Why do Fundamentalist Christians try to redefine the intentions of the founding fathers to fit their extreme?

Question

agenda?
Thomas Jefferson made an interpretation of the 1st Amendment to his January 1st, 1802 letter to the Committee of the Danbury Baptist Association calling it a "wall of separation between church and State." Madison had also written that "Strongly guarded. . . is the separation between religion and government in the Constitution of the United States." There existed little controversy about this interpretation from our Founding Fathers.
If religionists better understood the concept of separation of Church & State, they would realize that the wall of separation actually protects their religion. Our secular government allows the free expression of religion and non religion. Today, religions flourish in America; we have more churches than Seven-Elevens.
Although many secular and atheist groups fight for the wall of separation, this does not mean that they wish to lawfully eliminate religion from society.

On the contrary, you will find no secular or atheist group attempting to ban Christianity, or any other religion from American society. Keeping religion separate allows atheists and religionists alike, to practice their belief systems, regardless how ridiculous they may seem, without government intervention.
http://www.nobeliefs.com/Tripoli.htm

Answer 1

The same reason they redefine the intentions of Jesus to fit their extreme agenda. Best I can tell, Jesus did not advocate greed, judgment, hate, war or prejudice.

Answer 2

There are three reasons they do this. In order from the most innocent to the most evil :
1) Ignorance- A lot of Christians actually believe that the United States in some way is lawfully founded on Christianity. While the majority of the founders of the nation were Christians they made it abundantly clear that the government would not directly be ran by any religion's interests. Some how this point was missed by these people.
2) Christians wanting more influence- These people don't want a theocracy, but they want the Christain religion to have more influence on the beliefs and behaviors of Americans. Thus, they rationalize that it is acceptable to bend the truth and pretend to have the backing of the founding fathers who in some way established the United States has a Christian nation, even though they also point out that there should still be freedom of religion. Obviously this "freedom of religion" is discouraged by them.
3) Christians that want a Theocracy- These extreme people are willing to take extreme measures to get the United States ran by the Christain religion. The only thing stopping them is that they don't have enough power to force it. So they attempt to build up support until they do have that power. One of those ways is by outright lying about the United States Constitution and what it says in regards to the establishment of a religion. They are absolutely convinced that Christainity is the best way for people to live. Therefore any means to reach that end are justified.

Answer 3

Do you truly not know the nature of the man you have picked as your point man for this issue? Jefferson, more than anyone else in the Constitutional Convention wanted to deny God. He thought that the French had the right idea when they banned religion (anyone remember their French Revolution history?, I thought not). He clearly felt that the Christian religion was not a big deal.

On the other hand most of the rest of the members of the Constitutional Convention were religious. They did not want an ESTABLISHED religion. This means a religion such as the Church of England which was underwritten by the government. As a result, there was to be a separation of church and state but not a denial of religion. The government was not to fund the prelates salaries (again, look at your European history to understand this). Many people came to the new world to avoid the persecution of their religious beliefs.

I believe that the government has no place in religion and that religion has no place in government. Unfortunately in the US today we have permitted the government to take responsibility for moral issues because we, the people have been unwilling to accept this responsibility which clearly rests with us. This has led to conflicts between those who belive strongly in one direction and those believing strongly in another. It is not the extreme agendas of any party it is that we have permitted government to stray into the areas which are best under a family's control. It takes a family to raise a child, the village should keep their hands off!!!

Answer 4

That was Thomas Jefferson, he is not America, he was an American, and a great one at that, and like you so succinctly put, that is his interpretation.

People of a faith-based background are going to have their politics reflect their faith, and when they go too far, people of other faith or not having faith should step in and correct it. Many of our founding fathers were devout followers of a faith, but especially at the time of the framing of our constitution, the Pope was enjoying too much influence in the affairs of a country's government. THIS is why church and state are to be separated, it was a message to the Pope, or the leader of any faith, that their opinion about that faith are not binding on our government's policies.

And I dispute your assertion that atheists and agnostics do not try to destroy religion everywhere possible. Some do. I am agnostic, and I won't; I respect people's right to choose what they believe, it is their right.

Answer 5

I think it's outrageous that so many people find it necessary to force feed their religious beliefs onto others. The freedom of choice is what is so beautiful about America. I can choose when, where & how I want to worship. It isn't something that is sanctioned by the government - yet extremeist want to say it is. Go figure..

Anyone that begs to differ - I encourage you to go to the middle east (Iraq and Iran to be more specific) and declare you are a Christian or a Sunni or a Shia or even an atheist. After that - describe your experience. How safe did you feel? Did you feel your right to worship as a Christian was protected? Were you allowed to openly declare your belief in Jesus w/o the fear of persecution? Or did you fear for your safety - because of the Islamic republic, which has been in power since1979.

Now in a side-by-side comparison can you explain how the US government is hindering your ability to worship versus that of one of the aforementioned M.E. countries. I seriously doubt it. People are dying over there on a daily basis - all in the name of preserving their religious beliefs. And for the record - the extremist expression of any belief is totally off base!!

Answer 6

They've been educated not in any academic sense but rather by their churches, and simultaneously they lack (or have not been formally shown) the faculties of critical thought.

There are fundamentalist Christians who DO have strong critical thought faculties in spades. Bill Moyers (being a fundamentalist layman) is an example. I would say even Billy Graham (the senior) and Oral Roberts as well.

The threat to The Republic is from the Dobsons, Falwells, and Robertsons of the world. (Robertson went to Yale Law, but even Yale Law makes mistakes - even Clarence Thomas has insinuated as much in his book).

You've described perfectly the REAL United States, the way it was intended.

(By the way, it's funny how Sharia opened his mouth and removed all doubt. Deficit of critical thought faculties. Wallbuilders? Please.)

Answer 7

Excuse me this idea of separation of church and state is a fabrication of the 20 the century.

Please note this goes back to the ruling on prayer in school. When the high court rule against it you know how many legal precedence they used? zip.
They pulled out Jefferson's Danbury letter as the Holy Grail and keep alive.

Now please read the Constitution one more time and see if you can find the line saying separation of church and state.

It isn't there. What is passing for as separation of church and state is when liberals don't want to hear from the conservative Christian point of view.

Case in point the DNC has no problem going to black churches to rally support.

When Frisk spoke at a conservative Christian church the hallows are all over the place about separation of church and state.


We do have Free Speech and Freedom OF Religion notice which came first in the First Amendment. There is lots of secular and atheists groups trying to limit free expression.
To the point they want crosses removed from cemeteries that have been there for years.

So really who is pushing this separation of church and state?

Who are the ones that demand all religious symbols or acknowledgments from our society.
Or trying to believe our founding fathers didn't even believe in G-d.

There is lots of people who are trying to change history to suit their beliefs.
So why are you only after the Christians?

Answer 8

They try to redefine it because it props up their constant claim that the founders intended this to be a Christian nation. Never mind that the founders had every chance to do exactly that, using very clear language, and chose not to do so. They hate hearing the facts about the founders, it interferes with their fairy tale attitude about them. Such as the fact that they weren't all Christians. That one really torques them up.

The founders very cleverly protected both personal religious freedom and government freedom from religion in the same document. It would help if we were clearer about the real facts on the founders in early education. Even in high school children don't really learn the details about what the founders really believed and wrote about in great length. We have to wait until college before that is offered to us in the history books and by professors.

Answer 9

I am what you would call a fundy. and I believe in free speech it is a right given to all Americans, Christians and non-Christians alike. The thing is, Christians believe that God is and was and always will be and the non-Christians want the Christians to accept into their hearts things such as homosexuality. I as a Christian can not accept such things into my heart as it goes against all that I believe. That being said homosexuals in the USA have the right to be homosexual but does any one have the right to teach my children to accept into their hearts that which goes against what I as their parent teach them is against God? I think not, the bring up of children should be left in the hands of the parents, be they Christians, non-Christians or Atheist. I have very different beliefs than my parents, and I was raised in the time when what ever the parents said was the way it was.
forcing Christians to accept things is not freedom. and when it comes right down to it the USA was founded by Christians trying to escape tyranny and it looks as if the tyranny has come to the USA to try to take the Christians over once again. When the Christians have been shut up and shut down that is when the USA will met its saddest day as did many other great nations that stood strong against God

Answer 10

Allows Free Expression is the pharse from your post that everyone can agree with except for some radical secularits that don't think that expressing it with a nativate scene or the ten commandments is appropriate. Christians (which I am not) feel like they are not allowed to express their beliefs. For example a University is installing foot baths for Muslims, but refuses to allow Christian symbols of any kind.

No Secularist Organizations are not trying to ban Christian religion from society. They are trying to ban the EXPRESSION of it.

Answer 11

If there was supposed to be a "Separation of church and state" why does the first amendment not expressly say that? You are also lacking context. The church of England was a state sponsored church and all others were banned. That is the doctrine of original intent.