General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsLouie Gohmert: ‘Separation of church and state’ means ‘church plays a role in the state’
Remember, most people are ignorant of history, and so they'll believe this kind of horse shit if they hear a Very Serious Person saying it.
In a World Net Daily-sponsored promotion for an upcoming Christian TV event called Washington A Man of Prayer, Gohmert recalled that the U.S. House of Representatives once met in what is now known as National Statuary Hall.
On Sundays this became the largest non-denominational Christian church in the Washington, D.C. area, he explained. People came in here and prayed, they sang hymns, they worshipped God. It was part of our history.
...
But it was to be a one-way wall, where the state would not dictate to the church, the Texas Republican insisted. But the church would certainly play a role in the state.
So, thats a little different idea than a lot of people have about separation of church and state now, he added. Including some of our esteemed Supreme Court, who are not quite as familiar with our history as they probably should be.
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/04/01/louie-gohmert-separation-of-church-and-state-means-church-plays-a-role-in-the-state/
Lifelong Protester
(8,421 posts)When I want it?
kydo
(2,679 posts)louis-t
(23,314 posts)stopbush
(24,399 posts)Isn't it time we used that process to amend the First Amendment and remove the language that pertains to religion? Why should religious freedom get an exceptional carve out to other examples of freedom of speech? It's all freedom of speech, which is freedom to speak what you believe, which goes to ones beliefs.
el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)Given the religious wars of Europe and the like. And also the Churchs' role in society was much greater than it is today - but clarifying what separation of Church and State means would probably help in situations like this.
Because it seems like he's arguing that while the State can't dictate to the Church, the Church should be able to dictate to the State; and that doesn't make any sense on a number of levels.
Bryant
stopbush
(24,399 posts)That's more inclusive and takes religion down from a pedestal it doesn't deserve.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)haele
(12,699 posts)And Washington was very private about what his personal religion was (or wasn't), even as he used rhetoric of his time in his speeches, which tended to use a lot of common classical and religious references.
I suspect from what has come down from him is that he was a casual believer "at best", and was potentially a deist or similar humanists/agnostic bent.
Otherwise, he would have most likely not have joined the revolutions; good CoE parishioners were encouraged to remain loyal to their King, anointed by God...and many did. The American Revolution certainly did not have as universal a following as people get their history Disney-fied like to believe, and there were many conservative, god-fearing, and wealthy planters and tradesmen - social peers of Washington, Madison, and Jefferson - in the Tidewater and Chesapeake Bay who were actively against the Revolution.
This is the truth the Liberty University type "historians" such as David Barton (and that great academian Louis Ghomert) would happily burn archival records and historic personal documents to eradicate from American History.
Remaking history and people in their own image, just as they remake their god in their own image.
Haele
Major Nikon
(36,827 posts)Gothmog
(145,963 posts)MrScorpio
(73,631 posts)gollygee
(22,336 posts)Now we have New English, where things mean the opposite of what they say.
whistler162
(11,155 posts)spanone
(135,950 posts)siligut
(12,272 posts)These fuckers want a theocracy, where what they say is law, simple as that.