Protestantism

» Migisi - Recommended study

In response to Recommended study posted by pink101:

.
I like this site:
http://www.archives.gov/national-archive...
.
So, Pink, how would you like to proceed? Discuss one right at a time? Or just open it up?

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - A Debt of Gratitude

In response to Recommended study posted by Migisi:
.
I would like to discuss the history of how things were in America that led up to December 15, 1791, when Virginia ratified the amendments so that the Bill of Rights was made an integral part of the Supreme Law of The Land. There were exceptionally strong efforts made by States Rights advocates to defeat the bill of rights either in part or in total. At one point, it was almost a one man show to get the bill to a vote in congress and then to get it ratified by the states. And, we owe a great debt of gratitude to him.
.
I think this is an area where we can all pursue our interests in mutual agreement.
.

-- posted by pink101

» pink101 - One Thing that Set America Apart

.
One thing that set America apart from Europe is that the colonists never existed under the tyranny of a state religion. And, our forefathers were very close to nature so that they had a sense of natural law unknown to the Brits and other Europeans.
.
Inalienable rights are most well known in nature where we are so free.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - One Thing that Set America Apart

In response to One Thing that Set America Apart posted by pink101:

I'm not sure if I'm welcome in this discussion, but this is an incorrect statement, Pink. "Colonists" in this context refers to those who lived in the English colonies in North America. And in most colonies, there WERE established religious denominations. The exceptions were Rhode Island and later Maryland.

» pink101 - What's Incorrect?

In response to One Thing that Set America Apart posted by BrianTubbs:
.
What's incorrect about what I wrote?
.
Did the Americans go through the Inquisition?
.
Everyone is welcome in any thread here as far as I'm concerned.
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - What's Incorrect?

In response to What's Incorrect? posted by pink101:

Alright, I guess it comes down to how you define "religious tyranny." In the past, you've given the impression that if America were to move toward D. James Kennedy, Jerry Falwell, et al, that would be religious tyranny. Well, I'm here to tell you Kennedy, Falwell, etc. are LIBERALS compared to the way things were in colonial America with respect to religion.

In colonial Virginia, for example, you had to pay taxes to the Church of England - and the Anglican ministers were paid out of those tax monies. You had to have a license to form a church or preach if you were NOT part of the Anglican community. I'm pretty sure also that you had to be an Anglican in order to advance in Virginia's political world. Not sure if that was an official or unofficial requirement, but it ain't a coincidence that George Washington, George Mason, Thomas Jefferson, and others - all had ties to the Anglican Church.

Jefferson and James Madison changed all that in Virginia with the Virginia Statute of Religious Freedom -- a document that really set the tone for what would happen in the other states has America progressed.

I'm a HUGE supporter, btw, of the VA Statute of Religious Freedom. And so was Falwell and so is D James Kennedy.

The battle lines have shifted to the LEFT since then. In those days - the founding era - the establishment clause of the First Amendment wasn't designed to stop prayers at high school graduations or Bible study clubs from meeting on school grounds or ending the prayer tradition at Virginia Military Institute. The Founders would flip in their graves at those things. What the establishment clause was designed to do was put an end to what had been the case in most of colonial America -- denominational establishments like the Church of England.

» pink101 - What's Incorrect?

In response to What's Incorrect? posted by BrianTubbs:

.
Maybe we could proceed along a line of enlightenment rather than me trying to show how wrong you are?
.
What I meant to convey was that the Americans were the only people who hadn't lived under such tyrannies as had taken place during the Dark and Middle Ages. So, their idea of what it meant to be persecuted was different than what it was in England and the mainland where people really understood persecution.
.
Actually, the Americans had it pretty easy compared to the Old Country experience with very few exceptions.
.
Were those the "good old days?"

During the "good old days" of the COLONIAL ERA on the North American continent, Puritan preachers referred to Native Americans as "Amelkites and Canaanites" -- in other words, people, who, if they would not be converted, were worthy of annihilation. Even Maryland's famous "Act Concerning Religion," passed in 1649, which supposedly instituted "freedom of religion" for the first time in an American colony, stated in its first section that any person who blasphemed God, denied that Jesus was the Savior and Son of God, denied the Trinity, or uttered "reproachful" words concerning the Trinity "or any of the three persons therein," would be executed and forfeit their estates.

Citizenship rights were denied to American colonists who were not Christian church members. Dancing was rated by several Protestant denominations as an unforgivable sin. Any defamer of the Bible could be jailed for blasphemy. Baptist evangelists were persecuted by order of civil laws in the colony of Virginia, a state that only recognized the Anglican church as the one true church. In Salem, Massachusetts they hung people who were accused of being "witches." And four Quakers were hung in Massachusetts merely for being Quakers! Taken from this site: http://www.edwardtbabinski.us/babinski/r...
.

-- posted by pink101

» Brian Tubbs - Dancing

In response to What's Incorrect? posted by pink101:

Dancing was rated by several Protestant denominations as an unforgivable sin.

Ha, ha, ha. Still the case, I'm afraid, in some churches. :-)

» Migisi - What's Incorrect?

In response to What's Incorrect? posted by pink101:

.
Sounds awful, Pink. I'd be executed for sure.

-- posted by Migisi

» pink101 - Questions

In response to Dancing posted by BrianTubbs:
.
The idea of a bill of rights being added to the U.S.Constitution didn't sit well with many of the politicians. In fact, it didn't look like there was much of a chance there would be enough support for such an amendment. Several of the states had a bill of rights in their constitutions.
.
But, the idea of putting limits on government was on top. That's what the Constitution was all about--limiting government.
.
The Constitution enumerated no rights--only duties and roles. Some of the talk was that enumerating any rights meant that some would be forgotten and so, a bill of rights would be useless. Enumerated rights didn't seem to be doing much at the state level.
.
There was talk for a new constitutional convention. The government was hardly up and running. It seemed like there were more important things for the representatives and senators to be doing that to waste any time on such a project.
.
Jefferson wanted a bill of rights but he was out of the country and not a member of congress anyway.
.

-- posted by pink101