North Carolina May Declare Official State Religion Under New Bill

The pilgrims came to America to practice freedom from state religion,

reply to post by NOTurTypical


They came to practice witch burning, but like the mother country on the other side of the pond it thankfully fizzled out.

reply to post by windword


I believe in freedom of religion and I am pretty tolerant but I would never call anyone a true American who was not a Theravada Buddhist or a Rastafarian Anarchist. No way, no how...

reply to post by erwalker

I find very interesting the difference in religious viewpoints between the US and Canada.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

We're a little more open minded in Canada, a little more aware, a little more educated, and therefore a little less fanatical and narrow minded and by that I'm referring to both sides of the argument that's raging in the US.

There's a lot of black and white biased ignorance in the US even by supposedly well educated adult people. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The thing is that this type of thing is really only found in the southern states and the states referred to as the "Bible belt," a large voting block of the Republican party. A lot of these people, and other republicans, splintered off to create the "Tea Party, but that spiraled into chaos when the evangelical religious right took over and now all Republicans are paying the price them.

reply to post by Morg234

Originally posted by Morg234

The pilgrims came to America to practice freedom from state religion,

reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

They came to practice witch burning, but like the mother country on the other side of the pond it thankfully fizzled out.

Ain't that the truth. There are new witches now. Abortion doctors, stem cell researchers and in vitro-fertalization doctors, among others.

reply to post by EarthEvolves

I believe in freedom of religion and I am pretty tolerant but I would never call anyone a true American who was not a Theravada Buddhist or a Rastafarian Anarchist. No way, no how...

LOL!

What no Pastafarians?

I say good for North Carolina.
The way things are in the USA we need someone to pray for America!

Originally posted by Morg234

The pilgrims came to America to practice freedom from state religion,

reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

They came to practice witch burning, but like the mother country on the other side of the pond it thankfully fizzled out.

I hate to break if to you, but using the exception to define the rule is a MASSIVE logical fallacy.

If you care and all that jazz.

Originally posted by windword

reply to post by erwalker

 

I find very interesting the difference in religious viewpoints between the US and Canada.

reply to post by NewAgeMan

We're a little more open minded in Canada, a little more aware, a little more educated, and therefore a little less fanatical and narrow minded and by that I'm referring to both sides of the argument that's raging in the US.

There's a lot of black and white biased ignorance in the US even by supposedly well educated adult people. It would be funny if it wasn't so sad.

The thing is that this type of thing is really only found in the southern states and the states referred to as the "Bible belt," a large voting block of the Republican party. A lot of these people, and other republicans, splintered off to create the "Tea Party, but that spiraled into chaos when the evangelical religious right took over and now all Republicans are paying the price them.

Slight inaccuracy here. Many of the south who are evangelists are black and Democrats. There is just a lack of drawing the connection lines when it comes to black evangelists...apparently they are either off-limits or irrelevant in the grand liberal scheme of things.

White evangelists, even though a small majority, are gist for the media mill. Southern Blacks, who are predominantly religious, are not featured when any political discussion related to evangelism is concerned.

Apparently only conservative religious people are of interest.....

Can you say: spin?

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Morg234

The pilgrims came to America to practice freedom from state religion,

reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

They came to practice witch burning, but like the mother country on the other side of the pond it thankfully fizzled out.

I hate to break if to you, but using the exception to define the rule is a MASSIVE logical fallacy.

If you care and all that jazz.

Aye...apparently Noturtypical likes to place the cart before the horse....or just has no clue as to the actual history involved. Let's just twist history to become what we want it to be.

Originally posted by bbracken677

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

Originally posted by Morg234

The pilgrims came to America to practice freedom from state religion,

reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

They came to practice witch burning, but like the mother country on the other side of the pond it thankfully fizzled out.

I hate to break if to you, but using the exception to define the rule is a MASSIVE logical fallacy.

If you care and all that jazz.

Aye...apparently Noturtypical likes to place the cart before the horse....or just has no clue as to the actual history involved. Let's just twist history to become what we want it to be.

You are using the exception to define the rule, it's your fallacy so own up to it. 28 people were convicted and put to death over a period of 15 months. And another 5 died of natural causes in prison.

That is the "actual" history.

Originally posted by NOTurTypical

You are using the exception to define the rule, it's your fallacy so own up to it. 28 people were convicted and put to death over a period of 15 months. And another 5 died of natural causes in prison.

That is the "actual" history.

True, but they did not come here for the express reason to witch hunt as you put it. You blame religion for the actions of a less educated people a couple hundred years ago, judged by one who has the advantage of superior and advanced learning. You then attribute those actions to the reasons a people arrived in the New World over a hundred years prior to that.

Disingenuous to say the least.

Fact is: they came here for religious freedom. The witch hunts occurred much later for reasons that had nothing to do with their "religious freedom". Period.

reply to post by bbracken677


Have you seen an arithmetic book from the 1700's? People of that day were far more educated at a young age than people today. Society has been greatly dumbed down. And didn't I make the statement first in this thread that America's pilgrims came here for religious freedom, leaving behind a theocratic monarchy??

reply to post by NOTurTypical

And didn't I make the statement first in this thread that America's pilgrims came here for religious freedom, leaving behind a theocratic monarchy??

They brought with them the witch-hunt, Puritan stuff that they were being taught by the Lollers et al.
They came here to escape the established 'Church of England' and carry on with their own brand of extremist thinking.
But perhaps you are unaware of the history of England, and why Henry VIII renounced Rome and became his own version of "Pope." (Because he wanted a divorce)/ Perhaps you haven't the slightest idea of who Oliver Cromwell was, or 'Bloody Mary', or even Henry the VIII.

Ever seen 'The Scarlet Letter'? Have you read the book, Mr. "I Read Voraciously"?

Oh, and by the way, the Pilgrims came here first in the late 16th century. That's the 1500s.

reply to post by wildtimes

Pilgrims (US), or Pilgrim Fathers (UK), is a name commonly applied to early settlers of the Plymouth Colony in present-day Plymouth, Massachusetts, United States. Their leadership came from the religious congregations of Brownist English Dissenters who had fled the volatile political environment in England for the relative calm and tolerance of 16th–17th century Holland in the Netherlands. Concerned with losing their cultural identity, the group later arranged with English investors to establish a new colony in North America. The colony, established in 1620, became the second successful English settlement (after the founding of Jamestown, Virginia, in 1607) and later the oldest continuously inhabited English settlement in what was to become the United States of America. The Pilgrims' story of seeking religious freedom has become a central theme of the history and culture of the United States.

Pilgrim Colony.



Exactly on what authority do you get to rewrite colonial pre-American history?

reply to post by windword

Freedom of religion and freedom from religion is one of the pillars of American society.

i don't want this to degrade into a battle of beliefs, but merely point a few things out.

firstly i want to make clear that the phrase "separation of church and state" DOES NOT appear anywhere in the constitution, nor does the concept. church and state shouldn't be the same entity, but saying that they must be separated has far reaching consequences beyond the original intent.

secondly, this would never have come up if someone didn't file a lawsuit to prevent meetings being opened by prayer. it seems like the person who brought the lawsuit doesn't know that separation of church and state isn't in the constitution.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


DUDE. I know precisely how it happened according to actual history. Whether that 'history' is true or not is debatable.

You think you've somehow 'taught' me something?
I just told you I spent two years researching this exact subject, and wrote a book about it!!
They came here with their Puritan witch-hunting ideas. They slaughtered the natives, and oppressed women, and had superstitious beliefs, and they were NOT. NICE. PEOPLE.

Two of my ancestors were cases in point of what went on then. I've looked at original documents, read trial transcripts, investigated documentation.....I've read volumes, looked at maps, read Pepys Diary (you know who he is?). I know what the hell I'm talking about according to the history we have available to study today.

You are wrong about a few things, period. Suck it up.

reply to post by wildtimes


Then perhaps you should challenge the Wiki entry I just quoted and linked.

It appears they need to likewise suck it up.

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Honestly, I doubt that this bill will pass, and if it does, it will go to the Supreme Court and certainly be shot down. But, those laws that bar atheists from service in public office are still on the books, even though they are technically "unenforcible."

edit on 3-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Sponsor Of North Carolina Religion Resolution Apologizes

One of the North Carolina legislators who sponsored a resolution declaring the state can make its own laws about religion without involvement from the federal government and courts is apologizing for any embarrassment to his community and state.

The proposal's primary sponsors are Republican Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford of Rowan County. Warren tells the Salisbury Post the now-dead resolution was poorly written.

It declared that states are sovereign from federal oversight and could independently "make laws respecting an establishment of religion."

Warren says he only intended to allow Rowan County officials to continue opening meetings with prayer, not to establish a state religion. The American Civil Liberties Union sued county commissioners last month, accusing the panel of violating the First Amendment by routinely praying to Jesus Christ.

reply to post by NOTurTypical


Well, I'm not a Wiki editor. The only reason I ever look at wiki is to learn what people think in general, or to find links to futher information. That means I also LOOK AT THEIR SOURCES, and then I check those out.

Originally posted by wildtimes
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Well, I'm not a Wiki editor. The only reason I ever look at wiki is to learn what people think in general, or to find links to futher information. That means I also LOOK AT THEIR SOURCES, and then I check those out.

So by what means do you decide whether a source is legitimate or not? The arbitrary standard of whether or not it affirms or denies your presuppositions?

Anyone can challenge material on Wiki, I suggest you do so if they're wrong and need to be schooled.

Originally posted by Pauligirl

Originally posted by windword
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

Honestly, I doubt that this bill will pass, and if it does, it will go to the Supreme Court and certainly be shot down. But, those laws that bar atheists from service in public office are still on the books, even though they are technically "unenforcible."

edit on 3-4-2013 by windword because: (no reason given)

Sponsor Of North Carolina Religion Resolution Apologizes

One of the North Carolina legislators who sponsored a resolution declaring the state can make its own laws about religion without involvement from the federal government and courts is apologizing for any embarrassment to his community and state.

The proposal's primary sponsors are Republican Reps. Harry Warren and Carl Ford of Rowan County. Warren tells the Salisbury Post the now-dead resolution was poorly written.

It declared that states are sovereign from federal oversight and could independently "make laws respecting an establishment of religion."

Warren says he only intended to allow Rowan County officials to continue opening meetings with prayer, not to establish a state religion. The American Civil Liberties Union sued county commissioners last month, accusing the panel of violating the First Amendment by routinely praying to Jesus Christ.

Right the topic is moot.

However, I saw this on the Huffington Post, just this morning.
Christianity As State Religion Supported By One-Third Of Americans, Poll Finds