By no means the majority but only some original colonies, fleeing from religious persecution, applied their own versions of religious persecution and discrimination as per the Delaware constitution. Most colonies gave no heed to any religious conditions or establishment, save for the then normal superstitious mentionings. They were being primarily founded for reasons of trade and profits.
whatever, the whole purpose of this thread is that OP fears in 2016, Hillary will be perceived as "not religious enough, or not Christian enough."
I'm not sure that was the point of dbphoenix's OP. Regardless, now that stu is here, he'll try to drive out any mention of anything religious whatsoever, and jem will come back bringing religion into it with two hands and both feet, and the two will then argue (over something that can't be proved either way) until a hypothetical judgment day, driving all others to flee the thread.
Most certainly a majority of the colonies had ties to religion. I have detailed those ties on other threads to stu here on elitetrader.
So true. One is reminded of the Puritans (from the Latin for "purely tolerant") being persecuted in England, forced to flee here.
When you put the pieces together from the different historical sources you see the states had strong ties. in addition to the ones mentioned here... we know Virginia had established the church of england as the the state church and paid money to it. Stu's version of history is once again a leftist lie. http://www.americanbar.org/groups/p...tives_awards/students_in_action/colonial.html When the Bill of Rights to the U.S. Constitution was adopted in 1791, the First Amendment guaranteed that “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” This provision ensured that no one religion would be favored over another and protected religious groups from unfair treatment by the federal government. Still it did not protect against unfair treatment by state governments. Indeed, the amendment was thought by many to protect against congressional interference with state governments' involvement with religion-that is, it was thought to prohibit the U.S. Congress from “disestablishing” churches established by state governments. New Hampshire and other states passed laws until the mid-1800s that kept non-Protestants from holding public office. Connecticut, Massachusetts, and several other states declared official churches. Since the 1940s, the Supreme Court has ruled that all states must uphold the First Amendment’s religious freedom guarantees. However, disagreement abounds in the Court and in the public square regarding how strictly the Establishment Clause should be interpreted. The “accommodationist” viewpoint, simply put, holds that government accommodation or support of religion is not unconstitutional unless some sort of force or persuasion is involved. The “separationist” viewpoint contemplates a much stricter, if not absolute, separation of church and state. More recently, several justices, led by Justice Sandra Day O’Connor, have argued in favor of a third approach-a so called “no endorsement” analysis. Under this approach, the court would decide Establishment Clause claims by determining whether a hypothetical “reasonable observer” would view the challenged activity as sending a message that the government supported or endorsed the religious message
Surely the point of any thread's OP is to open up discussion and opinion! Until Jem does jump in with two hands and both feet along with his usual tired old repertoire of childish insults, maybe it would be more reasonable for you to consider directly the issues raised rather than trying to excuse yourself in this rather obscure manner as you've done before. If you are a religious person, my perspective is in contrast to religion. It is not as you say to drive out any mention of it. Apparently that is what you would prefer to believe rather than directly address certain pertinent counter points to inaccurate religious apologists' comments.
Yes, there was an obvious import reflecting religion laid upon some state constitutions, but not the majority. That's the point. It is a distortion and a factually untrue impression that America, its founding Colonies, were all constituted on religion, while in fact the majority of Colonies and then of course the US, were not. Settlers had already established on trade and profit when constitutions were first drafted and they were not drawing up their own on or with a biblical or religious directive. Religion is an aspect of the whole picture as is Trade. It isn't the overall driving force some of its adherents wrongly and foolishly wish it had been.