you do illustrate the fact that there is a war within Christianity between fundamentalists, like you appear to be, and liberals, who are heavily represented on this site

Of course, there is, but as said, the liberal position, such as relegates Old Testament historical narratives to being folk tales, and to be much the work of endless ("homophobic") redactors, with no coherent sexual ethic, and negate the exclusive claims of Christ and the gospel, etc., is easily seen to be spurious. The New Testament church did not treat them that way, and was persecuted for its exclusive claims, and all truth claims are anyway. There is a vast difference between Fred Phelps and the typical evangelical believer (though some of your militant counterparts seek to equate the two), so likewise there is between a Walter Wink type "Christianity' and that of the apostle Paul, and the former are manifestly not fundamentally conformable to that of Scripture. Thus they must resort to interpretations that impugn the authority of Scripture itself.

And i am a fundamental Christian, and the Lord Jesus was even more so, which is why i stand opposed to the church having the coercive physical power of the state to punish disobedience, as well as against those who promote the liberal moral views or a revisionist theology such as described above.

...Christian dominionists who through their ignorance of our history and total lack of understanding of one of the dearest gifts given to us-separation of religion and government..

They may be to some degree, and i am opposed to an actual theocracy in which the church has the power of the State, or affirming one particular sect, versus working to elect those who reflect a basic Christian ethos, but the ranting against them doing the latter by their counterparts evidences an ignorance on the part of such adversaries, as they themselves are effectively seeking to impose their ideology upon us by doing likewise. You see them as deluded and dangerous, and oppose the state reflecting fundamental Christian moral beliefs and basic affirmation of Christianity, and work toward establishing a form of state-sanctioned secularism that is intolerant and even hostile to anything in government that is reflective of basic Christian-based morality, or that affirms it.

You do so under the pretext that the 1st Amendment forbids the government from sanctioning one religion over another even in a basic way, which is impossible, and the general liberal ethos which wars against much of traditional Christian moral stands (and thus us pro-abortion, pro-homosexual , etc.) replaces it, and its counterparts largely functions as religion. If 90% of the country were Baptists, or 90% Hindu, their respective ideology and basis for such would be reflected in many governmental laws and affirmation of values. But for gov. to require a person to be one or the other, or formally adhere to any kind of spiritual belief, or suppress any gov. expression of faith and so effectively convey support for atheism when the historical and present default faith of the people was/is another, would be another thing.

But to reiterate, while at one time evangelical Christian faith largely was the "civil religion," and was significantly affirmed by government in different ways, which even now militant atheists recognize and seek to purge, yet in a democracy the people can manifest what they really believe by votes, and as long as they can and do so fairly, then the government will reflect that general ethos. Whether the dominionists are influencing this fairly as opposed to George Soros and group like Acorn is a debate.

You are the personification of what many of the founders feared the most.

Militant disestablishment of religion results in the tyranny they feared, and your statements is another example of a ideology that is paranoid about evangelical type Christians seeking to have their general faith, especially in moral views, recognized and reflected, as it opposes a general liberal ethos which seeks the same power.

I have condemned the church using the powers of the State, and affirmed the basic separation of powers, and that the real battle is a spiritual, though Tabachnick even attacks that. But i am quite confident that if the Founders could speak today they would condemn the church for not influencing society and the government enough, in response to the liberal wresting of liberty to mean such things as protecting nudity in Penthouse as free speech, and promoting sexual experimentation among teens, to promoting a victim and entitlement mentality in which indolence is rewarded, etc..

Jefferson and Adams shared the thought that if they had not set up our government they way they had, those involved in the "great spiritual awakening" in the early 1800's would surely have run rampant "pilloring and cropping" those who didn't share their beliefs."

I am aware that the Founders has some varying beliefs, and were not all Christians like John Jay, Benjamin Rush, etc., nor perhaps always consistent, but they were opposed to an American theocracy, for valid reasons, and you have the Treaty of Tripoli, but in a "quote war" their affirmation of Christian faith would win, and Adam also stated that "Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other," as it depends upon voters electing good men, and "Without Religion this World would be Something not fit to be mentioned in polite Company, I mean Hell."

The Great Awakenings themselves were actually necessary for their noble goals, as government itself must be governed, and it is the people who do so best to the degree that they are governed by Heaven over Hell. As Robert Winthrop (May 12, 1809 - November 16, 1894), and Speaker of the House from 1838 to 1840, stated, "Men, in a word, must necessarily be controlled, either by a power within them, or by a power without them; either by the Word of God, or by the strong arm of man; either by the Bible or the bayonet."

And again, the general faith of the people will be reflected in whom they elect and the laws they pass. And as Blackstone will attest, these overall had a history which cannot be separated from religion. Those on the other side want their values reflected, but i think they are more elitists and less tolerant of opposition and debate than an evangelical Christianity which seeks to engage. And that you attempt to do so civilly is commendable.

Jefferson and Madison created the University of VA with the express provisions to have no courses in religion and no clergy as professors. Do you think that reflects your view of their understanding of the Establishment Clause?

And surely you are not inferring that this was the norm? During the colonial period the Bible was "the single most important cultural influence in the lives of Anglo-Americans." Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, Volumes 1-2, reports that in the first report of a public school in Washington which they had on file, in 1813 a Mr. Henry Ould states, "55 have learned to read in the Old and New Testaments, and are all able to spell words of three, four, and five syllables; 26 are now learning to read Dr. Watts' Hymns and spell words of two syllables; 10 are learning words of four and five letters."

Overall, the nature of early colleges and universities was religious, and this continued at least until the Civil War. Even State colleges had significant religious (most always Christian) components, such as mandatory religion courses and attendance at chapel services, while large numbers of their faculties had formal religious training. The second requirement of Harvard University's Lawes of 1642 , after requiring literacy in Latin, (which language the Scriptures were then mostly translated into), was that "Every one shall consider the main end of his life and studies to know God and Jesus Christ which is eternal life. (John 17:3)

For as Theodore Roosevelt stated, "A thorough knowledge of the Bible is worth more than a college education." When the Engel v. Vitale case was decided, an estimated 75% of the school systems in the South had religious services and Bible readings. (Colliers 1961 Yearbook p. 224)

To this can be added many more documented examples of implicit as well as official government support of general Christian faith, which i am sure does not reflects your view of their understanding of the Establishment Clause, which is a relatively recent interpretation.

As for Jefferson, his pledge to separate church and state may have been at least partly political motivated, based upon the discovery of words deleted by the president (nearly 30 percent of the draft) prior to publication. Moreover, Jefferson began to attend worship services held at the House of Representatives two days after writing the letter, and that he permitted regular worship services to be held there, a practice that continued until after the Civil War, with preachers from every Protestant denomination appearing there. And as early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Religion and the Founding of the American Republic, part 4

Your claims about our history are way off base and your analogy with communism incredibly naive

According to your decree, but such argument by assertions is like communism. Yet i have not gone to the extremes some go to in seeking to defend the Christian historicity of America, against those who assert the Founders where antagonistic against any expression or affirmation of the general Christian faith, as if all were like Paine, but i present referenced evidence to the contrary.

Plus, the dominionists ARE trying to create an theocracy.

I would have to do more research to determine the veracity of this claim, as opposed to simply seeking to see a government in which it does not mandate assent to any faith, though its laws overall are reflective of general Christian faith and morality, from rest on Sunday Presidential, proclamations which acknowledge Deity, versus atheism, Islam, or a pluralism that is intolerant of any who do not share its belief that there are no moral absolutes.

without government tax breaks and faith based government grants, many churches would fold up their tents

And so would many other non-profits, which the government also gives the same breaks to, in recognition of the virtue of charitable work being beneficial for society, and support of such reflects a moral belief that is found in Scripture, (Gn. 47:22) though not exclusively. But accepting the freedom not to pay taxes, though that now can come at the cost of freedom to officially affirm a political candidate (at least conservative ones), is not the same as asking for support, and a church should accept either it requires a compromise of faith, and the normative Biblical means of support is through its members. (3Jn. 1:5-8)

it also picks my pocket and forces me to support religious ideas that go against my conscience.

And members of the church also normatively do pay taxes, even for things they do not support., and the rest of your rant against churches not paying taxes would also apply to liberal non-profits which work for your seemingly atheistic agenda, as well as support liberal ones which have far fewer members and pose no real threat to your world view.

Finally, I am not interested in any spiritual sword play using biblical quotes or any other biblical references in this debate. The bible has absolutely nothing to do with the concept of democratic republics. It's writings do not discuss those concepts in any way.  

I am sorry but as much as may like, you cannot separate the two, and your statement requires more Scripture references. If you knew the Bible then you would see that the idea of election is clearly supported, with moral requirements, as is the separation of the church from the civil authorities, and its functions are taught, and the effects of leadership exampled, with warnings against trusting man with too much power, etc.

The only slight reference to any political system besides monarchy is in Acts, where Peter essentially set up a communistic society where all were to hand over their wealth which was then distributed and shared by all You example a very superficial knowledge and understanding of Scripture. More than one type or example of government is seen in Scripture, and this one had a unique context, which makes it as far from what Communism produced as East Germany was/is from Paradise. In Acts 2-7 you have a new entity under the leadership of men who had and exercised no real authority except for manifestly spiritual power, which is made quite clear.

In addition, those who gave all did so voluntarily -- lying about it while living off the benefits was the sin of Acts 5 -- and their goods were not requisitioned by the apostles, while those who did the distributing "as every one had need" were openly living with their disciples and in the same condition. Find men like the apostles, as described in Scripture, and we can talk about a form of communism.

Moreover this "seminary" experience was temporary, and after that we see no indication that all the church (or any for that matter) lived in such a commune, but that believers had their own houses, and husbands were require to provide for their own, and there were believers who who were rich yet who were not required to sell all, but not trust in such ("in God we trust") but be wiling and ready to give, as "forasking all" requires of the heart. (1Cor. 11:22; 1Tim. 5:8; 6:17-19)

I find it interesting when communism is brought up by fundamentalists as something to be abhored since it illustrates a fuzzy knowledge of their own stories.

I find it interesting as well as grievous how much atheists and such can misconstrue the Bible to justify their war against its God, while raising an alarm about those who seek to live by it, and thus require sound exegesis.

I am an atheist, so I don't carry a flag for liberal Christians

I had not read this far, but basically assumed this due to your degree of antagonism and bias.

But I do have the same goals as they do, as they see our country as multi-cultural and multi-religious

It is, but that is not what they seek, but work toward a goal of a culture and a world that is unified according to a basic ideology which sees the world as victims of traditional moral authority, and militates against the sanctity of marriage, parental authority, and freedom to oppose liberalism and its support of abortion, homosexual relations, etc., while it even opposes the principal of capitalism in which a man is rewarded according to his own labor, and people give voluntarily, and the State remains small.

It is not surprising you aligned with liberal Christians, as you have a common antipathy toward the world reflecting conservative Christian values, and the reality is that if the evangelical movement was aligned with them, as Jesse Jackson types who seek their own type of ideological rule are, then they would have no real objection.

f how important it is for the health of our country and for the freedom to worship to have MORE separation and not less

More would be anti-historical, which is why atheists even fight against things like crosses in national cemeteries, while more separation is indeed needed for your atheistic goals to be accomplished, would be in clear contrast to what the Founders overall and America historically supported. For while atheists themselves example how the Bible can be misconstrued and abused, lacking any supreme transcendent authority by which to based and examine morality by, you are left to your own "golden compass" which easily points south, as what seems reasonable to you can easily justify the oppression and murders which Communism exampled, and in fact, atheists fosters the "political religion" atheists lie Mao enjoyed. Even now some atheists who support removing children from the homes of conservative Christians, rationalizing that if we do it to drug pushes why not do them?

Your arguments and sympathy for Christian dominionism are not effective, fraught with historical errors, and totally unconvincing. The place you want to "return" the country to never existed in America, and hopefully never will.

Rather, the atheistic arguments and sympathy for what would be state-sanctioned support of atheism, which even by silence effectively teaches no dependence upon or gratitude to a Creator, are what are erroneous interpretations and based upon ignorance and selective use of historical material, and imagined a country which never existed in America, and hopefully never will.

And again, this is the result of the liberal ethos the objectively baseless moral reasoning of the Left is promoting in America.