christians, are you true patriots?

Question

to those who this question applies. i realize there some christians who don't think this way.

please read the question throughly and think before answering.

our founding fathers fought long and hard for a strong wall separating church and state. if you are a true a patriot and a believer in freedom and justice for all--and i do repeat--all, how do you justify supporting ideas and measures that are based on exclusive religious beliefs which not everyone in america shares? what makes you want to obstruct the rights to freedom of how others decide what is best for their own life (the very right that allows you to live the way you want to)?
ie: ban on gay marriage, anti-abortion measures...

george and his crew were diests, not christians. they all believed in a supreme being, though they respected that everyone would find their own way of spirituality. though george attended church with his wife, he always left before communion. they were masons. look it up.

The exact phrase was first used in Thomas Jefferson's Letter to the Danbury Baptists, explaining the decision to seperate state and religion:

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is 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."

THE MENTION OF GOD DOES NOT MEAN THEY WERE CHRISTIAN. GOD DOESN'T AUTOMATICALLY MEAN A CHRISTIAN GOD
if you look at the one dollar bill on the back you will also see a pyramid with an eye. this is an illuminatus symbol of freemasonry. most christians today condemn freemasonry.

Answer 1

I think the mistake a lot of people make when they talk about this issue is that they try to group all people on one side or the other. For example, while I respect Schneb's answers, it is certainly not an objective view of history. Given time, I could provide an equal number of quotes to counter his. Why? Because history is not that simple. The founding fathers did not agree on everything. They were not all Christians, but some of them were. All of them did not support the separation of church and state, but some of them did.

I also do not want to hear the argument that the words "separation of church and state" do not appear in the constitution. While it is correct that those words do not appear, the concept is very clearly there, in my opinion. Let me remind Christians that the word "trinity" does not appear in the Bible, but does that stop us from believing in it?

It is also very interesting to note how many Christians were imprisoned, exiled, or executed by "Christian" governments in the colonies and states early in this country's history. But you rarely hear about that. You rarely hear about Baptists being imprisoned simply for being Baptists. And that ultimately is the problem with a "Christian Government." The government should never be allowed to decide what a Christian is and is not. And, historically, that is exactly what they have done, and, as a result, they have acted in very un-Christian ways. Christian governments have regularly burned, hanged, beheaded, drowned, imprisoned, drawn and quartered, and impaled Christians who did not believe the way the government told them to.

I am personally struggling with the question of whether or not non-Christians should be held to Christianity's moral standards in a free society. For instance, I have some serious issues with the bans on gay marriage. When I hear from politicians that marriage has always been defined in the Judeo-Christian tradition as the marriage of one man and one woman, it makes me sick simply because it is not true. The definition of marriage has changed throughout Biblical history. For example, David. who the Bible describes as a man after God's own heart, had multiple wives. It is important to understand that I am not arguing for a change in the Christian definition of marriage, but I think it is important to understand that things are not always as clear as they are made out to be.

While most Christians see marriage as a religious institution, all marriages in this country are not religious. We regularly allow non-Christians to marry in non-religious ceremonies. Yet we want to hold non-Christians to the Christian definition of marriage? I think that, as Christians, we have to at least think about the idea of allowing some form of civil-unions for Gay couples. Married couples have certain legal rights that non-married couples do not have. How can we pretend to provide equal protection under the law when certain rights are denied to certain people simply because they do not meet the Christian definition of a married couple? Doesn't that seem like a violation of the establishment clause? Are we not establishing the Christian definition of marriage as the marriage law of the land? I think we are.

I believe we start down a slippery slope when we start allowing our laws to be shaped by one religion or another. Because who is to say that in another 200 years another religion may be dominant? Do we want to allow their beliefs to dictate the laws of the land? What if they are contrary to Christianity?

---Addition

A quote from Celticwoman777:

"If you read it through, the separation of church and state means that the state shall not create a state-sponsored religion. It does not mean that we can't have the 10 commandments at the court house, or the nativity on the county office building's lawn or the cross on public land. People have been misinterpreting this to suit their own ends."

So, here is my question for you: What constitutes a state sponsored religion? Isn't using tax payer dollars to buy a religious monument to display in a government building sponsoring that religion? If not, what is? Would you want your tax dollars going to buy a Muslim monument?

Answer 2

This nation was founded in the name of God. On the dollar bill, we see "in god we trust;" pledge of allegiance: "one nation under God, indivisible" Yes, we do have the freedom of religion and whatnot, but this country seems to be turning it's back on God for some reason. More and more I hear about measures trying to phase God out of the picture. The very fact is that there is a God; his name will be different depending on what religion you hold true. There are certain principles and standards that derive from these religions. Such as gay marriage. God created Adam and Eve, not Adam and Bob, not Alice and Eve, Adam and Eve, man and woman. That's the way it is suppose to be. Two men cannot naturally create offspring. The very root of life is to bring upon life, to multiple. Through Homosexuality this cannot be done, therefore it is unnatural. Abortion just isn't natural either, people go around having sex and get pregnant and wonder why. Because that's what happens, two people have sex, woman can get pregnant. Why are people so surprised when our bodily functions actually work? You have another life in you when you get pregnant, killing it is just wrong. Bottom line, people are turning their backs on the very foundation of life. God is a creator, call him what you may, but he is in each every one of us, whether anyone likes it or not. People who do not believe will have a change of heart when they stand before God in judgement. People want to think that life is only life, little do they know that their soul is for eternity. I'm sure atheist who read this might be a little mad, but I don't care. It is time to face the truth.

Answer 3

This is an excellent question, as long as you're clear that many (most?) Christians do NOT take the "this is a Christian nation" stance. Unfortunately, many do, and that is certainly the biggest threat to the United States today. We run a serious risk of simply giving up our country to religious fundamentalists - a sad legacy of the response to 9/11.

Your basic premise is completely correct: you cannot be an American patriot if you believe that our nation is "under God". It is not: America is greater than any religion's gods.

As for the belief that the Founding Fathers intended this to be a Christian nation, all you have to do is look through the Constitution for references to "God", "Jesus" and "religion", and you'll see that it just isn't so. The United States is most definitely not a Christian nation, and claiming that it is amounts to betraying your country.

Answer 4

Scneb's right. This is a silly question. If you read it through, the separation of church and state means that the state shall not create a state-sponsored religion. It does not mean that we can't have the 10 commandments at the court house, or the nativity on the county office building's lawn or the cross on public land. People have been misinterpreting this to suit their own ends.

Answer 5

Separation of church and state only means that the church is not allowed any direct influence over the state, and vice versa. If a church full of eligible voters chooses to exercise their right to vote in ways consistent with their religious beliefs, this does not constitute a direct influence of church upon state because every one of those voters could have voted the other way if they'd wanted to. Also, the government doesn't care why people vote the way they do, only how they voted, so that keeps government a step removed from church influence.

Answer 6

an excellent question. the problem is we have become like the very enemy we are fighting. a fundamentalist minority is in control of the gov't and by extension it's people. therefore we are represented by a very small minority that makes the most noise and most often the poorest decisions based on outdated, inaccurate interpretations of a very vague book.
obstructing the rights of others is about power. a person or group believes they are the only ones capable of making the proper decisions for everyone about their health, their money, their lives. this whole mess about 'morals' is such a crock. what's moral is to allow people to live their lives how they see fit.
again excellent post.

Answer 7

That is silly. The founding fathers did not fight hard for seperation of church and state. They fought for FREEDOM. The quest to kick God and the Bible out of school did not take place until the 60s for crying out loud. Now the stats show what a mistake that was.

http://tinyurl.com/g533d

Answer 8

You have it wrong
Our Founding Fathers came here to have Freedom OF Religion, not Freedom FROM Religion
Why do you think they said " All men were endowed by their CREATOR.........." Who do you think our Creator is?

The Founding Fathers wanted spearation of Church and state so that the state CANNOT controll how we express out religious beliefs
Our Fearless leaders are the ones who have begun to separate Church and state the past 30 years. Our leaders are SOOOOOOO out of touch with mainstream America

Answer 9

I think I understand your question, but I think you have framed it in the wrong context. Patriotism is about commuity, country. Religion is about spiritual beliefs. I dont think I agree that you can be patriotic for or toward a religion - for me the two concepts are incongruous. That said I agree with the basis of your comment and for me human pain and suffering is in the main created by humans. God gave us that choice. The fact we stuff it up is our problem and we cant blame God for it, though we try sometimes. I only hope the pain and suffereing I cause is in good faith (ie my truth), but I hope I never blame God for my failings.

Answer 10

The founding fathers wanted seperation of church and state, that is correct. But, they meant for the government to stay out of the church. They did not mean for the church to stay out of the government.