Doc110 Loc: York PA

'Separation of Church and State' Not What You Think It Is. Bill Federer recounts history, purpose behind disputed phrase . . .

http://www.wnd.com/2016/02/separation-of-church-and-state-not-what-you-think/

An early Baptist dissenter who died in London’s Newgate Prison was Thomas Helwys, who wrote in 1612: “The King is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them.”

Thomas Helwys founded the Baptist faith in England with John Smyth and John Murton. He wrote in “A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity”: “If the Kings people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more:

For men’s religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man.”

Baptist John Murton was thrown in the Newgate Prison where his opinions were censored for being against the government agenda. Roger Williams referred to him in “The Bloody Tenet of Persecution For Conscience Sake”:

“The author of these arguments against persecution … being committed (a) prisoner to Newgate for the witness of some truths of Jesus, and having not use of pen and ink, wrote these arguments in milk, in sheets of paper brought to him by the woman, his keeper, from a friend in London as the stopples (ie. cork) of his milk bottle. …

In such paper, written with milk, nothing will appear; but the way of reading by fire being known to this friend who received the papers, he transcribed and kept together the papers, although the author himself could not correct nor view what himself had written. …

It was in milk, tending to soul nourishment, even for babes and sucklings in Christ … the word of truth … testify against … slaughtering each other for their several respective religions and consciences.”

Roger Williams himself was found guilty of preaching religious liberty in England and fled to Boston on Feb. 5, 1631.

He pastored briefly before being banished in 1636 by the Puritan leader John Cotton, who himself had been persecuted by Anglicans in England. Befriended by the Indians of Narragansett, Roger Williams founded Providence Plantation, Rhode Island –

The first place where church government was not controlled by state government. In 1639, Roger Williams, with Dr. John Clarke, organized the first Baptist church in America.

Soon other dissenters arrived in the colony, such as Anne Hutchinson, William Coddington, and Philip Sherman. Dissident Minister Rev. John Wheelwright fled Massachusetts and founded Exeter, New Hampshire.

“Notorious disagreements” with Puritan leader John Cotton over the Massachusetts General Court censoring his religious speech led Roger Williams to publish “The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Conscience Sake” and “Mr. Cotton’s Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered” in 1644.

In it, Roger Williams first mentioned his now famous phrase, “Wall of separation”: “Mr. Cotton … hath not duly considered these following particulars.

First, the faithful labors of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, existing in the world, abundantly proving, that the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both separate from the world;

And that when they have opened a gap in the hedge, or wall of separation, between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the wall itself, removed the candlestick … and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.

“And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world, and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the world and added unto His Church or garden…a separation of Holy from unHoly, penitent from impenitent, Godly from unGodly.”

Rev. Roger Williams was alluding to Isaiah 5:1-7, that when God’s people sin, He judges them by allowing his vineyard to be trampled by an ungodly government: “My well-beloved hath a vineyard. …

And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine … and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes. And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem … judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard. … When I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes? …

I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I will take away the hedge thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and break down the wall thereof, and it shall be trodden down. … For the vineyard … is house of Israel … and he looked for judgment, but found oppression.”

Discover more of Bill Federer’s eye-opening books and videos in the WND Superstore!

Roger Williams’ understanding was that if God’s people sin, God will let the government trample the religious rights of the church, in the same way that when Israel sinned, God let the surrounding nations invade and trample them.

This is seen in the Book of Revelations’ warning to the church at Ephesus, “Repent and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent.”

But Roger Williams stated that if God’s people do repent, “He will restore His garden” protecting it as “walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world.” This became a foundational Baptist tenet that government should be kept out of the church.

Baptist churches began in other colonies. James Madison wrote to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819: “The English church was originally the established religion. … Of other sects there were but few adherents, except the Presbyterians who predominated on the west side of the Blue Mountains.

A little time previous to the Revolutionary struggle, the Baptists sprang up, and made very rapid progress. … At present the population is divided … among the Protestant Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Methodists.”

Baptist minister John Leland, who helped start Baptist churches in Connecticut, wrote in “Rights of Conscience Inalienable,” 1791: “Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience.

If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free.”

Connecticut had established the Congregational Christian denomination as its official state church from 1639 to 1818. Prior to the 1947 Everson case, religion was under each individual states’ jurisdiction.

On Oct. 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association complained to President Jefferson of their second-class status in the Congregationalist state of Connecticut: “Sir … Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty:

That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals; that no man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions; that the legitimate power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor:

But Sir … our ancient charter (in Connecticut), together with the Laws made coincident therewith … are; that … what religious privileges we enjoy (as Baptists) … we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights. …

“Sir, we are sensible that the president of the united States is not the national Legislator & also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State;

But our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.

Sir … we have reason to believe that America’s God has raised you up to fill the chair of State. …

May God strengthen you for the arduous task which Providence & the voice of the people have called you. … And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator.”

On Jan. 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote back agreeing with the Baptists: “Gentlemen … Believing with you: that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions.

I contemplate with solemn 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 man to all his natural rights. … I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man.”

In his second inaugural address, March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson stated: “In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.

I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious societies.”

Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808: “I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. …”

Jefferson continued: “Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General government. It must then rest with the States as far as it can be in any human authority. …

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines. …

Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets.”

Brought to you by AmericanMinute.com.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

If ever we differ over opinions, if ever we fight over meanings of words, you will always be remember in this man's heart, for the publishing of this great post, with thanksgiving in my heart.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Theo, Thank you for your kind comment and reply to the Article Post.

There is so much misunderstanding with the term "'Separation of Church and State."

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

There is much manipulation of things,
that leads to misunderstanding.

lpnmajor Loc: Arkansas

In this matter, as with most others, an individual ( or group ) determines what is right or wrong, based on their own beliefs and logic - then read the appropriate documents - and lo and behold! - they find the documents agree with them. Neat huh?

Most American religious entities ignore their own "interpretation" of the separation matter, when they involve themselves in political matters - but pull it out whenever they feel the Government is interfering in their practices. It is one thing to encourage a particular participation in the political process from the pulpit, but an entirely different thing, when the religious corporations become involved.

The separation issue works BOTH ways.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Fortunately we have History to help us to decipher the actual religious and governmental actual components of history.

These 13 English colonies we're chartered on Christian beliefs when written by the royal crown.

Also the original American Colonies Commonwealth's and State constitution's
were all written on Christian beliefs when written as to the origins of the charter.

It was only when the Constitutional delegates wrote the Constitution and the Bill of Rights was Religion taken out of the discourse when making up the Federal Government Amendment's, guidelines and laws.

The American Colonies Commonwealth's and States Constitutions never envisioned that the Federal Government would be over-power the individual States and I't's territories. The States believed they had protection from overreach Federal Government.

So the method of conquer and divide was part of the beginning of the Federal Government. The method was to divide and conquer through the issue of 'Separation of Church and State.' And the term was never recorded in the Constitution, nor was it implied . . .

Only from Madison and Jefferson do we here about 'Separation of Church and State.' All these documents were destroyed, except the Madison papers.

lpnmajor, Read it and interpret any way you like. The separation issue still works BOTH ways.

Only History and the rewriting of history will tell in the end . . .

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

The problem of church leaders trying to impose their church standards upon a people is just as abhorrent as when a political body tries to impose an immoral standard upon the souls of a nation.

Usually, those who think of themselves as "The Righteous," tend to consider any person who is not a "member" of
"their" righteous bunch, can't possibly comprehend the depth of their commitment, nor their "righteous" place in society. It becomes a self-perpetuating divide between the right and the righteous.

Religious people need to stay out of politics, but continually pray for politicians.

And Politicians need to stop trying to run religious people in their religion, and continually protect the rights of religious people to function in freedom of Godliness.

I do NOT think all religions have a right to equal protection under the law. If a religion is destructive of other religions, it needs to stay within the bounds of their own territory and protect it from outside influence, but stay out of other places with other religious issues.

Way too many religious zealots have done very destructive things against their supposed "inferiors" in God's name, but Jesus addressed the issue this way - "They shall put you out of the synagogues: yea, the time cometh, that whosoever killeth you will think that he doeth God service. 3 And these things will they do unto you, because they have not known the Father, nor me."[John 16:2-3]

Most Christians who become militaristic in nature do not even know of these verses. Neither do most of the people who are in need of this information.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

American Minute with Bill Federer
Real Origin "Wall of Separation of Church & State"
-Rhode Island founder Roger Williams & the First Baptist Church in America

An early Baptist dissenter who died in London's Newgate Prison was Thomas Helwys, who wrote in 1612:

"The King is a mortal man, and not God, therefore he hath no power over the mortal soul of his subjects to make laws and ordinances for them and to set spiritual Lords over them."


Thomas Helwys founded the Baptist faith in England with John Smyth and John Murton.

Thomas Helwys wrote in A Short Declaration of the Mystery of Iniquity:

"If the Kings people be obedient and true subjects, obeying all humane lawes made by the King, our Lord the King can require no more:

for men's religion to God is betwixt God and themselves; the King shall not answer for it, neither may the King be judge between God and man."

Baptist John Murton was thrown in the Newgate Prison where his opinions were censored for being against the government agenda.

Roger Williams referred to him in The Bloody Tenet of Persecution For Conscience Sake:

"The author of these arguments against persecution...being committed (a) prisoner to Newgate for the witness of some truths of Jesus,

and having not use of pen and ink, wrote these arguments in milk, in sheets of paper brought to him by the woman, his keeper, from a friend in London as the stopples (ie. cork) of his milk bottle...

In such paper, written with milk, nothing will appear; but the way of reading by fire being known to this friend who received the papers, he transcribed and kept together the papers, although the author himself could not correct nor view what himself had written...

It was in milk, tending to soul nourishment, even for babes and sucklings in Christ... the word of truth... testify against... slaughtering each other for their several respective religions and consciences."


Roger Williams himself was found guilty of preaching religious liberty in England. When the government sought to arrest him, he fled to Boston on February 5, 1631.

He pastored briefly before being banished in 1636 by the Puritan leader John Cotton, who himself had been persecuted by Anglicans in England.


Befriended by the Indians of Narragansett, Roger Williams founded Providence Plantation, Rhode Island - the first place where church government was not controlled by state government.

In 1639, Roger Williams, with Dr. John Clarke, organized the first Baptist Church in America.


Soon other dissenters arrived in the colony, such as Anne Hutchinson, William Coddington, and Philip Sherman.

Dissident Minister Rev. John Wheelwright fled Massachusetts and founded Exeter, New Hampshire.

"Notorious disagreements" with Puritan leader John Cotton over the Massachusetts General Court censoring his religious speech led Roger Williams to publish The Bloody Tenet of Persecution for Conscience Sake and Mr. Cotton's Letter Lately Printed, Examined and Answered in 1644.


In it, Roger Williams first mentioned his now famous phrase, "WALL OF SEPARATION":

"Mr. Cotton...hath not duly considered these following particulars.

First, the faithful labors of many witnesses of Jesus Christ, existing in the world, abundantly proving,

That the Church of the Jews under the Old Testament in the type and the Church of the Christians under the New Testament in the anti-type, were both SEPARATE from the world;


And that when they have opened a gap in the HEDGE, or WALL OF SEPARATION, between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broken down the WALL itself, removed the candlestick, &c. and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day.

And that therefore if He will ever please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be WALLED in peculiarly unto Himself from the world,

and that all that shall be saved out of the world are to be transplanted out of the wilderness of the world and added unto His Church or garden...a SEPARATION of Holy from unHoly, penitent from impenitent, Godly from unGodly."

Rev. Roger Williams was alluding to Isaiah 5:1-7, that when God's people sin, He judges them by allowing his vineyard to be trampled by an ungodly government:

"My well-beloved hath a vineyard...And he fenced it, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with the choicest vine... and he looked that it should bring forth grapes, and it brought forth wild grapes.

And now, O inhabitants of Jerusalem...judge, I pray you, betwixt me and my vineyard...When I looked that it should bring forth grapes, brought it forth wild grapes?...

I will tell you what I will do to my vineyard: I WILL TAKE AWAY THE HEDGE thereof, and it shall be eaten up; and BREAK DOWN THE WALL thereof, and it shall be trodden down...

For the vineyard...is house of Israel...and he looked for judgment, but found oppression."


Roger Williams' understanding was that if God's people sin, God will let the government trample the religious rights of the church, in the same way that when Israel sinned, God let the surrounding nations invade and trample them.

This is seen in the Book of Revelations' warning to the Church at Ephesus, "Repent and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

But Roger Williams stated that if God's people do repent, "He will restore His garden" protecting it as "walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world."


This became a foundational Baptist tenet that government should be kept out of the church.

Baptist churches began in other colonies.

James Madison wrote to Robert Walsh, March 2, 1819:

"The English church was originally the established religion...

Of other sects there were but few adherents, except the Presbyterians who predominated on the west side of the Blue Mountains.

A little time previous to the Revolutionary struggle, the Baptists sprang up, and made very rapid progress...

At present the population is divided...among the Protestant Episcopalians, the Presbyterians, the Baptists and the Methodists."

Baptist minister John Leland, who helped start Baptist Churches in Connecticut, was instrumental in getting Baptists to support the election of James Madison to the first session of Congress.

John Leland wrote in Rights of Conscience Inalienable, 1791:

"Every man must give account of himself to God, and therefore every man ought to be at liberty to serve God in a way that he can best reconcile to his conscience.

If government can answer for individuals at the day of judgment, let men be controlled by it in religious matters; otherwise, let men be free."


Connecticut had established the Congregational Christian denomination as its official State Church from 1639 to 1818.

Prior to the 1947 Everson case, religion was under each individual States' jurisdiction.


Get the book THE ORIGINAL 13-A Documentary History of Religion in America's First Thirteen States


On October 7, 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association complained to President Jefferson of their second-class status in the Congregationalist State of Connecticut:

"Sir... Our Sentiments are uniformly on the side of Religious Liberty

-That religion is at all times and places a matter between God and Individuals

-That no man ought to suffer in name, person or effects on account of his religious opinions

-That the legitimate power of civil Government extends no further than to punish the man who works ill to his neighbor:

But Sir...our ancient charter (in Connecticut), together with the Laws made coincident therewith...are; that...what religious privileges we enjoy (as Baptists)...we enjoy as favors granted, and not as inalienable rights..."


The Danbury Baptists continued:

"Sir, we are sensible that the President of the united States is not the national Legislator & also sensible that the national government cannot destroy the Laws of each State;

but our hopes are strong that the sentiments of our beloved President, which have had such genial Effect already, like the radiant beams of the Sun, will shine & prevail through all these States and all the world till Hierarchy and Tyranny be destroyed from the Earth.

Sir... we have reason to believe that America's God has raised you up to fill the chair of State... May God strengthen you for the arduous task which Providence & the voice of the people have called you...

And may the Lord preserve you safe from every evil and bring you at last to his Heavenly Kingdom through Jesus Christ our Glorious Mediator."


On January 1, 1802, Jefferson wrote back agreeing with the Baptists:

"Gentlemen... Believing with you

-that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God,

-that he owes account to none other for faith or his worship,

-that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions,

I contemplate with solemn 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 man to all his natural rights...

I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection and blessing of the common Father and Creator of man."

In his 2nd Inaugural Address, March 4, 1805, President Thomas Jefferson stated:

"In matters of religion I have considered that its free exercise is placed by the Constitution independent of the powers of the General Government.

I have therefore undertaken, on no occasion, to prescribe the religious exercise suited to it; but have left them, as the Constitution found them, under the direction and discipline of state and church authorities by the several religious societies."


BACKFIRED-A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance No Longer Tolerates Its Founders' Religion (See Below)


Jefferson wrote to Samuel Miller, January 23, 1808:

"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from inter-meddling with religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises.

This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States..."

Jefferson continued:

"Certainly no power to prescribe any religious exercise, or to assume authority in religious discipline, has been delegated to the General government. It must then rest with the States as far as it can be in any human authority...

I do not believe it is for the interest of religion to invite the civil magistrate to direct its exercises, its discipline, or its doctrines...

Every religious society has a right to determine for itself the times for these exercises, and the objects proper for them, according to their own particular tenets."


"BACKFIRED-A Nation Born for Religious Tolerance No Longer Tolerates the Religion of Its Founders" - The faith that gave birth to tolerance is no longer tolerated!

http://www.americanminute.com/store/product.php?

How did America go from Pilgrims seeking freedom to express their Judeo-Christian beliefs to today’s discrimination against those very beliefs in the name of tolerance?

“Backfred” chronicles the history of this disturbing development now rampant in our country.

Do these headlines sound familiar?

Ten Commandments taken down
“Under God” removed from the Pledge
Prayer prohibited
Nativity Scenes banned
Salvation Army defunded
Boy Scouts sued
Christmas Carols stopped
Bible called ‘hate speech’

Discover how tolerance evolved
from Pilgrims to Puritans
from Protestants to Catholics
from Liberal Christians to Jews
from Monotheists to Polytheists
from All Religions to Atheists
to only Politically Correct

“The frustrating thing is that those who are attacking religion claim they are doing it in the name of tolerance.

Question: Isn’t the real truth that they are intolerant of religion?” - Ronald Reagan, August 23, 1984

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Theo,

I have an article that states that Atheist and secularists are becoming ever so-much more militaristic and militant since the 1950's and are a political force to be reckoned with In 2014-2015

The "New Atheism," Worse Than You Think . . . Trying To Define Atheism (Part 1) http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-62887-1.html Werleman defines New Atheism as “evangelical atheism,” or, as he emphasizes elsewhere “evangelical anti-theism.”

The "New Atheism," Worse Than You Think . . . Trying To Define Atheism (Part 2) http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-62888-1.html

And Who Said That Atheism, Is Not A Religion . . . . No Religion affiliation 3rd biggest 'faith' http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-62948-1.html

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

The churches do not dictate what the government can do. Are they not allowed to speak their mind on political matters that differ from the views of the existing government? That is a matter of our free speech.Then appeal to people to understand their message which is different from that of the government. The government or political party can not force a religious group to conform to the wished of the government when that is against their religion. That is how separation of Church and State was defined until a judge, I believe it was in the late forties or early fifties, came up with his view and that is now the view of the liberals.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

Give me one good reason why religious people should stay out of politics. Are they not citizens of this country? Why should they be silenced for what they believe? And I have seen no where, any one is forced to believe what they believe. It is a figment of your imagination.

Doc110 Loc: York PA

Good Day Louie27,

I've come across an article that might have you change your opinion on religion, secularism and atheism. And the political and social movements in America as around the world . . .

Don't be put-off the Article titles. It's a news-social media's way to gain your attention. In all advertisement and advertisement for your brain. An "Article-Title" has 3 to 5 seconds to gain your attention, does the ploy term "hook-line-and-sinker" mean anything to you . . . Well I'm sure you get it . . .

Personally I didn't make the article headlines, and I would have employed another article title, but what I found most compelling, was the actual subject matter,on the growing trend with atheism, hence your replies to me and your challenge/discussion on the subject?. . .

Though they are provocative that's what they are intended to do.

Historically in the founding English America or the later on The United States of America, This country was founded from religious persecution in Europe.

That gave way for a new type of intolerance for secularists and atheists up until the 1950's In several landmark Supreme Court cases.

America is now seeing the fruits of that backlash and is brewing the new political and social discord that is blowing across this American Nation.

We are now seeing the Secular and Atheistic culture hold onto the political and social realm of power, hence your social viewpoint about why religion and politics.

Historically politics has always been present from the pulpit and has always been present, this country was founded on Christian principals just look at the 13 English colony's Royal charters, that actually created Church and State dominated religion in each of the Royal Charters.

During and After the American Revolution the State Constitutions and Commonwealth's also remained Church and State up until almost the 1880's.

Gradually Federalism dominated the States and we see the present Supreme Court decisions since the 1950's.

Atheism and Secularism movements have grown over time, in some area's of the country and less so in other area's of the country.

The new void that I am talking is the new Atheistic-Secular backlash that is growing in America. It is a fact and an undeniable trend that is occurring, one only has to look at the small hidden articles around the country and look at the topics that we are confronted in our daily lives.


Is Atheism is a movement ? it's a view of the universe centered in fact-based evidence.

Fact: Atheism is growing, Statistics say, average in the US 22 %, read these articles:

These Are The "Most Godless" Cities In America.

'Quirky' environment 'without stigma' an attractive draw for atheists

http://www.wnd.com/2016/01/this-is-most-godless-city-in-america/


If you’re an atheist, then the Pacific Northwest is the place for you.

You wouldn't believe it… but having no religious affiliation is now world's third biggest 'faith' after Christianity and Islam

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250096/You-wouldnt-believe-atheism-worlds-bigges...


They the Atheist's movement are boldly proclaiming, In keeping with Portland’s spirit of diversity serving the needs of the community, "The First Atheist Church of Portland, which welcomes new members under the care of Rev. Cheryl Ann Lewis.
http://www.facebook.com/First-Atheist-Church-of-Portland-235245019957763/


2. Or is atheism a new-religion, although the persistent criticisms of religious viewpoints may make it appear so to those lacking a background in the sciences.

Please explain: They the Atheist's movement are boldly proclaiming, In keeping with Portland’s spirit of diversity serving the needs of the community,

"The First Atheist Church of Portland, which welcomes new members under the care of Rev. Cheryl Ann Lewis.
http://www.facebook.com/First-Atheist-Church-of-Portland-235245019957763/


3. Atheism CAN be scrutinized and talked about rationally - So when do you plan to start?

So far I've given you several articles to read, for comment, it's a start.

"New Atheism," Worse Than You Think . . . Trying To Define Atheism (Part 1)
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-62887-1.html

"New Atheism," Worse Than You Think . . . Trying To Define Atheism (Part 2)
http://www.counterpunch.org/2016/01/29/new-atheism-worse-than-you-think/
http://www.onepoliticalplaza.com/t-62888-1.html


The question is, do you want to talk rationally about the books discussed and news article on atheism, that was posted and the growing trend in America and around the world ?

These facts can't be denied, but they can be further scrutinized to reveal a trend Religiously, politically, philosophy, as well as through Social Doctrine by use of Sociology to explain the growing wave i.e.

The trend of Secularism and Atheism, call it Constructive Social Behavior Epistemology or jurisprudence Social philosophy, and current Atheistic social ethics movement's.

Some topics that deal with this social philosophy are:

Agency and free will
The will to power
Accountability
Speech acts
Situational ethics
Modernism and Postmodernism
Individualism
Crowds
Property
Rights
Authority
Ideologies
Cultural criticism

Versus an opinion with a singular perspective on the subject. There's a growing unity among the Atheist movement. These facts can't be denied.


Here is a synopsis of the article and two books.

Is there a Atheistic truth, nerve ?. . . to be discussed ?

Can't the Atheist movement be scrutinized and be talked about, rationally as other Christian religious groups and religions ?

Is new Atheism a new type of religion ? . . .

Are Atheist the New “secular fundamentalists” ? . . .

And how do Atheist voice's seek to end this suffering of man and women kind from it's revolutionary religious roots.

They Atheist's are not a persecuted group or have a social stigma and conformity issues as once believed and practiced in this country and around the world.

"Intellectual Philosophy."

Tell me are not these two book's able to help define "Intellectual Philosophy" of secular Atheism or another take “evangelical anti-theism.” ?

The books help's to define the rudimentary beginnings of Atheism in the 1950's and the rise and growth in 2015 and rise of Atheism in America and around the World. Atheism is a new political movement, and is not discussed.

"ignorance of nature gave birth to gods."

"knowledge of nature is made for their destruction" of religion.

You fail to mention that the Christian religious charities provide to humanity of giving to the poor needy and the suffering.

This is Jesus Christ's message . . .

I'm sorry your reactionary comment missed the mark in your statement to the posted article.

Here is a brief synopsis of the two books that you obviously despise . . . So did I hit a Atheistic truth nerve ?. . .


Book Review:

The article discussed two authors and their books.

The reviewer analyzed the topic of the "New Atheism" and the lack written books on the subject focused on the cultural and sociopolitical aspects of the movement.

1. CJ Werleman’s The New Atheist Threat: The Dangerous Rise of Secular Extremists

2. Stephen LeDrew’s The Evolution of Atheism: The Politics of a Modern Movement

Both books are essential reading for anyone seeking to better understand the way-wardness of a large chunk of the atheist movement.


Werleman defines New Atheism as “evangelical atheism,” or, as he emphasizes elsewhere “evangelical anti-theism theme.”

It is the conviction that religion is the leading source of problems around the world, and thus “is an obstacle to creating human perfection and a Western civilization utopia.”

That the New Atheists are “secular fundamentalists.”

They display a cultish commitment to science, a childishly simplistic view of religion, a severely bigoted stance toward Islam, and a slavish faith in what they take to be “the beneficent U.S. secular state.


LeDrew, a Canadian sociologist and post-doctoral fellow at the Centre for the Study of Religion and Society at Uppsala University in Sweden, presents his findings in an engaging, non-technical manner.

The text is divided into two main parts, the first on “Atheism as Ideology,” and the second on “Atheism as a Social Movement.”

Most importantly” challenging “the [widely held] assumption that the secular movement is liberal and progressive.” He writes that New Atheism “is a secular fundamentalism, a modern utopian ideology.”

LeDrew, sees it as an “essentially political phenomenon.” It is “only manifestly a critique of religion” while its somewhat veiled but veritable aim is “the universalization of the ideology of scientism and the establishment of its cultural authority.”

Moreover, among other things it is “a defense of the position of the white middle-class Western male, and of modernity itself,” thought to be “under threat by a swirling concoction of religious ignorance, epistemic relativism, identity politics, and cultural pluralism.”


Try to respond with fact's and back up those facts with sane rational opinions. . . .

That the New Atheists are “secular fundamentalists,” and emphasizes the “evangelical anti-theism theme,” discussed.

I would like to here you viewpoint on this subject

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

Because they are unable to separate their own sense of their righteousness, from their supposed ability to judge their neighbors righteousness.

Do you think they do have that responsibility?



Some of them are.



I don't think we are reading the same post.



Nope! Try again.

Abortion and Homosexuality are both religious issues, and we are being forced by the Obama Democrat party to accept both as "protected speech." Neither of which have anything to do with speech, protected or otherwise.

And yes, it IS being forced upon those who do not believe it is acceptable. And no, it is not protected by the Constitution. And neither is lying protected speech. That never stopped a politician of either party.

Add to that a Supreme Court that likes to legislate political issues, and you have a really immoral and corrupt Government.

Louie27 Loc: Peoria, AZ

I was responding to the post of inpmajor on separation of Church and State. Your point 1. All of the Churches I have gone to, except for one, are not so self righteous that they judge their neighbors. None human has the right to be the judge of the righteousness. To the other point I believe that this administration has shoved issues upon Churches and other religious organizations, that are not in their beliefs.

Theo Loc: Within 1000 miles of Tampa, Florida

Your response began with [quote Theo...

I assumed........