One must bear in mind that most of the English-speaking colonists were refugees from Catholicism, and were Protestants. They only sought freedom of, and protection for, the following of their faith. And equal freedom for others.
Er, sorry. The Pilgrims were in trouble and fleeing from first-generation Protestantism or "The Church of England."
They thought that the "Anglican" church that Henry the 8th founded so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, was still far too Catholic. Queen Elizabeth I disagreed, as did her successor, King James I (you've heard of his bible KJV) so they skedaddled to Holland, and then to America.
The Catholics were not who the Pilgrims were fleeing. They were 2 gens back. The pilgrims were fleeing KJV Protestants and had their own branch of Protestantism.
I stand corrected. But there were those from the Continent (e.g., Hugenots) who were fleeing the Catholic church. The Church of England was not so much Protestant as de-Pope-ulated. It was strictly a maneuver to get around the Catholic prohibition of divorce and re-marriage.
The main point being: they were religious refugees.
Different group at a different time. The Pilgrams were very much English who took refuge in Holland, and one of the distressing things was that the children were starting to speak Dutch.
The Church of England was very much Protestant. They were the OG. Got around the prohibition of Henry the 8ths marital woes, and not incidentally gave him free rein to pillage every church, monastery, and chapel in the country of anything of value. Gold, silver, cloth, anything. It was now property of the Crown.
I have that Bible and I like it, despite the archaic English. The King James version was commissioned because the King did not like how the Geneva bible footnote comments referred to Kings in general. As I understand it, the Geneva bible was the most common among Americans at the time of the Revolution.
what is actually enshrined in the constitution / bill of rights is the freedom of religion
Correct, thus rendering it unlawful for the State to attempt to enforce any particular religion or religious dogma. I don't think the judicial precedent is strong enough on this matter currently, but hopefully one day a case will reach the Supreme Court and bring solid closure on it.
As it currently stands, there are about 30 states with what are called "Blue Laws", which is just another name for Sunday Laws. Essentially, they are attempting to codify into law an aspect of the religion called "Christianity". This is problematic because it opens the door to other dogmas being codified, many of which even christians disagree on. Thus, which sect of christians get a special law? It's an extremely slippery slope and has only resulted in tyranny and abuses in the past. I believe at one point in the 1800s there were some states that would fine, imprison or execute you if you failed to attend church on Sundays.
What’s your opinion on whether a township can do it?
When I was growing up, every store in my town was closed on Sundays, and it was kinda nice. Please feel free to slap down my state solution here on this (I’m not even a fan of the thought myself), but if one business works 7 days a week and another doesn’t, the one that doesn’t is going to fall behind the other one if that one is inclined to expand.
Do you spend the day ministering to the open business maybe? What’s a sovereign way to address the situation?
Point blank: the choice to close on Sundays or on any other day should be left in the hands of the business owners. It should never be in the hands of the government.
If a business owner believes that he should close on a certain day due to his faith, he will put his faith over his profit margins. Otherwise he really worships money anyway.
Muslim businesses do this, as do Christian businesses. I believe Chik Fil A and Hobby Lobby are two examples. No problem! Freedom of religion (:
The instant the State decides which religious dogmas must be observed, religious liberty has been infringed upon; for a Muslim will be forced to close down on a day he has no regard for, as will a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian. It throws the entire principle into hazard.
That and if it’s regulated, it’s not personal obedience.
I tend to agree, even before getting into little technicalities like the Sabbath being on Sabado. 😉 Everything being closed on Sundays sure was nice though.
To be even more explicit, what’s actually in the constitution is “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion”, which they got around by creating a fourth branch of government and largely delegating congressional authority to it.
separation of church and state is just a concept, not really enshrined in constitution or law
what is actually enshrined in the constitution / bill of rights is the freedom of religion
clairification: exact text:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof…”
One must bear in mind that most of the English-speaking colonists were refugees from Catholicism, and were Protestants. They only sought freedom of, and protection for, the following of their faith. And equal freedom for others.
Er, sorry. The Pilgrims were in trouble and fleeing from first-generation Protestantism or "The Church of England."
They thought that the "Anglican" church that Henry the 8th founded so he could divorce Catherine of Aragon, was still far too Catholic. Queen Elizabeth I disagreed, as did her successor, King James I (you've heard of his bible KJV) so they skedaddled to Holland, and then to America.
The Catholics were not who the Pilgrims were fleeing. They were 2 gens back. The pilgrims were fleeing KJV Protestants and had their own branch of Protestantism.
I stand corrected. But there were those from the Continent (e.g., Hugenots) who were fleeing the Catholic church. The Church of England was not so much Protestant as de-Pope-ulated. It was strictly a maneuver to get around the Catholic prohibition of divorce and re-marriage.
The main point being: they were religious refugees.
Different group at a different time. The Pilgrams were very much English who took refuge in Holland, and one of the distressing things was that the children were starting to speak Dutch.
The Church of England was very much Protestant. They were the OG. Got around the prohibition of Henry the 8ths marital woes, and not incidentally gave him free rein to pillage every church, monastery, and chapel in the country of anything of value. Gold, silver, cloth, anything. It was now property of the Crown.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They were a specific protestant, carrying a specific bible:
https://www.biblicalheritageexhibit.com/blogs/history-of-the-english-bible/1560-the-geneva-bible-the-pilgrims-bible
I have that Bible and I like it, despite the archaic English. The King James version was commissioned because the King did not like how the Geneva bible footnote comments referred to Kings in general. As I understand it, the Geneva bible was the most common among Americans at the time of the Revolution.
Correct, thus rendering it unlawful for the State to attempt to enforce any particular religion or religious dogma. I don't think the judicial precedent is strong enough on this matter currently, but hopefully one day a case will reach the Supreme Court and bring solid closure on it.
As it currently stands, there are about 30 states with what are called "Blue Laws", which is just another name for Sunday Laws. Essentially, they are attempting to codify into law an aspect of the religion called "Christianity". This is problematic because it opens the door to other dogmas being codified, many of which even christians disagree on. Thus, which sect of christians get a special law? It's an extremely slippery slope and has only resulted in tyranny and abuses in the past. I believe at one point in the 1800s there were some states that would fine, imprison or execute you if you failed to attend church on Sundays.
The year is 2025
What does that mean ?
What’s your opinion on whether a township can do it?
When I was growing up, every store in my town was closed on Sundays, and it was kinda nice. Please feel free to slap down my state solution here on this (I’m not even a fan of the thought myself), but if one business works 7 days a week and another doesn’t, the one that doesn’t is going to fall behind the other one if that one is inclined to expand.
Do you spend the day ministering to the open business maybe? What’s a sovereign way to address the situation?
Point blank: the choice to close on Sundays or on any other day should be left in the hands of the business owners. It should never be in the hands of the government.
If a business owner believes that he should close on a certain day due to his faith, he will put his faith over his profit margins. Otherwise he really worships money anyway.
Muslim businesses do this, as do Christian businesses. I believe Chik Fil A and Hobby Lobby are two examples. No problem! Freedom of religion (:
The instant the State decides which religious dogmas must be observed, religious liberty has been infringed upon; for a Muslim will be forced to close down on a day he has no regard for, as will a Seventh-Day Adventist Christian. It throws the entire principle into hazard.
That and if it’s regulated, it’s not personal obedience.
I tend to agree, even before getting into little technicalities like the Sabbath being on Sabado. 😉 Everything being closed on Sundays sure was nice though.
To be even more explicit, what’s actually in the constitution is “congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of religion”, which they got around by creating a fourth branch of government and largely delegating congressional authority to it.