Bible, how about the Constitution or a history book or two?

Protect religious liberty is a vital part of America's Constitution. It was expressed in the letter Thomas Jefferson's wrote to the Danbury Baptist: But first, Danbury's letter to the newly elected president:

"To: Thomas Jefferson, Esq., President of the United States of America October 7, 1801

Sir,

Among the many millions in America and Europe who rejoice in your election to office, we embrace the first opportunity which we have enjoyed in our collective capacity, since your inauguration, to express our great satisfaction in your appointment to the Chief Magistracy in the United States. And though the mode of expression may be less courtly and pompous than what many others clothe their addresses with, we beg you, sir, to believe, that none is more sincere..

Our sentiments are uniformly on the side of religious liberty: that Religion is at all times and places a matter between God and individuals, that no man ought to suffer in name, person, or effects on account of his religious opinions, [and] that the legitimate power of civil government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor. But sir, our constitution of government is not specific. Our ancient charter, together with the laws made coincident therewith, were adapted as the basis of our government at the time of our revolution.

And such has been our laws and usages, and such still are, that Religion is considered as the first object of Legislation, and therefore what religious privileges we enjoy (as a minor part of the State) we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. And these favors we receive at the expense of such degrading acknowledgments, as are inconsistent with the rights of freemen. It is not to be wondered at therefore, if those who seek after power and gain, under the pretense of government and Religion, should reproach their fellow men, should reproach their Chief Magistrate, as an enemy of religion, law, and good order, because he will not, dares not, assume the prerogative of Jehovah and make laws to govern the Kingdom of Christ.

Sir, we are sensible that the President of the United States is not the National Legislator and also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the laws of each State, but our hopes are strong that the sentiment of our beloved President, which have had such genial effect already, like the radiant beams of the sun, will shine and prevail through all these States - and all the world - until hierarchy and tyranny be destroyed from the earth.

Sir, when we reflect on your past services, and see a glow of philanthropy and goodwill shining forth in a course of more than thirty years, we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the Chair of State out of that goodwill which he bears to the millions which you preside over. May God strengthen you for the arduous task which providence and the voice of the people have called you - to sustain and support you and your Administration against all the predetermined opposition of those who wish to rise to wealth and importance on the poverty and subjection of the people.

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.

Signed in behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut"

No onto Jefferson's reply to Danbury Baptist:

"To Messrs. Nehemiah Dodge and Others
A Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association in the State of Connecticut

January 1, 1802

Gentlemen,

The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist Association, give me the highest satisfaction. My duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, and in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing.

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between church and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man, and tender you for yourselves and your religious association, assurances of my high respect and esteem.

Thomas Jefferson
President of the United States"

Not common sense and just a tiny bit of practicality dictate that while comparing these two pieces of history we conclude that they are in harmony on the subject of religious liberties and the protection of such rights which are God given and established by our constitution.

If that seems too complicated to understand I'll break it down so a 5th grader can get it!

Danbury Baptist made a statement:

Our state presumes that our religious liberties are granted rights while our Constitution addresses them as inalienable, God given, rights that are far above government control.

Tommy Boy responses:

"You're right!"

I put the parts in bold to help you narrow all this down like a simple a Q and A session.

These communitive documents were composed, sent and received between late 1801 for the first day of 1802. That's loosely a decade after our Constitution was radified.

I know that's old history and the term 'separation of church and state,' has been twisted to assume it focuses on keeping the church out of state business. I also know I'm not keeping up with politics but this isn't political, it's about the truth of why our founders built that wall between church and state.

Anyone who believes that the church shouldn't influence the government might want to pass a law that religious people can't vote. Otherwise the church is always going to have influence over laws and lawmakers.

Personally, I abhor someone in the oval office catering to Christians. Not because I'm not a part of the body of Christ but because if one man can do it for Christians then the next might want to do it for Hindi or Islam. Still, I insist that Christians have the right to vote along side others and expect our government to administer the laws of this land and protect the rights of all either to worship God as we please even if we please not to worship or acknowledge God at all.

I don't know enough about what Trump's doing to form much of an opinion about it but superficially it appears that he's trying to protect a religious group that's being persecuted. The fact that it's a group of Christians isn't important for if he were protecting the Jewish, Hindi or Muslim factions I'd support that too.

I say that because I'm a supporter of what both the letter and spirit of our Constitution. Can we agree?

flag link

military_tech

thumb_down

thumb_up

I'd have to do a lot more research to get into the weeds and details, but I believe you are correct, 88.

In the specific case of the Danbury Letter, the Baptists in Connecticut were concerned about perceived persecution by the majority religion in the state, the Congregationalists.

So this was actually an "in-house" fight between fellow Christians, and not say, Hindus vs. Christians.

I'm not sure what the persecution was, but back then churches held enormous power. One of the coolest things I've ever seen was a handwritten, signed receipt of payment, written to the Massachusetts Bay Colony, for property taxes paid not to the Colony, but to the church.

And when that Danbury letter was written, it was the same thing in Connecticut. Congregationalism was the STATE religion of Connecticut, and residents paid taxes to the church, there, too, whether you were a member or not.

So Danbury Baptists paying taxes to a church they didn't attend probably rubbed them wrong. Even if that church provided other state functions, like maybe roads or whatever. In light of the new Constitution, it seems the Danbury folks were writing Jefferson to see if they could get any relief from their woes through this new Federal document and legal arrangement called The Constitution.

Jefferson said he supported their plight and implied he would do what he could to help because he believed in "separation of church and state."

But then it gets interesting. Because I'm not sure what he did, or could do. The Constitution, First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."

But that's at the Federal Level, and this was a state issue. It wasn't until 1868 and the 14th Amendment that the Due Process Clause was interpreted to say the Bill of Rights applies to states as well. And not till the 1940's, I think, that the Bill of Rights was specifically pushed down to the local level.

But luckily, the good Baptists from Danbury didn't have to wait until 1868 to get relief. In 1818 Connecticut re-wrote its state constitution, and removed religion themselves. So their tax dollars henceforth went to a secular entity, and not into the Congregationalist's pockets.

Our president seems to have a misunderstanding of Christianity

Re: Our president seems to have a misunderstanding of Christianity

Re: Our president seems to have a misunderstanding of Christianity

Re: Our president seems to have a misunderstanding of Christianity

Re: Our president seems to have a misunderstanding of Christianity

If you're going to become a doctor you will need to learn alot about the...