Ahh, willhelm, whatever will we do with you? I'd tell you that your comment is nonsense, but I'm reluctant to do so because of course it is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. Would you care to clarify?

The point these historians make, at least up to about 40 minutes into the panel, is that Christian evangelicals argued that the U.S. was purely a civil compact, with no relationship whatsoever to a divinity. In other words, it should never be considered a Christian society in any way at all. They argued, for example, that mail ought to be delivered on Sundays because it would be wrong to treat Sunday as different from any other day. For these evangelicals, Christian faith was purely ...

Ahh, willhelm, whatever will we do with you? I'd tell you that your comment is nonsense, but I'm reluctant to do so because of course it is so vague as to be essentially meaningless. Would you care to clarify?

The point these historians make, at least up to about 40 minutes into the panel, is that Christian evangelicals argued that the U.S. was purely a civil compact, with no relationship whatsoever to a divinity. In other words, it should never be considered a Christian society in any way at all. They argued, for example, that mail ought to be delivered on Sundays because it would be wrong to treat Sunday as different from any other day. For these evangelicals, Christian faith was purely a matter of private conviction and voluntary association and should be left entirely out of matters having to do with the state -- no swearing on Bibles, no prayer in schools or government institutions, no Ten Commandments posted in courthouses, etc. Is that what you mean?

Anyway, for those with understanding I will clear up any confusion. We are a representative republic. To ban ANY idea, concept, or practice against the will of the people is totalitarian. Hence, our constitutions protection of religion and the free exercise thereof. When the laws are change and the people decide they want to live under the ideas proposed in your clip, then our democracy has worked to your utopian view. However, for the time being we are still free as a society to determine these things.

As for the concept of seperation of Church and State... This idea holds these realms in equal standing. The Church is not subject to control by the State and this is constit...

Anyway, for those with understanding I will clear up any confusion. We are a representative republic. To ban ANY idea, concept, or practice against the will of the people is totalitarian. Hence, our constitutions protection of religion and the free exercise thereof. When the laws are change and the people decide they want to live under the ideas proposed in your clip, then our democracy has worked to your utopian view. However, for the time being we are still free as a society to determine these things.

As for the concept of seperation of Church and State... This idea holds these realms in equal standing. The Church is not subject to control by the State and this is constitutionally founded. For example, the are not taxed.

The secularists are not comfortable with these ideas and are seekink to undermine this seperation. It is their goal to go from the state shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion and the free exercise thereof to freedom from religion.

willhelm, I have yet to comprehend either of your comments on this clip, from your references to "my utopian view" in the first comment (I think you mean the views I was attributing to eighteenth-century evangelicals, not my own views -- but how are they "utopian"?), to the notion that secularists want to undermine the separation of church and state, to this bizarre claim that "the ONLY purpose of the Constitution ... was to protect the people from government," (actually, it was to create and establish a form of government by the people), to the final, incomprehensible non sequitur that "the construct of a representative republican form of government holds the majority i...

willhelm, I have yet to comprehend either of your comments on this clip, from your references to "my utopian view" in the first comment (I think you mean the views I was attributing to eighteenth-century evangelicals, not my own views -- but how are they "utopian"?), to the notion that secularists want to undermine the separation of church and state, to this bizarre claim that "the ONLY purpose of the Constitution ... was to protect the people from government," (actually, it was to create and establish a form of government by the people), to the final, incomprehensible non sequitur that "the construct of a representative republican form of government holds the majority in check" (as opposed to what? what are you talking about?).

My point, as I said at the beginning, was that eighteenth-century evangelicals pushed for a view of U.S. governance that would be considered 100% secular by today's standards.

Your point, i.e. that "totalitarianism" means banning anything against the will of the people, still strikes me as thoroughly bizarre ... Seriously, if a majority of Americans oppose banning abortion, would only a totalitarian seek to overturn Roe v. Wade? Because that seems to follow logically from what you're saying.