Just a quick response to your comment RE: Dominionism.
As long as the Dominionists do not attempt to make it a law that the State legally endorse a relgion(s), they are within their rights, and do not violate the Establishment Clause of the 1st Ammendment. Again, the Founders were against any formal Church/State realationship being codified into law. As much as I know about the belief, this is not the Dominionist agenda or their belief.......
I hope to God that you are not hung up, for example, on the 10 Commandments issue and all the paranoia in the "liberal" world on the display of such in public, as having some kind of theocratic emphasis,thereby violating the Establishment Clause.God help us all if you are this paranoid and ignorant, because if you are, doubt anything I say here will help you.......
You need to be in reality and get concerned about a religion called Islam and their Sharia Law agenda. Now that stuff is scary and they do indeed have a theocratic agenda, that if ever enforced, we all would be sunk......Please open your eyes to where the real problems are that could indeed destroy our much cherished freedoms that we all enjoy in our great Nation......Please reply back if you wish. Good day!”
You got to take a chill pill. How can merely expressing their faith, or anyone else doing likewise, in the public arena, stoke your suspicions that they may be trying to legislate some kind of State religion?
Which is it Dan? According to your last response, you appear to be a walking, talking contradiction who is looking for that theocratic bogeyman around every corner, which is verified by again, what you say in your article:
"There are multiple sources of information which Christian conservatives can peruse to justify their fever for theocracy...(they think that) our founding fathers intended that our government be subject to the Christian religion."
Theocracy? Where? "subject to the Christian religion"? Who intends this? You and I both agree that the Founders did not want our government to be subject through a law, to any religion, but you have great diffuculty, unlike the Founders, understanding where to draw the line. There are multi millions of Americans that profess and have professed, some kind of Protestant or Catholic faith throughout the 235 years of our great Republic. Don't ya think Dan that if these folks wanted such, that there would be some kind of legislated theocracy through one religion by now?
Sheesh! C'mon Dan, most Americans are so tired of the Religious Left constantly attempting to shove their religion of overbearing government down our throats. I'm just sayin' how we feel out here. I hope this helps some. Please feel free to respond. Thanks Dan!”
Dan Bimrose on Sep 30, 2011 at 05:35:23
““[Public schools] are teaching children that there is separation of church and state, and I am here to tell you that is a myth. That’s not true,” Michele Bachmann at a You Can Run But You Cannot Hide conference in 2006.
"It says the Lord's house is going to be established on top of the mountains and these are the seven mountains. If you're going to establish God's kingdom, you've got to have these seven mountains and again that's family, religion, education, media, entertainment, business and government." David Barton
2008 Presidential candidate Mike Huckabee says that everyone should be forced to listen to Barton at gun point.
Rick Perry's and Michele Bachmann's association with Barton is palpable. Far more so than Obama's and Ayers but that was viewed as fair game.
You're right, I'm just paranoid.
Of course with you it is all semantics and word play. I suppose that Barton did not mean for Christianity to take the supreme role in Government.
Regardless of what these people say or how well they walk the line many people are seeing and hoping for more.
I must admit this has been somewhat stimulating but I truly have about 12 other things I need to be doing besides maintaining this conversation. Continuing this is pointless. You will never convince me and I shall never convince you and I am just fine with that.”
“Well Carolyn, welcome to the world of the hundreds of thousands, maybe millions of theists whom have chosen to home school in part because of the lack of good Christian and common sense values being "pushed" in the public schools.
You do not feel that matters of faith belong in the schools? You mean things like freedom of speech and freedom of religion? You mean things like those students that voluntarily attend Bible studies on public school campuses, those same students who are learning things such as to love their fellow man, not to steal, not to cheat and to serve others? Just think if these sorts of values spread to the other students. Would we all be in trouble? Obviously we all, Christian or not, would be much better off.
Please do not shoot yourself in the foot and buy into the false notion of seperation of church and state that includes eliminating all Christian religious values and their discussion from the public arena. God bless!”
I take it you are Atheist? If so, I also take it that you need hard proof in order to believe if something exsists or is true, meaning good scientific data, etc., correct? Have you then explored the entire universe in order to gather all possible evidence or non-evidence, and see for proof positive or not that there is no God, or not?.........Didn't think so...... You have alot of faith to believe that there absolutly is no God.”
Trydecency on Sep 30, 2011 at 09:28:31
“You obviously don't understand how the scientific process works or how to arrive at a logical conclusion.”
I believe you misunderstood me. I believe you may have got hung up when I stated that "....all things Bachmann, Santorum, Barton, Perry, etc. have said and done, have NOTHING to do with one religion..." I will say they all believe in the same God, Jesus Christ, if that's what you mean by them having something to do with one particular "religion." However, the way they express their faith, obviously has NOTHING to do with establishing that faith as the law of the land, nor is that even their intent. Again, they are merely excercising their Constitutional right "of the free excercise thereof". You agree that a Pat Robertson can run for President, but do you agree that he is free to express his faith while running, meaning openly praying and or talking about his faith in Christ when he feels necessary?.........
Also, it is historical fact, as I think you acknowledge, that the majority of our Founders where Christians and did advocate prayer and religious dialouge in the public arena. The Founders also had the wisdom to know the difference that by doing so did not marry a particular religion to the State, a concept which they were adamantly opposed to, and rightfully so, which is referenced in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishment of A religion". Please reply back. Thanks Dan!”
Dan Bimrose on Sep 29, 2011 at 02:56:59
“Basically the only thing I would have a problem with what you have argued here is where you suggest that definitively, this is not their intent.
And just to be clear, I agree that expressing their faith has nothing to do with establishing that faith as the law.”
I beleieve you misunderstood me. All I am saying is that have had done nothing to violate the establishment clause of the 1st Ammendmendt, meaning the way they express their faith in Christ in the public arena of politics and any other public place or forum, is all within "the free excercise thereof" part of the 1st Ammendmendt. In other words, by expressing themselves in their faith, they obviously are not thereby advocating, nor creating, nor establishing any official State church or religion. Your article obviously implies that they have gone too far in their expression of their faith. You agree that a Pat Robertson can run for President, but do you agree that he is free to express his faith while running, meaning openly praying and or talking about his faith in Christ when he feels necessary?.........
.Also, it is historical fact, as I think you acknowledge, that the majority of our Founders where Christians and did advocate prayer and religious dialouge in the public arena. The Founders also had the wisdom to know the difference that by doing so did not marry a particular religion or Denomniation, to the State, which they were adamantly opposed to, which is referenced in the words "Congress shall make no law respecting AN establishnent of A relgion"......Thanks for the response. Please reply back. Thanks Dan!”
Dan Bimrose on Sep 29, 2011 at 02:50:04
“I have absolutely no problem with a candidate expressing his faith. I had no idea my article intimated that I think that candidates for office or office holders should withhold their faith. It is a part of who they are and it is something that we need to know about. Even after rereading my article I do not believe I have expressed otherwise.
I have no problem with a person praying in schools. I assume prayer activity goes up quite a bit before kids take their SAT's. The three candidates often do a delicate dance with the first amendment between suggesting that prayer should be allowed and suggesting that prayer should be mandated or coordinated by the school system if the majority of the community so desires.
All three candidates have either ties to 7 mountains dominionism or expressed dominionist beliefs.
I am surrounded by people who want mandated prayer. People who think that Jews or Buddhists ( I don't think I need to specify Muslims) should not be allowed to hold office. People who think blood shed is fine if that is what it takes to establish a Christian government. This sentiment is all around me. Their hope is that Rick Santorum, Rick Perry and Michele Bachmann will make it happen and I for one do not trust that they won't try.
The intent of my article was to argue that the Constitution does provide for a separation of church and state and furthermore that there should be.”
Wow, you are confused. You cite Barton, Bachmann, Santourum and Perry as having the wrong idea.
Now here is what James Madison says, as cited in your article " "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience, or that one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform."
What don't you understand about Madison's correct idea that not "one sect" might obtain pre-eminence..." or that "Congress should not establish a religion and enforce the legal observation of it by law"....? Let me explain.
Prayer in schools, prayer before football games, prayer before a session of Congress, etc. and all things Bachmann, Santorum, Barton, Perry, etc. have said and done, have NOTHING to do with one religion or "one sect" as Madison says. Bachmann and all the others you mentioned above are perfectly within their rights to EXPRESS their faith in the political world and anywhere else they please in this great Nation. Please would you excercise your right to cease speaking on this issue until you get your facts straight, and I conclude with the following:........
While some may prefer the idealized fiction of Dan Bimrose, I perfer the wisdom of Ben Franklin. Yes Dan, you are confused. Please reply back. Thank you!”
Dan Bimrose on Sep 28, 2011 at 17:48:38
“Where did I say anywhere in this article that they were not free to express their faith in the political world? Where? Pat Robertson can run for President again. Who cares? Where did I say anything about people praying at graduations or anything of that manner? Everyone has every right to express their religion. Not really a big shocker on that one.
But you must seriously be joking when you say that Bachmann, Santorum, Barton and Perry have said and done NOTHING to do with one religion. Are you kidding me?”