NationStates Jolt Archive

This has nothing to do with current law.

King James Version of the Bible:


It's very easy to take the phrase "law and prophets" out of context without respect to the passage as a whole, but it's clear that by "fulfill", what with the fact that he established entirely new laws in every version of the Bible available, and even explicity mentioned that he was overturning the old laws in the above passage (KJV, the most popular version of the Bible in history), that "fulfill" means that Jesus, by being delivered to the people, has taken the burden of the old laws and rendered them null and void.

You. Lose. Any attempt you make at proving me wrong is either by way of utter stupidity or Coulter-esque manipulation. Sort of like how in quoting me in one of your prior posts you entirely ignored the evidence I gave in favor of my argument altogether...
He didn't say he was overturning the old law. Where does it explicitly say he was overturning the old Law? He showed you where it explicitly said he wasn't. I expect to see a quote that says or means "I am overturning the old Law".

King James Version of the Bible:
I thought you weren't going to debate me on this anymore.

In any case, "the law and the prophets" referred to by jesus is, of course, THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. What they had written, he will not change. All biblical scholars agree that jesus meant the totality of the law--the mitzvah--the TANACH. And the notion of "fulfill" (if you would bother to understand the context) means of course to have the final interpretation. Again--you'd know this if you did some research.

Now if you want to continue to whine about the fact that you know jack about your religion, fine by me. But I don't care.

stop with the idiotic side conversation that has nothing to do with American law.

"Congress shall pass no law"

that has nothing to do with Christmas decorations at a local courthouse, Christmas calanders, prayers before a football game, state governments ( no state has a Congress...or a President for that matter), or any of the other matters that radilibs like to dig up as violating a mystical "seperation of church and state". That term was coined by Jefferson ( who was in France during the Constitutional Convention and played no role in the bill of rights) and was introduced to Constitutional law by Hugo Black. Hugo Black was a Klansman and introduced that langauage to precedent in 1962's Engle v. Vitale...right in the middle of civil rights for blacks gained steam as a movement...aided by....churches...what a coincidence!

The Constitution only prohibits Congress from establishing a national religion. It later was "evolved" by the Supreme Court to mean absolutely no God anywhere, even on the state level.

"You can't legislate morality." - Jon Stewert, Steve Colbert, other Young Democrat heroes
It was widely discussed at the time they were drafting the amendments. One can read the Federalist papers which explain the meaning of the amendments in the words of the authors of the Constitution. They intended no just to prevent a national religion but to prevent any actions on behalf of the government that supported specific religion practices or prohibited certian religious practices.

I thought you weren't going to debate me on this anymore.

In any case, "the law and the prophets" referred to by jesus is, of course, THE LAW AND THE PROPHETS. What they had written, he will not change. All biblical scholars agree that jesus meant the totality of the law--the mitzvah--the TANACH. And the notion of "fulfill" (if you would bother to understand the context) means of course to have the final interpretation. Again--you'd know this if you did some research.

Now if you want to continue to whine about the fact that you know jack about your religion, fine by me. But I don't care.
I'm not a Christian. I just understand Christian teachings.

Jesus overturned a number of the tenants of the old law in his sermon on the mount. He didn't mean that all of the old laws would be disregarded; I never claimed that. But, he explicity lays down new laws in favor of old ones in the book of Matthew. There is no doubt to that.

I'm not a Christian. I just understand Christian teachings.

Jesus overturned a number of the tenants of the old law in his sermon on the mount. He didn't mean that all of the old laws would be disregarded; I never claimed that. But, he explicity lays down new laws in favor of old ones in the book of Matthew. There is no doubt to that.
Jesus said the old laws were intact. If he created new ones, then there's a contradiction. Which, of course, doesn't bother me in the least, since it's not my mess to clean up.

It was widely discussed at the time they were drafting the amendments. One can read the Federalist papers which explain the meaning of the amendments in the words of the authors of the Constitution. They intended no just to prevent a national religion but to prevent any actions on behalf of the government that supported specific religion practices or prohibited certian religious practices.

Right, and now the stupid ACLU thinks that they meant no prayers at school events ( even though the men at the Convention were taught how to read out of bibles), no 10 commandments in a court house decoration, and no government support of religion of any kind ( even though Madison attended church services on the floor of the House of Reps. Modern activists have warped the original meaning so far out of context that what the framers pictured has been destroyed. It is disgraceful.

You. have. yet. to. explan. why. Jesus. mentions. tenants. of. the. old. law. and. then. sets. down. entirely. contradictory. laws.

Here's another version of the Bible where Jesus actually mentions the word "old":

Source: http://www.htmlbible.com/kjv30/B40C005.htm

EDIT:
He never mentions the old law once here. He is simply saying that he has not come to abolish rules. The above context proves this.

You keep mentioning this as an example of completely contradictory? Do you know what contradictory means? He didn't say adultery isn't a sin, he said not only is it a sin to act on adultery but to fantasize about adultery is an equal sin. That's not entirely new, it's entirely consistent.

This stupid side track jesus conversation relates to U.S. law how?

Right, and now the stupid ACLU thinks that they meant no prayers at school events ( even though the men at the Convention were taught how to read out of bibles), no 10 commandments in a court house decoration, and no government support of religion of any kind ( even though Madison attended church services on the floor of the House of Reps. Modern activists have warped the original meaning so far out of context that what the framers pictured has been destroyed. It is disgraceful.

Um, no. What they meant didn't affect schools, but we've had 17 amendments since then. They did intend to create a wall of seperation. Since the fourteenth amendment we've extended that wall to all levels of government and not just the federal government, not to mention that most states have similar amendments.

You keep mentioning this as an example of completely contradictory? Do you know what contradictory means? He didn't say adultery isn't a sin, he said not only is it a sin to act on adultery but to fantasize about adultery is an equal sin. That's not entirely new, it's entirely consistent.
I never said that all of the laws were completely contradictory, but a number of them are...
Ye have heard that it hath been said, An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth:
An eye Exod 21:24, Lev 24:20, Deut 19:21

39 But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also.

My point is that some of the old laws were overturned by Jesus' new laws, while preserving the other teachings of the prophets that he did not mention.

I'm not a Christian. I just understand Christian teachings.

Jesus overturned a number of the tenants of the old law in his sermon on the mount. He didn't mean that all of the old laws would be disregarded; I never claimed that. But, he explicity lays down new laws in favor of old ones in the book of Matthew. There is no doubt to that.

Jesus expanded on the old laws. Your misunderstanding of this does not change the fact that Jesus explicitly said he did not come to overturn or destroy or contradict the old laws. In fact, if he had, according to prophesy he would have had to be disregarded as a false prophet.

Jesus expanded on the old laws. Your misunderstanding of this does not change the fact that Jesus explicitly said he did not come to overturn or destroy or contradict the old laws. In fact, if he had, according to prophesy he would have had to be disregarded as a false prophet.
Um...see the quote of Matthew above. He did expand the old laws by changing them, while preserving the rest of the words of the old prophets...

I never said that all of the laws were completely contradictory, but a number of them are...

My point is that some of the old laws were overturned by Jesus' new laws, while preserving the other teachings of the prophets that he did not mention.

Um, do you know what those actions he described meant?

He didn't contradict old Laws. He increased our requirements for behavior, not reduced them.

Um, no. What they meant didn't affect schools, but we've had 17 amendments since then. They did intend to create a wall of seperation. Since the fourteenth amendment we've extended that wall to all levels of government and not just the federal government, not to mention that most states have similar amendments.

"Congress shall pass no law"

That has nothing to do with court house decorations. The men who drafted the bill of rights attended church serviced on the floor of the House shortly after it was ratified. Saying that a wall of seperation was intended demonstates a most basic lack of knowledge on the nature of the men and the time period. Religion was not banned from the public square in 1789. it was expected.

Those later amendments do not change anything. No state has a Congress. Activist judges and bad precedent set by a member of the Klan as a result of the civil rights movement does not sway me. The radilibs of the ACLU cannot push their nonsense through the legislative or exec. branches so they use Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Sad but true.

The non-relavent Jesus game continues.....:confused:

Um, do you know what those actions he described meant?

He didn't contradict old Laws. He increased our requirements for behavior, not reduced them.
And that, my friend, is a change.

Um...see the quote of Matthew above. He did expand the old laws by changing them, while preserving the rest of the words of the old prophets...

So you're changing your stance then, huh? Because you said before He "even explicity mentioned that he was overturning the old laws in the above passage". Perhaps I'm not aware that overturning actually means preserving. Ridiculous. You're full of it. You got caught not knowing your stuff. I don't like BK, but he nailed you on this. Either Jesus lied when he said he was not going to overturn the law or your understanding of the text sucks. I know which one I'm more tempted to believe.

"Congress shall pass no law"

Look, do you have anything other than an attempted poisoning the well fallacy, appeal to age, and a general hatred for anyone who knows that the only way to "respect" all religions in the "public" sphere is to not do anything for any of them?

And that, my friend, is a change.

It's adding to the Law, not overturning. You didn't say change. You said 'overturn'. Stop pretending like you weren't proven utterly wrong. You were. Overturned and expanded on mean almost entirely opposite things.

"Congress shall pass no law"

That has nothing to do with court house decorations.
I have to agree with you there. Having such decorations in a courthouse does not violate the rule about Congress passing a law respecting religion.

However, Barry, states do have Congresses.

Look, do you have anything other than an attempted poisoning the well fallacy, appeal to age, and a general hatred for anyone who knows that the only way to "respect" all religions in the "public" sphere is to not do anything for any of them?

"the only way to "respect" all religions in the "public" sphere is to not do anything for any of them?"

I hate no person. I did not appeal anything on ...age... and the only fallacy is that you think any of this comment you posted has somthing to do with the text of American law.

It's adding to the Law, not overturning. You didn't say change. You said 'overturn'. Stop pretending like you weren't proven utterly wrong. You were. Overturned and expanded on mean almost entirely opposite things.
I wasn't proven utterly wrong by any means. I said that the old laws were changed. They were. You admitted that they were. Overturn was the wrong word to use. I was wrong in using it, I admit. But the fact is that the old testament laws have been changed by Jesus, and thus, the original point emerges about Leviticus and the Christian penchant to murder people in cold blood.

"the only way to "respect" all religions in the "public" sphere is to not do anything for any of them?"
Yes.


I hate no person.
You clearly hate the "Radlibs".


I did not appeal anything on ...age...
You appealed to what the "founders" wanted.

You're not good at this.

I have to agree with you there. Having such decorations in a courthouse does not violate the rule about Congress passing a law respecting religion.

However, Barry, states do have Congresses.

Nope. States have legislatures and assembly's. They do not have "Congresses". There is one "Congress" under the Constitution and it is on the federal level. To claim that a legislature is a Congress is to claim that a Governor is the President of a State..and can declare war. etc. It is jsut not so.

"Congress shall pass no law"

That has nothing to do with court house decorations. The men who drafted the bill of rights attended church serviced on the floor of the House shortly after it was ratified. Saying that a wall of seperation was intended demonstates a most basic lack of knowledge on the nature of the men and the time period. Religion was not banned from the public square in 1789. it was expected.

Um, and was the 14th amendment around in 1789 or did I miss it. Until the fourteenth amendment the first amendment served the purpose of seperating federal law from religious practices. When the fourteenth extended those rights to restricting all governmental levels, it prohibited support by other levels of government.

Those later amendments do not change anything. No state has a Congress. Activist judges and bad precedent set by a member of the Klan as a result of the civil rights movement does not sway me. The radilibs of the ACLU cannot push their nonsense through the legislative or exec. branches so they use Justices Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer. Sad but true.

The congress part refers to the legislative body, my friend. The fourteenthe amendment extended the first. And states do have congresses. At the writing the first amendment was meant to restrict the federal. Fortunately the writers were smart enough to create an amendment process for the US Constitution in effort to prevent people from claiming that we should behave 200 years later exactly like the founders did.

If only your confidence matched your understanding on this subject.

Nope. States have legislatures and assembly's. They do not have "Congresses". There is one "Congress" under the Constitution and it is on the federal level. To claim that a legislature is a Congress is to claim that a Governor is the President of a State..and can declare war. etc. It is jsut not so.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

You clearly hate the "Radlibs".

No, I do not hate them, I disagree with them. There is a difference and you would do well to learn it.



You appealed to what the "founders" wanted.

They wrote it. What they intended is the entire point of the discussion. Not an "appeal to age".

You're not good at this. Well Well Well , I will have to practice on some of them radilibs.:D

Nope. States have legislatures and assembly's. They do not have "Congresses". There is one "Congress" under the Constitution and it is on the federal level. To claim that a legislature is a Congress is to claim that a Governor is the President of a State..and can declare war. etc. It is jsut not so.
OK, we could argue semantics, but the point is that State governments must follow the Constitution as much as the federal government must as well...

I wasn't proven utterly wrong by any means. I said that the old laws were changed. They were. You admitted that they were. Overturn was the wrong word to use. I was wrong in using it, I admit. But the fact is that the old testament laws have been changed by Jesus, and thus, the original point emerges about Leviticus and the Christian penchant to murder people in cold blood.

Does this weak argumentation work? "I know if you read what I actually SAID I was wrong, but I really meant something that wasn't wrong."

Jesus did not overturn any laws. You were saying and meaning the exact opposite and all of your arguments suggested you were trying to make us believe the exact opposite.

You can pretend you were intending to argue something else all you like, but you got caught. You were wrong.

Does this weak argumentation work? "I know if you read what I actually SAID I was wrong, but I really meant something that wasn't wrong."

Jesus did not overturn any laws. You were saying and meaning the exact opposite and all of your arguments suggested you were trying to make us believe the exact opposite.

You can pretend you were intending to argue something else all you like, but you got caught. You were wrong.
I only used "overturn" in a few posts, incorrectly, I admit. But the entire point I was arguing from the beginning was that the law changed, so all of the Levitical laws do not apply literally. You weren't here for the entire argument, or for its root.

Um, and was the 14th amendment around in 1789 or did I miss it. Until the fourteenth amendment the first amendment served the purpose of seperating federal law from religious practices. When the fourteenth extended those rights to restricting all governmental levels, it prohibited support by other levels of government.

The fourteenth Amendment says that the rights apply to the states. The right to have a Congress that will not pass a law establishing religion was passed to the states. No state has a Congress. Never will.



The congress part refers to the legislative body, my friend. no, it reders to the "Congress"..duh The fourteenthe amendment extended the first. And states do have congresses.they have Presidents too that can declare war eh? At the writing the first amendment was meant to restrict the federal. Fortunately the writers were smart enough to create an amendment process for the US Constitution in effort to prevent people from claiming that we should behave 200 years later exactly like the founders did.

If only your confidence matched your understanding on this subject. ah, Jacobia ends with a quick petty insult...I never saw that before :rolleyes: :sniper:

No, I do not hate them, I disagree with them.
It's quite clear that you do, in fact, hate them.


They wrote it. What they intended is the entire point of the discussion. Not an "appeal to age".
No, you quite clearly appealed to age.

Please stop writing intellectual checks that your brain can't cash.

Nope. States have legislatures and assembly's. They do not have "Congresses". There is one "Congress" under the Constitution and it is on the federal level. To claim that a legislature is a Congress is to claim that a Governor is the President of a State..and can declare war. etc. It is jsut not so.

Again you pretend as if the first is the only amendment. This is just sad. The first amendment's reference to the federal legislature was not meant to be a limitation. The fourteenth amendment expanded it to all levels so whatever the wording the meaning is for it to apply to the all levels of legislature.

No state has a Congress.

It applies to the states by incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) from the 14th Amendment.

You're from Georgia, aren't you?

Separation of church and state.

No money shall ever be taken from the public treasury, directly or indirectly, in aid of any church, sect, cult, or religious denomination or of any sectarian institution.

And since people love Texas so much.

No money shall be appropriated, or drawn from the Treasury for the benefit of any sect, or religious society, theological or religious seminary; nor shall property belonging to the State be appropriated for any such purposes.

I think that many people would consider 10 Commandments displays to be benefiting or aiding Christianity. True, many of the 10 Commandments are principles that everyone can live by, but some of them are very strictly Christian.

I only used "overturn" in a few posts, incorrectly, I admit. But the entire point I was arguing from the beginning was that the law changed, so all of the Levitical laws do not apply literally. You weren't here for the entire argument, or for its root.

Which ones do and which ones don't?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_(Bill_of_Rights)

ah, wikipedia....lets see how I can edit this to make it say whatever I want. Good grief its a great source. No State has a Congress. To say they do is to say that a Governor is like a President, or that New York State could declare war after 911.

I only used "overturn" in a few posts, incorrectly, I admit. But the entire point I was arguing from the beginning was that the law changed, so all of the Levitical laws do not apply literally. You weren't here for the entire argument, or for its root.
So you've gone all Humpty-Dumpty.

OK, we could argue semantics, but the point is that State governments must follow the Constitution as much as the federal government must as well...

I agree. The text.

ah, wikipedia....lets see how I can edit this to make it say whatever I want. Good grief its a great source. No State has a Congress. To say they do is to say that a Governor is like a President, or that New York State could declare war after 911.
Poisoning the well fallacy.

It's quite clear that you do, in fact, hate them.



No, you quite clearly appealed to age.

Please stop writing intellectual checks that your brain can't cash.

We see the level that this asshat works on right here.

Again you pretend as if the first is the only amendment. This is just sad. The first amendment's reference to the federal legislature was not meant to be a limitation. The fourteenth amendment expanded it to all levels so whatever the wording the meaning is for it to apply to the all levels of legislature.

Look at the text before you tell me "what it meant", Mr. Jacobia.

We see the level that this asshat works on right here.
About a skyscraper above your head.

To say they do is to say that a Governor is like a President, or that New York State could declare war after 911.

Technically, a state can engage in war if it's being invaded. Or, to quote Article 1, Section 10. "or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".

Anyway, I'm just being pedantic.

ah, wikipedia....lets see how I can edit this to make it say whatever I want. Good grief its a great source.

If you really don't believe that there is such a thing as the Incorporation Doctrine, I can't help you.

It applies to the states by incorporation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incorporation_%28Bill_of_Rights%29) from the 14th Amendment.

You're from Georgia, aren't you?



And since people love Texas so much.



I think that many people would consider 10 Commandments displays to be benefiting or aiding Christianity. True, many of the 10 Commandments are principles that everyone can live by, but some of them are very strictly Christian.

90% say keep the 10 commandments in the public square...so I guess if many is 10% you are right. I am from Alabama but currently live in....*shiver* NY. The quotes you gave are from state Constitutions, and I agree that they are valid.

Poisoning the well fallacy.

Hey isnt that kind of like getting head?

Technically, a state can engage in war if it's being invaded. Or, to quote Article 1, Section 10. "or in such imminent Danger as will not admit of delay".

Anyway, I'm just being pedantic.

Still a valid and text based point. Point taken and noted.

Hey isnt that kind of like getting head?
It is, only completely different.

Which ones do and which ones don't?
An earlier poster brought up a law about slaughering your enemies. Unless I should be told that this is still in effect.

:sniper:
How unfortunate?

You mention the explicit description of one of the branches and its functions and compare it to an amendment that was eventually extended purposefully through amendment to protect the explicitly detailed rights of individuals from any government abridgement. How nice that you can't tell between something written to estabilsh what powers the individual has and something writting to describe the powers of the government. Again, if only you weren't arguing over your head.

"The fourteenth Amendment says that the rights apply to the states. The right to have a Congress that will not pass a law establishing religion was passed to the states. No state has a Congress. Never will."

Is this what passes for an argument? Let's argue that since the word Congress means to you only federal, even if an amendment is written explicitly to limit all government from abridging the individual rights like freedom of religion, if they don't change the word Congress then we should ignore that amendment entirely?

I always wonder why it's so important to some individuals to have the support of the government for their religion. One wonders if they don't feel confident in the ability of their religion to survive unless forced on others.

If you really don't believe that there is such a thing as the Incorporation Doctrine, I can't help you.
I believe in it but the first Amendment is the only one which is seperated from that doctrine by reason if its first few words. It directly denies any use in incorperation by only being about Congressional laws. Other amendments are different...like #2.

An earlier poster brought up a law about slaughering your enemies. Unless I should be told that this is still in effect.
Jesus is the one who said it. Luke 19:27, as the endpoint of the parable of the talents.

Look at the text before you tell me "what it meant", Mr. Jacobia.
Jocabia is right in this case. If we are to take every word as is, then I guess "speech" only refers to verbal speaking...

Jesus is the one who said it. Luke 19:27, as the endpoint of the parable of the talents.
I'm discuss Leviticus right now, thank you.

I'm discuss Leviticus right now, thank you.
Just thought you might like to know what jesus said, since you're talking about him changing the law and such. Sorta helps to know what the hell you're talking about.

How unfortunate?


"The fourteenth Amendment says that the rights apply to the states. The right to have a Congress that will not pass a law establishing religion was passed to the states. No state has a Congress. Never will."

Is this what passes for an argument? Let's argue that since the word Congress means to you only federal, even if an amendment is written explicitly to limit all government from abridging the individual rights like freedom of religion, if they don't change the word Congress then we should ignore that amendment entirely?

I always wonder why it's so important to some individuals to have the support of the government for their religion. One wonders if they don't feel confident in the ability of their religion to survive unless forced on others.

Yes. They should ignore it . And they did for decades. I do not need the government to do anything for me other than have a strong military. But I will not see my culture and heritage trashed because of a bunch of activist judges and ACLU potheads who want atheism to be the official religion of America.

Look at the text before you tell me "what it meant", Mr. Jacobia.

I did look at the text. I also looked at the federalist papers where they explained the purpose of the amendments. Get as upset as you want, but the 'activist' judges are using the very documents the founders intended them to use to interpret the meaning of these amendments. But, hey, keep clinging to arguments that the wording they used because at the time it referred only to the federal level negates the fourteenth. Keep arguing it. You'll be wrong, but hey, there are no rules against not knowing what you're talking about on this site.

Jocabia is right in this case. If we are to take every word as is, then I guess "speech" only refers to verbal speaking...

speech is the articulation of words.

Yes. They should ignore it . And they did for decades. I do not need the government to do anything for me other than have a strong military. But I will not see my culture and heritage trashed because of a bunch of activist judges and ACLU potheads who want atheism to be the official religion of America.
1. Atheism isn't a religion.
2. Those "activist judges" are about the only thing keeping this country from turning into some theo-fascist state
3. I still love your whining insults.

I believe in it but the first Amendment is the only one which is seperated from that doctrine by reason if its first few words. It directly denies any use in incorperation by only being about Congressional laws.

That's nonsensical. "Congress shall make no law" clearly implies a right that would be infringed if Congress did make such a law; it is the right that is relevant to the Incorporation Doctrine, not the specific phrasing, because the issue is whether the protected right falls under the "liberty" states cannot deprive people of without due process.

I'm discuss Leviticus right now, thank you.

Which has nothing to do with this thread....:(

speech is the articulation of words.
Right, so any statement other than articulating words is not protected expression, by your logic of "word defining" with "Congress."

Atheism is not a religion.

Yes. They should ignore it . And they did for decades. I do not need the government to do anything for me other than have a strong military. But I will not see my culture and heritage trashed because of a bunch of activist judges and ACLU potheads who want atheism to be the official religion of America.

Your culture and heritage trashed? How? I'm Christian. I think Christianity prospers because of the strength of what Christ taught, not because a bunch of deists didn't know that Christian fundamentalists would try to bastardize the Constitution because they're afraid they're religion won't prosper without the aide of the government.

Christ preached private religion. The actions you are supporting violate my religion. My religion requires that Christianity be spread as a private relationship. When you promote the version of Christianity you believe in with the government, you tread all over the explicit teachings of Christ and my personal religion.

Which has nothing to do with this thread....:(
Welcome to the evolution of a thread.

90% say keep the 10 commandments in the public square...so I guess if many is 10% you are right. I am from Alabama but currently live in....*shiver* NY. The quotes you gave are from state Constitutions, and I agree that they are valid.

I said that many people would say that the 10 Commandments displays benefit or aid Christianity. I'm sure a pretty fair number of those would also want to have them on display, regardless of their technical legality. Also, I'm a bit
skeptical of the 90% figure. Anyway, I'm not a huge believer in opinion polls.

I started to look in the Alabama constitution, but quickly found that at over 360,000 words it's the longest constitution in the world. I hope you'll forgive me for not tackling that particular task.

speech is the articulation of words.

Speech - 1 a : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words b : exchange of spoken words : CONVERSATION
2 a : something that is spoken : UTTERANCE b : a usually public discourse : ADDRESS
3 a : LANGUAGE, DIALECT b : an individual manner or style of speaking
4 : the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

So according to this, only spoken word is protected by the first amendment unless I am a member of the press, yes?

I did look at the text. I also looked at the federalist papers where they explained the purpose of the amendments. Get as upset as you want, but the 'activist' judges are using the very documents the founders intended them to use to interpret the meaning of these amendments. But, hey, keep clinging to arguments that the wording they used because at the time it referred only to the federal level negates the fourteenth. Keep arguing it. You'll be wrong, but hey, there are no rules against not knowing what you're talking about on this site.

Oh yeah, show me where in the federalist papers anybody speaks of a wall of seperation. Show me how incorperation includes....Congress. Scalia is a big fan of originalism..ever heard of him? hmmmm I wonder if you might not be reading the same documents as he does.

You know I want to have a word with you jacobia. Every time you see a Conservative viewpoint, mine of others, you demean, harass, make fun, and try to frusterate them with silly insults and tricks until they give up. It is not fighting fair and you cannot beat me that way. You can stop the petty crap and get on track to eventual polite debate/conversation etc. You really need to stop with the sarcastic bull. I rarely complain like this but you are the only one who acts this absurdly.

Those "activist judges" are about the only thing keeping this country from turning into some theo-fascist state
.

So now you support Judicial activism to stop " this country from turning into some theo-fascist state". You just proved my own point by saying that if every judge was not a judicial activist religion would be tolerated in the public sqaure based on the Constitutions text. Fascinating.

Yes. They should ignore it . And they did for decades. I do not need the government to do anything for me other than have a strong military. But I will not see my culture and heritage trashed because of a bunch of activist judges and ACLU potheads who want atheism to be the official religion of America.

Not atheism. Secular and atheism are not equal. The ACLU protects Christians when their rights are violated as well. I can't put "There is no God" on the wall of a courthouse either. Again, hyperbole doesn't help your argument. It makes you seem like a reactionary rather than someone who rationally wants to protect the Constitution. But, hey, if the shoe fits...

That's nonsensical. "Congress shall make no law" clearly implies a right that would be infringed if Congress did make such a law; it is the right that is relevant to the Incorporation Doctrine, not the specific phrasing, because the issue is whether the protected right falls under the "liberty" states cannot deprive people of without due process.

Ah but the liberty is framed under the context of laws that Congress passes ( unlike all the other amendments)

So now you support Judicial activism to stop " this country from turning into some theo-fascist state".
I support the judges doing what the document says they should do, and that is what they are doing. So your point has been thusly refuted.

Here's my view on this whole subject:

First of all, disregarding the 14th amendment, every state must obey the 1st amendment; it's stupid to think that the federal government is the only entity bound by the basic laws of the Constitution, regardless of the definition of "Congress."

Secondly, references to religion on government property seem fine, in my opinion, because they do not require anything of anyone or infringe on people's beliefs to worship. They represent a system of beliefs that people in this country hold. However, the fact that certain religions may be expressly favored by allowing such displays causes me to support efforts that would see all mentions of religion removed from government property and government affiliation. A wall of separation is necessary in order to keep the government secular.

Your culture and heritage trashed? How? I'm Christian. I think Christianity prospers because of the strength of what Christ taught, not because a bunch of deists didn't know that Christian fundamentalists would try to bastardize the Constitution because they're afraid they're religion won't prosper without the aide of the government.

Christ preached private religion. The actions you are supporting violate my religion. My religion requires that Christianity be spread as a private relationship. When you promote the version of Christianity you believe in with the government, you tread all over the explicit teachings of Christ and my personal religion.

Good point. I am not for state religions. I agree that many are afraid that religion would not prosper without the government. I am afraid that the goverment will not govern wisely without remembering our religion. Big difference. I do not view it as promotion but rather acknowledgement. Big difference.

Welcome to the evolution of a thread.

if evolution means go wildly off topic with no intent on returning I am not a fan of that.

if evolution means go wildly off topic with no intent on returning I am not a fan of that.
Deal with it.

Good point. I am not for state religions. I agree that many are afraid that religion would not prosper without the government. I am afraid that the goverment will not govern wisely without remembering our religion. Big difference. I do not view it as promotion but rather acknowledgement. Big difference.
Acknowledgement: a politician saying s/he is a member of such-and-such religion

Promotion: "In god we trust" on currency. "Under god" in the pledge. etc.

I said that many people would say that the 10 Commandments displays benefit or aid Christianity. I'm sure a pretty fair number of those would also want to have them on display, regardless of their technical legality. Also, I'm a bit
skeptical of the 90% figure. Anyway, I'm not a huge believer in opinion polls.

I started to look in the Alabama constitution, but quickly found that at over 360,000 words it's the longest constitution in the world. I hope you'll forgive me for not tackling that particular task.

Yeah, that 90% comes from polls but you know, I understand your lack of faith in them. So I will leave that figure alone if you don't accept ..polls.

Yeah, so the Alabama Constitution, stay away from that sucker. It has consumed many a man....hehe. I forgive you and thank you for not making me look at it again...:p

Here's my view on this whole subject:

First of all, disregarding the 14th amendment, every state must obey the 1st amendment; it's stupid to think that the federal government is the only entity bound by the basic laws of the Constitution, regardless of the definition of "Congress."

Actually on this point you are wrong. 1st simply does not apply to the states. And it doesn't have to, the 14th covers it fine.

First of all, disregarding the 14th amendment, every state must obey the 1st amendment; it's stupid to think that the federal government is the only entity bound by the basic laws of the Constitution, regardless of the definition of "Congress."

A bit more pedantry.

The 14th Amendment is what requires the states to obey the amendments. Prior to the 14th Amendment the only things that limited the states were Article 1, Section 10 and the 10th Amendment.

Speech - 1 a : the communication or expression of thoughts in spoken words b : exchange of spoken words : CONVERSATION
2 a : something that is spoken : UTTERANCE b : a usually public discourse : ADDRESS
3 a : LANGUAGE, DIALECT b : an individual manner or style of speaking
4 : the power of expressing or communicating thoughts by speaking

So according to this, only spoken word is protected by the first amendment unless I am a member of the press, yes?

Yup, already answered that and I am not getting sidetracked by this...again...
stop.

Oh yeah, show me where in the federalist papers anybody speaks of a wall of seperation. Show me how incorperation includes....Congress. Scalia is a big fan of originalism..ever heard of him? hmmmm I wonder if you might not be reading the same documents as he does.

Again, if one is so literal about the wording then the internet is not protected 'speech'. A letter I write isn't protected. Etc. Your argument has not weight because you aren't consistent. Are you claiming that a law restricting your freedom to express yourself in letters is legal because the word 'speech' was used?

You know I want to have a word with you jacobia. Every time you see a Conservative viewpoint, mine of others, you demean, harass, make fun, and try to frusterate them with silly insults and tricks until they give up. It is not fighting fair and you cannot beat me that way. You can stop the petty crap and get on track to eventual polite debate/conversation etc. You really need to stop with the sarcastic bull. I rarely complain like this but you are the only one who acts this absurdly.

I do? You mean like the terms you've used to refer to liberals?

I don't demean conservatives. I dismiss the viewpoint of extremists who lie, cheat and steal in order to make the constitution and the Bible appear to say things they don't say.

Not atheism. Secular and atheism are not equal. The ACLU protects Christians when their rights are violated as well. I can't put "There is no God" on the wall of a courthouse either. Again, hyperbole doesn't help your argument. It makes you seem like a reactionary rather than someone who rationally wants to protect the Constitution. But, hey, if the shoe fits...

I am against ignoring the existance of God. I am against taking God off of currancy, off the pledge, off the courthouse, out of the Senate, out of military chaplins. If this makes me a reactionary...I guess 70-80-90% of the American people are.....reactionaries? Ah...if only. hehehe. If the shoe fits I wear it ;)

Ah but the liberty is framed under the context of laws that Congress passes ( unlike all the other amendments)

And that proves...?

Yup, already answered that and I am not getting sidetracked by this...again...
stop.

No, you didn't. You ignored it. According to you a private letter is not protected speech. Fortunately, NO judge is literal on that subject. In fact, it appears that the only time judges are so literal ever is when they have a goal in mind of lifting up the Christian religion.

I strongly suspect that you would not support a Sharia plaque on the wall of a courthouse.

I am against ignoring the existance of God.
I'm against people claiming there is a god as if the claim itself is evidence.


I am against taking God off of currancy, off the pledge,
Why didn't the Baptist minister who wrote the pledge write it with the words "under god"?


off the courthouse, out of the Senate, out of military chaplins. If this makes me a reactionary...I guess 70-80-90% of the American people are.....reactionaries? Ah...if only. hehehe. If the shoe fits I wear it ;)
Appeal to numbers fallacy.

I support the judges doing what the document says they should do, and that is what they are doing. So your point has been thusly refuted.

The document says that they no longer have control over the pledge because Congress just removed jurisdiction. Removing God from the public square was not intended in 1789, 1868, or anything like that...until Hugo Black..a klansmen .....introduced a "wall of seperation" into precedent in 1962 with the goal of stopping the civil rights movement.

out of military chaplins.

No one is suggesting that we "take God" out of military chaplains. Also, keep in mind that not all chaplains are Christians. There are Muslims, Jews, and a few years ago the Army got it's first Bhuddist chaplain.

I am against ignoring the existance of God. I am against taking God off of currancy, off the pledge, off the courthouse, out of the Senate, out of military chaplins. If this makes me a reactionary...I guess 70-80-90% of the American people are.....reactionaries? Ah...if only. hehehe. If the shoe fits I wear it ;)

Who is ignoring the existance of God. I just don't need to the government to support His existence. The government is required to ignore the existence of all gods or give equal credence to all gods. And when they pass laws that put God on money and in the pledge, which they did about fifty years ago, they violate the first amendment. And they violate my religious freedoms that require a private relationship. But, hey, that's just me respecting Christ above the pharisees. Beware the guy who prays on the corner...

regardless of the definition of "Congress."

. A wall of separation is necessary in order to keep the government secular.

Text does not matter.
The legal document does not matter.
Ones own opinion does.
Activist Judicial thinking boiled down to a drop.

The document says that they no longer have control over the pledge because Congress just removed jurisdiction.
Congress hasn't the authority to do that. I just intellectually beat down someone in alt.atheism for suggesting that the US Constitution gives Congress the authority to do it.


Removing God from the public square was not intended in 1789, 1868, or anything like that...until Hugo Black..a klansmen
Poisoning the well fallacy.

Acknowledgement: a politician saying s/he is a member of such-and-such religion

Promotion: "In god we trust" on currency. "Under god" in the pledge. etc.

both are acknowledement. Promotion would be a law saying: go to the catholic church etc.

Good point. I am not for state religions. I agree that many are afraid that religion would not prosper without the government. I am afraid that the goverment will not govern wisely without remembering our religion. Big difference. I do not view it as promotion but rather acknowledgement. Big difference.

So you would support the acknowledgement of all religions? One nation, under Gaia... In Allah We Trust... etc.?

A bit more pedantry.

The 14th Amendment is what requires the states to obey the amendments. Prior to the 14th Amendment the only things that limited the states were Article 1, Section 10 and the 10th Amendment.

Key word is "Congress" view previous posts.

Key word is "Congress" view previous posts.

the 14th amendment is not limited to congress. It applies to all states.

both are acknowledement. Promotion would be a law saying: go to the catholic church etc.
Nope. "In god we trust" promotes god-belief, specifically: the xer one, since that was the intent of those who wrote the law (since you're so big on intent).

both are acknowledement. Promotion would be a law saying: go to the catholic church etc.

Would you similarly be okay with "In No God Do We Trust" on the currency?

both are acknowledement. Promotion would be a law saying: go to the catholic church etc.

Um, no, it wouldn't. Are you suggesting that Christianity is promoted by making every person in this country deal with currency promoting the existance of God? The government cannot acknowledge the existence of God without holding religions that worship God above religions that don't.

Again, if one is so literal about the wording then the internet is not protected 'speech'. A letter I write isn't protected. Etc. Your argument has not weight because you aren't consistent. Are you claiming that a law restricting your freedom to express yourself in letters is legal because the word 'speech' was used?

well that included no quotes from the federalist papers


I do? You mean like the terms you've used to refer to liberals?
ah, big difference, you mock me personaly and directly with personal insults, I have fun names for groups.

I don't demean conservatives. I dismiss the viewpoint of extremists who lie, cheat and steal in order to make the constitution and the Bible appear to say things they don't say.

you call people dumb until they go away.

Um, no, it wouldn't. Are you suggesting that Christianity is promoted by making every person in this country deal with currency promoting the existance of God? The government cannot acknowledge the existence of God without holding religions that worship God above religions that don't.
Like Buddhism.

Answer the question Barry, would you support something like "in the spirits" we trust, or "in vishnu we trust" or something to that effect?

Key word is "Congress" view previous posts.

Key word is "speech" view previous posts where you still haven't addressed why we MUST be so strict on one word and not on another. I mean it's easily explained. Admit that you're not a literalist, but a person who argues a literal Constitution when it works for him. That's the obvious explanation.

Like Buddhism.

or animism.

No, you didn't. You ignored it. According to you a private letter is not protected speech. Fortunately, NO judge is literal on that subject. In fact, it appears that the only time judges are so literal ever is when they have a goal in mind of lifting up the Christian religion.

I strongly suspect that you would not support a Sharia plaque on the wall of a courthouse.

You hate literalism because you hate the actual things the founders wrote. I would not support any "sharia" shrine in a court house because "sharia" has nothing to do with America's culture, heritage, or the basis of our laws and common views on morality.

you call people dumb until they go away.

Please quote me calling someone dumb? I said you're not educated about the subject and I showed why I think so. That's not the same thing. Meanwhile, are you admitting that you can't address the literal 'speech' translation?

You hate literalism because you hate the actual things the founders wrote. I would not support any "sharia" shrine in a court house because "sharia" has nothing to do with America's culture, heritage, or the basis of our laws and common views on morality.
Nor do the 10 demandments have anything to do with the basis of our laws.

You hate literalism because you hate the actual things the founders wrote. I would not support any "sharia" shrine in a court house because "sharia" has nothing to do with America's culture, heritage, or the basis of our laws and common views on morality.

Why would it NOT be ok to show sharia law on a courthouse? What if that judge was a muslim? What if it were in a muslim community?

I'm against people claiming there is a god as if the claim itself is evidence.



Why didn't the Baptist minister who wrote the pledge write it with the words "under god"?
I don't care


Appeal to numbers fallacy.

you claimed that my views on the pledge, the commandments, and currancy made me a reactionary. Those views are held by a clear majority of the American people. So I asked if you believed that a clear majority of the people were , in fact, reactionaries. You know where to stick that fallacy.

You hate literalism because you hate the actual things the founders wrote. I would not support any "sharia" shrine in a court house because "sharia" has nothing to do with America's culture, heritage, or the basis of our laws and common views on morality.


The ten commandments have just as little to do with our laws as sharia.

"honor no god before yahweh" is deeply contradictory to our culture, heritage and laws.

"covet not thy neighbor's xyz" is deeply contradictory to our culture, heritage and laws. Our nation is built on commerce which is driven by covetousness.

Nothing could be less-christian.

No one is suggesting that we "take God" out of military chaplains. Also, keep in mind that not all chaplains are Christians. There are Muslims, Jews, and a few years ago the Army got it's first Bhuddist chaplain.

ah but Congress passed a law that "established religion" right? According to you?

you claimed that my views on the pledge, the commandments, and currancy made me a reactionary. Those views are held by a clear majority of the American people. So I asked if you believed that a clear majority of the people were , in fact, reactionaries. You know where to stick that fallacy.

Perhaps I missed the point in the defintion where the majoirty could not be reactionary.

if your statistics were ture on face value, yes, damned right I'd call the majoirty reactionary.

no fallacy at all unless you can point me to the part of the definition of the word which states the majority can not be reactionary.

You hate literalism because you hate the actual things the founders wrote. I would not support any "sharia" shrine in a court house because "sharia" has nothing to do with America's culture, heritage, or the basis of our laws and common views on morality.

Ah, I see. You do realize the majority of the founders were Deists, yes? Not Christians. I don't hate what they wrote. I love what they wrote. They were brilliant. They wrote the document that protects me from people like you. I hope they're thoroughly enjoying the afterlife very impressed with the document they wrote.

And I see. So you're a hypocrite. The first amendment allows religious monuments in courthouses only if you agree with them. Can anyone say CAUGHT?

Nope. "In god we trust" promotes god-belief, specifically: the xer one, since that was the intent of those who wrote the law (since you're so big on intent).

It just says we trust God. End of story.

Would you similarly be okay with "In No God Do We Trust" on the currency?

No, that does not show our values in our culture, heritage and traditions. In fact, it shows the opposite of what we believe.

It just says we trust God. End of story.

And trusting in something pretty much presupposes its existence.

It just says we trust God. End of story.

It does, which is promoting the belief in God. Great. So you're aware it violates the first amendment. Now we just have convince the other 100 million plus people and we'll be done here.

No, that does not show our values in our culture, heritage and traditions. In fact, it shows the opposite of what we believe.

Do you think it would violate the Constitution?

Um, no, it wouldn't. Are you suggesting that Christianity is promoted by making every person in this country deal with currency promoting the existance of God? The government cannot acknowledge the existence of God without holding religions that worship God above religions that don't.

Religions that have no God? There are only 2 religions in America that 1% of people subscribe to....Christianity and Judiasm.

Why didn't the Baptist minister who wrote the pledge write it with the words "under god"?
I don't care
You should. You'd think that the xer who wrote the pledge would have used "under god". But the xer who wrote the pledge did not use "under god". Anyone who has done any research knows that "under god" was added during the Red Scare, and was just jingoistic nonsense.


you claimed that my views on the pledge, the commandments, and currancy made me a reactionary. Those views are held by a clear majority of the American people. So I asked if you believed that a clear majority of the people were , in fact, reactionaries. You know where to stick that fallacy.
In your face, where it belongs.

It just says we trust God. End of story.
I don't trust god; I don't believe in god. Therefore.....

No, that does not show our values in our culture, heritage and traditions. In fact, it shows the opposite of what we believe.

You mean of what some people believe. Again, you prove that you are quite willing to allow the majority to stomp all over the rights of the minority as long as they agree with you.

Answer the question Barry, would you support something like "in the spirits" we trust, or "in vishnu we trust" or something to that effect?

NO.

Religions that have no God? There are only 2 religions in America that 1% of people subscribe to....Christianity and Judiasm.

This sentence doesn't even make sense...

Please quote me calling someone dumb? I said you're not educated about the subject and I showed why I think so. That's not the same thing. Meanwhile, are you admitting that you can't address the literal 'speech' translation?

My brain can't handle the subject matter apparently mr. Insultia.:(

NO.

Exactly, you're a hypocrite. You only support those things which YOU believe in.

Fortunatly neither the framers nor the constitution gave a damn about what the majority believe in in terms of religion. No matter what % of the population subscribe to it, no religion should ever be endorced or favored than another.

And to allow SOME religious symbolism but not OTHER religious symbolism is favoring some religions over the other.

So either take em all, or take none.

Please quote me calling someone dumb? I said you're not educated about the subject and I showed why I think so. That's not the same thing. Meanwhile, are you admitting that you can't address the literal 'speech' translation?

Still waiting for that quote, BGW. Can't find what doesn't exist, can you?

Meanwhile. your argument is basically that you are justified in flamebaiting groups, but I am not justified in giving my opinion of what you have to say and where it came from. Good to know. You realize you argument is the equivalent of arguing that you should be permitted to make bigotted generalizations while I should not be allowed to say what I think of individuals. Very telling.

Nor do the 10 demandments have anything to do with the basis of our laws.

They were the moral code that our founders were raised on, taught how to read with, and used to create law. They are the most basic origin of our legal system.

Perhaps I missed the point in the defintion where the majoirty could not be reactionary.

if your statistics were ture on face value, yes, damned right I'd call the majoirty reactionary.

no fallacy at all unless you can point me to the part of the definition of the word which states the majority can not be reactionary.

Just wanted to make sure that was the claim you were making. I find it amusingly damning for those on the left.

They were the moral code that our founders were raised on, taught how to read with, and used to create law. They are the most basic origin of our legal system.

a moral code that, if they wanted to make it central to their government, WOULD have.

There's where your argument falls apart. If the framers wanted the 10 commandments displayed why didn't they say so, instead of creating the 1st amendment which definitly seems to suggest otherwise.

In other words, you can't say what they would have wanted, when they could have HAD what they wanted when the wrote the damn things, and declined to.

They were the moral code that our founders were raised on, taught how to read with, and used to create law. They are the most basic origin of our legal system.
No, the origin of our legal system is Roman jurisprudence with English common law.

My brain can't handle the subject matter apparently mr. Insultia.:(

That's not what I said. At all. I said you can't address it. As evidenced by the fact that you keep replying without addressing it. I meant that there is no way to address it without sounding ridiculous. It has nothing to do with your brain.

And, seriously, can we do away with calling me a broomhead and actually make an argument? There is a vast difference between pointing out that you clearly don't have a working knowledge of the subject matter and proving it and simply making absurd insults up like "Mr. Insultia" and "radilibs".

Just wanted to make sure that was the claim you were making. I find it amusingly damning for those on the left.

Please show me a definition of reactionary that states that the majority by virtue of being the majority can not be reactionary.

When you do so I will retract my statement.

Ah, I see. You do realize the majority of the founders were Deists, yes? Not Christians. I don't hate what they wrote. I love what they wrote. They were brilliant. They wrote the document that protects me from people like you. I hope they're thoroughly enjoying the afterlife very impressed with the document they wrote.

And I see. So you're a hypocrite. The first amendment allows religious monuments in courthouses only if you agree with them. Can anyone say CAUGHT?

Now you have two things to tell me. Where you found out that a "majority" of the founders were not Christians. Second, where in the federalist papers you found a "wall of seperation". who is the hypocrite? You are not caught because you are dancing around giving me sources for your statements.

Religions that have no God? There are only 2 religions in America that 1% of people subscribe to....Christianity and Judiasm.

Pardon? You're getting so upset you're not even making sense anymore.

It does, which is promoting the belief in God. Great. So you're aware it violates the first amendment. Now we just have convince the other 100 million plus people and we'll be done here.

ah, but the first Amendment reders to establishing (founding, constructing) religion. Coins can't do that.

Now you have two things to tell me. Where you found out that a "majority" of the founders were not Christians. Second, where in the federalist papers you found a "wall of seperation". who is the hypocrite? You are not caught because you are dancing around giving me sources for your statements.

I think the fact that, as they were the framers, they could have made the constitution say whatever they wanted to say, and specifically turned AWAY from the idea of promoting Christianity in any form, is pretty damning that, even if they were christians, the framers did not want religion to play a role in government, nor government in religion.

You should. You'd think that the xer who wrote the pledge would have used "under god". But the xer who wrote the pledge did not use "under god". Anyone who has done any research knows that "under god" was added during the Red Scare, and was just jingoistic nonsense.



.

Yeah, It was added to show how different we were from the athiest communists. Funny how the neo-socialists in the U.S. wish we were all athiest. I guess history repeats.

ah, but the first Amendment reders to establishing (founding, constructing) religion. Coins can't do that.
The coins promote one religion over another, de facto establishing it.

I don't trust god; I don't believe in god. Therefore.....

you are in the 4%.

You mean of what some people believe. Again, you prove that you are quite willing to allow the majority to stomp all over the rights of the minority as long as they agree with you.

I mean what 90% plus of Americans have always believed.

you are in the 4%.

And fortunatly the constitution prevents the majority from pushing their views on him.

ah but Congress passed a law that "established religion" right? According to you?

Please don't put words into my mouth.

It would only be "establishing religion" if the Army only had Christian chaplains. Since the Army provides for there to be chaplains of every faith, they're not favoring one religion over any other. However, with things like currency and the pledge it specifically mentions a god, and most understand that to refer to the Christian god.

As for chaplains all that is needed for a religion have a chaplain in the military is for a suitable candidate to be commissioned as a chaplain. The military maintains a list of recognized religions, and these chaplains will be of one of these sects. The military could very easily have a Satanist chaplain at some point.

Anyway, the way the Army recognizes religions and the way you suggest the government do it are entirely different. The Army simply acknowledges that they exist. What you want is for the government to put references to one particular religion on various pieces of currency and other assorted things.

I mean what 90% plus of Americans have always believed.

And the constitution doesn't care what 90% of America believes.

And if the numbers TRULY went in that favor, let them amend the constitution to say so.

Yeah, It was added to show how different we were from the athiest communists. Funny how the neo-socialists in the U.S. wish we were all athiest. I guess history repeats.
Communism isn't atheistic (it deifies the state), and funny how there are a number of people like me: atheist anarchists (I use that now rather than anarcho-capitalist, since there can't be left-anarchists anyway. Left-anarchism is a contradiction in terms.)

Exactly, you're a hypocrite. You only support those things which YOU believe in.

Fortunatly neither the framers nor the constitution gave a damn about what the majority believe in in terms of religion. No matter what % of the population subscribe to it, no religion should ever be endorced or favored than another.

And to allow SOME religious symbolism but not OTHER religious symbolism is favoring some religions over the other.

So either take em all, or take none.

I only support the things that are a part of our culture and heritage. I support having Christmas as a federal holiday because it has always been celebrated by the vast majority of Americans. Making shiva day or whatever they have a holiday makes no sense because it is in no way part of the American tradition or culture. As far as your saying no religion should be endorsed....how about you substitute a word from the text of the Constitution..no religion should be established. Bingo. You got it.

you are in the 4%.
So what?

Still waiting for that quote, BGW. Can't find what doesn't exist, can you?

Meanwhile. your argument is basically that you are justified in flamebaiting groups, but I am not justified in giving my opinion of what you have to say and where it came from. Good to know. You realize you argument is the equivalent of arguing that you should be permitted to make bigotted generalizations while I should not be allowed to say what I think of individuals. Very telling.

No link to the wall of seperation in the fedralist papers.
No link to where you found out the majority of the founders were deists.
telling. Very telling.

a moral code that, if they wanted to make it central to their government, WOULD have.

There's where your argument falls apart. If the framers wanted the 10 commandments displayed why didn't they say so, instead of creating the 1st amendment which definitly seems to suggest otherwise.

In other words, you can't say what they would have wanted, when they could have HAD what they wanted when the wrote the damn things, and declined to.

They wrote that "Congress shall pass no law..respecting an establishment of religion of preventing the free exercise therof." I see nothing about the front yard of my hometown middle school.

I only support the things that are a part of our culture and heritage. I support having Christmas as a federal holiday because it has always been celebrated by the vast majority of Americans.
Yet it wasn't a federal holiday for nearly a century of the existence of this country. In fact, the 1st congress under the Constitution was in session on Giftmas day.

They wrote that "Congress shall pass no law..respecting an establishment of religion of preventing the free exercise therof." I see nothing about the front yard of my hometown middle school.
Your hometown middle school is a governmental entity.

you are in the 4%.

All of the numbers I found say that atheists, agnostics, secularists, etc. are about 15% of the population, and Christians are 75-80%.

Like this one.

link (http://www.gc.cuny.edu/faculty/research_briefs/aris/key_findings.htm)

Again, I don't trust polls, so make of those numbers what you will.

Now you have two things to tell me. Where you found out that a "majority" of the founders were not Christians. Second, where in the federalist papers you found a "wall of seperation". who is the hypocrite? You are not caught because you are dancing around giving me sources for your statements.

Let's start with the founders, friend.

Washington, Jefferson and Franklin were all Deists -
http://www.deism.com/washington.htm

Other quotes -
"...I beg you be persuaded that no one would be more zealous than myself to establish effectual barriers against the horrors of spiritual tyranny, and every species of religious persecution." - George Washington

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the Word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike, founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the world ...

The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind ... to filch wealth and power to themselves. [They], in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ." - Thomas Jefferson

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins ... and you will have sins in abundance. I would not dare to dishonor my Creator's name by [attaching] it to this filthy book [the Bible]." - Thomas Paine

"It was the belief of all sects at one time that the establishment of Religion by law, was right & necessary; that the true religion ought to be established in exclusion of every other; and that the only question to be decided was which was the true religion. The example of Holland proved that a toleration of sects, dissenting from the established sect, was safe & even useful. The example of the Colonies, now States, which rejected religious establishments altogether, proved that all Sects might be safely & advantageously put on a footing of equal & entire freedom.... We are teaching the world the great truth that Govts do better without Kings & Nobles than with them. The merit will be doubled by the other lesson that Religion flourishes in greater purity, without than with the aid of government." - James Madison

"The number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the state. - James Madison

By the way, guess who wrote the federalist papers? Madison, Jay and Hamilton (the latter two were Christians but also defended the seperation). Hamilton actually opposed the Bill of Rights because he worried that the lack of broad scope in them would allow the government to violate the rights of people. He wanted rights be to be so accepted as inviolable that mentioning them in the US Constitution would be offensive.

"I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do?" - Alexander Hamilton

To suggest the founding father's intended this to be a Christian government is absurd as it would have violated many of their principles.

I mean what 90% plus of Americans have always believed.

You keep trotting out this number. It's false. http://www.teachingaboutreligion.org/Demographics/map_demographics.htm

And considering many Christians like myself think you're fundamentalists are an affront to what Christ preached, even the totality of Christians would not agree with you.

No link to the wall of seperation in the fedralist papers.
No link to where you found out the majority of the founders were deists.
telling. Very telling.

Um, actually, I did link. Now are you going to admit I never called anyone dumb or are you going to contine to lie?

you are in the 4%.

Again, you just make up the numbers.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States

http://www.census.gov/compendia/statab/population/religion/

Pretty much no source agrees with your numbers.

They believe that practices such as banning displays of the ten commandments of Chrisitan doctrine from courthouses,
The 10 commandments are fundemental in Judaism and Christianity.
I am against the banning of the 10 commandments from courthouses.
prohibiting public school instructors from leading their classes in non-denominational praying,
The majority of Americans beleive in God. Therefore, it would probably be best if there was non-denomination praying, but not mandatory, in school.
and disallowing religious displays in government-sponsored holiday parades have taken this concept too far.
Like Christmas trees and stuff like that? Meh..I am against the disallowing of religious displays in government-sponsored holiday parades also.

The majority of Americans beleive in God. Therefore, it would probably be best if there was non-denomination praying, but not mandatory, in school.

Student-run prayer services are already legitimate in school.

Student-run prayer services are already legitimate in school.

Of course they are. BGW is making things up again. Notice when the links come out, the coincidental end of posts by our friend. Hmmmm....

Student-run prayer services are already legitimate in school.
Yeah, but wouldnt it be more efficient if the teacher or some official just led the school in a prayer to start the morning off. Those who dont beleive in God dont have to join in, but as the vast majority of Americans beleive in God....

Yeah, but wouldnt it be more efficient if the teacher or some official just led the school in a prayer to start the morning off. Those who dont beleive in God dont have to join in, but as the vast majority of Americans beleive in God....

No, it would not be more efficient. The majority of Americans are Christian. Christ suggested praying in private. It would be a violation of the rights of my children and myself to religious freedom. I would very much be against the school sanctioning the teaching of my children to violate the teachings of Christ.

Well, since our friend seems to have been sent to bed, I'm going too. Good night all.

No, it would not be more efficient. The majority of Americans are Christian. Christ suggested praying in private. It would be a violation of the rights of my children and myself to religious freedom. I would very much be against the school sanctioning the teaching of my children to violate the teachings of Christ.
Christ was a pacificst too, but that didnt stop the Crusades.

Christianity isnt pracited 100% the way Christ wanted it to be.

Christ was a pacificst too, but that didnt stop the Crusades.

Christianity isnt pracited 100% the way Christ wanted it to be.

And that's fine. I don't care how people practice it as long as they don't violate my rights in doing so by using the government to promote their particular practice of the religion. They can do as they like in their churches and homes and in private functions. I'll do the same. I even have a name for such practice. It's called religious freedom.

And that's fine. I don't care how people practice it as long as they don't violate my rights in doing so by using the government to promote their particular practice of the religion. They can do as they like in their churches and homes and in private functions. I'll do the same. I even have a name for such practice. It's called religious freedom.
Who says the government is going to promote a particular religion?

Maybe they will just do a quick prayer to God. Not Christ, Yehova, or Allah, just God.

Who says the government is going to promote a particular religion?

Maybe they will just do a quick prayer to God. Not Christ, Yehova, or Allah, just God.

Which is counter to my religion which prays to God in private. It's in direct contradiction. Meanwhile, many religions don't believe in group prayer or in a single god.

How about they do a quick prayer to Allah? Will that work for you? Not Christ, Yehova or God, but just Allah?

EDIT: I love it when certian groups act as if they are being magnamous while getting exactly what they want and not what anyone else wants.

Which is counter to my religion which prays to God in private. It's in direct contradiction. Meanwhile, many religions don't believe in group prayer or in a single god.

How about they do a quick prayer to Allah? Will that work for you? Not Christ, Yehova or God, but just Allah?
No.

Better yet, if a nation-wide poll went out...and a majority voted in approval of non-denominational quick morning prayer in school, would allow it. That is Democracy.

No.

Better yet, if a nation-wide poll went out...and a majority voted in approval of non-denominational quick morning prayer in school, would allow it. That is Democracy.

Fortunately, this isn't a democracy. If a poll went out with the majority in favor of banning Christianity, would you support it? That's democracy.

However, since we're built on a Constitution designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, I don't have to care if the majority wants to violate the rights of the minority.

Fortunately, this isn't a democracy. If a poll went out with the majority in favor of banning Christianity, would you support it? That's democracy.

However, since we're built on a Constitution designed to prevent the tyranny of the majority, I don't have to care if the majority wants to violate the rights of the minority.
This IS Democracy. And if a poll went out banning Christianity...and the majority voted in favor for it...I'd support it, I'm not Christian. Anyway, it wouldnt happen because the majority of people are Christian.

Dude, I'm gonna be honest. I'm on doctor prescribed pain killers that are making my whole body tingle (I just got my wisdom teeth pulled) and I dont want to waste anymore of your time. I, like you, dont want a theocracy.

This IS Democracy. And if a poll went out banning Christianity...and the majority voted in favor for it...I'd support it, I'm not Christian. Anyway, it wouldnt happen because the majority of people are Christian.

Dude, I'm gonna be honest. I'm on doctor prescribed pain killers that are making my whole body tingle (I just got my wisdom teeth pulled) and I dont want to waste anymore of your time. I, like you, dont want a theocracy.

We aren't a straight democracy, which is what you're talking about. That's called the fallacy of equivocation, where you use the same word two different ways. Our country is not a democracy in the way you are describing. That type of democracy was described by the founding fathers as tyranny of the majority.

We're a constitutional republic. That's a representative democracy with a constitution that prevents the kinds of actions you're talking about.

The question is which of your rights you're willing to place to the vote?

We aren't a straight democracy, which is what you're talking about. That's called the fallacy of equivocation, where you use the same word two different ways. Our country is not a democracy in the way you are describing. That type of democracy was described by the founding fathers as tyranny of the majority.

We're a constitutional republic. That's a representative democracy with a constitution that prevents the kinds of actions you're talking about.

The question is which of your rights you're willing to place to the vote?

Meh, none...I like "constitutional republic" better than "democracy"...but I like Direct Democracy better. Can you have a consitution that prevents tyranny of the majority in a Direct Democracy?

Meh, none...I like "constitutional republic" better than "democracy"...but I like Direct Democracy better. Can you have a consitution that prevents tyranny of the majority in a Direct Democracy?

No, because the majority could vote to change the Constitution.

No, because the majority could vote to change the Constitution.
Oh, well thats my favorite form of government, the sort they have in Switzerland. It isnt pure Direct Democracy, but its pretty close.

No.

Better yet, if a nation-wide poll went out...and a majority voted in approval of non-denominational quick morning prayer in school, would allow it. That is Democracy.What if there was a nationwide poll in favor of reinstating slavery? Democracy isn't the ultimate goal, it's just the means towards it. If democracy were to oppose the goal, it needs to be limited to a degree.

What if there was a nationwide poll in favor of reinstating slavery? Democracy isn't the ultimate goal, it's just the means towards it. If democracy were to oppose the goal, it needs to be limited to a degree.
What IS the ultimate goal, my German friend?

What IS the ultimate goal, my German friend?For the US, wouldn't it be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

For the US, wouldn't it be life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?
And dont we have that?

I know I do.

And dont we have that?

I know I do.
Ah, but what if the majority decided to take away some of those rights from a minority for no justified reason? I refuse to see that as right simply because the majority wills it so and would prefer legal obstruction to that happening.

Ah, but what if the majority decided to take away some of those rights from a minority for no justified reason? I refuse to see that as right simply because the majority wills it so and would prefer legal obstruction to that happening.

What rights has the majority taken away from the minority that have to do with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?

What rights has the majority taken away from the minority that have to do with life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness?In the past, liberty from people of darker skin color. In Germany, rights to procreate or walk freely were taken from the Jews.

I don't like the idea of giving that kind of power to mob rule. That such power hasn't been abused in the past or hasn't been abused today is hardly a guarantee for the future ;)

Better yet, if a nation-wide poll went out...and a majority voted in approval of non-denominational quick morning prayer in school, would allow it. That is Democracy.
That still violates the rights of those who don't believe.

And dont we have that?

I know I do.

I would consider religious liberty to be a vital part of the liberty part as well as the pursuit of happiness part. I would have a strong disagreement with the school indoctrinating my children into a type of Christianity I don't agree with. I know that particular version of Christianity is very fearful that without that indoctrination it won't survive, but indoctrinating people into violating the teachings of Christ is not the role of government.

It seems that the only people defending a weaker separation have an interest in promoting Christianity. Whodathunk?

I wasn't sure about how far the SCOTUS had taken the first amendment in the past fifty years when I started this thread. It seemed to be stretching things too far. After all, symbols and wording related to religion weren't actually instances of Congress legislating religious beliefs. But, as I've gathered it in the process of reading this thread, the first amendment clearly draws a line between government legislation and religion, and if the intent of stopping theocratic practies is to be preserved, then a strict separation of church and state is necessary. Bottom line. That's not activism anymore than implied powers of Congress are. It's what is necessary to achieve the goal of the amendment.

Now, abortion, affirmative action, etc. We'll get to that at another time.

Oh, well thats my favorite form of government, the sort they have in Switzerland. It isnt pure Direct Democracy, but its pretty close.
A Confederation is what your talking about.

A Confederation is what your talking about.
I meant what I said and a direct democracy in Switzerland (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy#Direct_democracy_in_Switzerland)WAS what I was talking about.

Here's what I think. No evidence of ANY religion WHATSOEVER maybe be allowed in a government run or owned building, and religion may not WHATSOEVER influence politics or the government. Also, the government in no way may be allowed to dictate who or what we are allowed to worship and when, and may in no way influence religion.

Here's what I think. No evidence of ANY religion WHATSOEVER maybe be allowed in a government run or owned building, and religion may not WHATSOEVER influence politics or the government. Also, the government in no way may be allowed to dictate who or what we are allowed to worship and when, and may in no way influence religion.
Ideally, that's how the U.S. is supposed to be.

Ideally, that's how the U.S. is supposed to be.

Verve, was this the vision of the Founders?

Verve, was this the vision of the Founders?

Well, since the constitution was and is secular (Article 6 and the 1st Amendment are your friends) and influenced by the european Enlightenment/French Revolution when the Separation of Church and State was becoming popular, I'd say so.

Verve, was this the vision of the Founders?
"George Washington
(1732-1799; "Father of His Country"; 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)

The following year [1784], when asking Tench Tilghman to secure a carpenter and a bricklayer for his Mount Vernon estate, he [Washington] remarked: "If they are good workmen, they may be of Asia, Africa, or Europe. They may be Mohometans, Jews or Christians of any Sect, or they may be Atheists." As he told a Mennonite minister who sought refuge in the United States after the Revolution: "I had always hoped that this land might become a safe and agreeable Asylum to the virtuous and persecuted part of mankind, to whatever nation they might belong...." He was, as John Bell pointed out in 1779, "a total stranger to religious prejudices, which have so often excited Christians of one denomination to cut the throats of those of another." (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 118. According to Boller, Washington wrote his remarks to Tilghman in a letter dated March 24, 1784; his remarks to the Mennonite--Francis Adrian Van der Kemp--were in a letter dated May 28, 1788.)

Government being, among other purposes, instituted to protect the consciences of men from oppression, it is certainly the duty of Rulers, not only to abstain from it themselves, but according to their stations, to prevent it in others. (George Washington, letter to the Religious Society called the Quakers, September 28, 1789. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)

It is now no more that toleration is spoken of as if it was by the indulgence of one class of the people that another enjoyed the exercise of their inherent natural rights. For happily the Government of the United States, which gives to bigotry no sanction, to persecution no assistance, requires only that those who live under its protection should demean themselves as good citizens in giving it, on all occasions, their effectual support. (George Washington, letter to the congregation of Touro Synagogue Jews, Newport, Rhode Island, August, 1790. From Gorton Carruth and Eugene Ehrlich, eds., The Harper Book of American Quotations, New York: Harper & Row, 1988, p. 500.)

Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society. (George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20, 1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726.)

In the Enlightened Age and in this Land of equal Liberty it is our boast, that a man's religious tenets will not forfeit the protection of the Laws, nor deprive him of the right of attaining and holding the highest Offices that are known in the United States. (George Washington, letter to the members of the New Church in Baltimore, January 27, 1793. Quoted in Richard B. Morris, Seven Who Shaped Our Destiny: The Founding Fathers as Revolutionaries, Harper & Row, 1973, p. 269.)

... Bird Wilson, Episcopal minister in Albany, New York, was one of the first openly to challenge in public the pietistic picture of Washington that was being built up by [Mason Locke] Weems and his followers. In a sermon delivered in October, 1831, which attracted wide attention when it was reported in the Albany Daily Advertiser, Wilson stated flatly that "among all our presidents from Washington downward, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than unitarianism." Washington, he went on to say, was a great and good man, but he was not a professor of religion; he was really a typical eighteenth-century Deist, not a Christian, in his religious outlook. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 14-15.)

... Like his father before him, he [George Washington] served actively for many years as one of the twelve vestrymen for Truro parish, Virginia, in which Mount Vernon was located. According to Charles H. Callahan, "The regularity of his attendance at the meetings of the vestry and the progress of church work throughout the parish during his incumbency is a striking testimonial of the religious zeal and activity of him and his associates." Actually, under the Anglican establishment in Virginia before the Revolution, the duties of a parish vestry were as much civil as religious in nature and it is not possible to deduce any exceptional religious zeal from the mere fact of membership. Even Thomas Jefferson was a vestryman for a while.* [Boller's footnote is shown at the end of this selection.] Consisting of the leading gentlemen of the parish in position and influence (many of whom, like Washington, were also at one time or other members of the County Court and of the House of Burgesses), the parish vestry, among other things, levied the parish taxes, handled poor relief, fixed land boundaries in the parish, supervised the construction, furnishing, and repairs of churches, and hired ministers and paid their salaries. *As Bishop William Meade put it, somewhat nastily, in 1857: "Even Mr. Jefferson, and [George] Wythe, who did not conceal their disbelief in Christianity, took their parts in the duties of vestrymen, the one at Williamsburg, the other at Albermarle; for they wished to be men of influence." (William Meade, Old Churches, Ministers and Families of Virginia, 2 vols.; Philadelphia, 1857, I, 191). (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 26.)

Unlike Thomas Jefferson--and Thomas Paine, for that matter--Washington never even got around to recording his belief that Christ was a great ethical teacher. His reticence on the subject was truly remarkable. Washington frequently alluded to Providence in his private correspondence. But the name of Christ, in any correspondence whatsoever, does not appear anywhere in his many letters to friends and associates throughout his life. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, pp. 74-75.)

... if to believe in the divinity and resurrection of Christ and his atonement for the sins of man and to participate in the sacrament of the Lord's Supper are requisites for the Christian faith, then Washington, on the evidence which we have examined, can hardly be considered a Christian, except in the most nominal sense. (Paul F. Boller, George Washington & Religion, Dallas: Southern Methodist University Press, 1963, p. 90.)

[on Washington's first inaugural speech in April 1789] . .. That he was not just striking a popular attitude as a politician is revealed by the absence of of the usual Christian terms: he did not mention Christ or even use the word "God." Following the phraseology of the philosophical Deism he professed, he referred to "the invisible hand which conducts the affairs of men," to "the benign parent of the human race." (James Thomas Flexner, George Washington and the New Nation [1783-1793], Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1970, p. 184.)

Washington's religious belief was that of the enlightenment: deism. He practically never used the word "God," preferring the more impersonal word "Providence." How little he visualized Providence in personal form is shown by the fact that he interchangeably applied to that force all three possible pronouns: he, she, and it. (James Thomas Flexner, George Washington: Anguish and Farewell [1793-1799], Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1972, p. 490.)

No citizens ... were more sensitive to Washington's role as an upholder of liberties than the religious minorities. These groups were less anxious to cultivate what they had in common with other Americans than to sustain what kept them apart. Washington recognized this, just as he recognized the tenacity of regional and economic interests, and he took pains to explain precisely what national unity meant to him. He carried to his countrymen a vision of "organic" rather than "mechanical" solidarity, a union based on difference and interdependence rather than uniformity of belief and conduct. Washington's understanding of the kind of integration appropriate to a modern state was not shared by the most powerful Protestant establishments, the New England Congregationalists and Presbyterians; but other religious groups could not have been more pleased.... Acknowledging in each instance that respect for diversity was a fair price for commitment to the nation and its regime, Washington abolished deep-rooted fears that would have otherwise alienated a large part of the population from the nation-building process. For this large minority, he embodied not the ideal of union, nor even that of liberty, but rather the reconciliation of union and liberty. (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 85-86.)

George Washington's conduct convinced most Americans that he was a good Christian, but those possessing first-hand knowledge of his religious convictions had reasons for doubt. (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 170.)

Following a tradition transmitted from Cicero, through Machiavelli, to their own contemporaries like Paine and Jefferson, the less pious men of the time saw in religion a necessary and assured support of civil society. Although guided in their own conduct by secular traditions, they felt that only religion could unite the masses and induce their submission to custom and law. So they joined their orthodox countrymen in attributing to the hero [George Washington] a deep religious devotion. (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, p. 173.)

As President, Washington regularly attended Christian services, and he was friendly in his attitude toward Christian values. However, he repeatedly declined the church's sacraments. Never did he take communion, and when his wife, Martha, did, he waited for her outside the sanctuary.... Even on his deathbed, Washington asked for no ritual, uttered no prayer to Christ, and expressed no wish to be attended by His representative. George Washington's practice of Christianity was limited and superficial because he was not himself a Christian. In the enlightened tradition of his day, he was a devout Deist--just as many of the clergymen who knew him suspected. (Barry Schwartz, George Washington: The Making of an American Symbol, New York: The Free Press, 1987, pp. 174-175.)" http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html

There is plenty here to read.

"George Washington
(1732-1799; "Father of His Country"; 1st U.S. President, 1789-1797)

It's boring to get the same quotes from Postiive Atheism.org and Infidel.org. I don't understand why modern British subjects defy God so much. I know it's in fashion nowadays in London and Paris. The universe is most assuredly an open system, not a closed system, yet today we assume that the universe is "all there is" and that we have "figured it all out." Very much in error....

Anyhow, those quotes are virtually all out of context. Most of which were distinguishing between different denominations of Christianity, and most certainly were not in opposition to God. Remember, most Protestants feel that the individual should approach Scripture using his individual conscience as a guide, so a national Church would never be established in America.

The Founders strongly supported religion, primarily Christianity, and, except for a small handful, were not Deists.

The other piece to note is that their personal correspondence does not carry the weight of official declarations, which are even more strongly in favor of God, and represent the whole People, as opposed to an individual.

Well, since the constitution was and is secular (Article 6 and the 1st Amendment are your friends) and influenced by the european Enlightenment/French Revolution when the Separation of Church and State was becoming popular, I'd say so.

The Constitution of the United States was intended to be a compact between the states, even the first amendment only reads "Congress shall make no law..."

It's boring to get the same quotes from Postiive Atheism.org and Infidel.org. I don't understand why modern British subjects defy God so much. I know it's in fashion nowadays in London and Paris. The universe is most assuredly an open system, not a closed system, yet today we assume that the universe is "all there is" and that we have "figured it all out." Very much in error....

Anyhow, they are virtually all out of context. Most of which were distinguishing between different denominations of Christianity, and most certainly were not in opposition to God. Remember, most Protestants feel that the individual should approach Scripture using his individual conscience as a guide, so a national Church would never be established in America.

The Founders strongly supported religion, primarily Christianity, and, except for a small handful, were not Deists.

The other piece to note is that their personal correspondence does not carry the weight of official declarations, which are even more strongly in favor of God, and represent the whole People, as opposed to an individual.
I don't agree. The founders don't agree with you, either.

I don't agree. The founders don't agree with you, either.

This is the Massachusetts Constitution, written 7 years before the US Constitution:

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

I don't agree. The founders don't agree with you, either.

Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution is more explicit:

Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

This is the Massachusetts Constitution, written 7 years before the US Constitution:

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.
And so it would seem that the Massachusetts constitution, written 7 years before the US Constitution, mandates public worship and in fact makes it a civic duty. Does Massachusetts specify the penalties for not participating in said public and seasonable worship? Indeed, does Massachusetts specify the form said public and seasonable worship should take?

Just because there's a document older than the Constitution with a different take on the issue doesn't mean that older sentiment supercedes the younger sentiment. By that token (taken to an extreme), "Me have bigger club" (in some sort of proto-language) trumps every law made since it was uttered.

I don't agree. The founders don't agree with you, either.

Preamble to the Connecticut Constitution:

The People of Connecticut acknowledging with gratitude, the good providence of God, in having permitted them to enjoy a free government; do, in order more effectually to define, secure, and perpetuate the liberties, rights and privileges which they have derived from their ancestors; hereby, after a careful consideration and revision, ordain and establish the following constitution and form of civil government.

And so it would seem that the Massachusetts constitution, written 7 years before the US Constitution, mandates public worship and in fact makes it a civic duty. Does Massachusetts specify the penalties for not participating in said public and seasonable worship? Indeed, does Massachusetts specify the form said public and seasonable worship should take?

Just because there's a document older than the Constitution with a different take on the issue doesn't mean that older sentiment supercedes the younger sentiment. By that token (taken to an extreme), "Me have bigger club" (in some sort of proto-language) trumps every law made since it was uttered.

Does it make sense that the Founders changed their minds 7 years later with the Constitution, or 11 years later with the Bill of Rights?

In particular, Massachusetts was one of the chief agitators for adding Bill of Rights to the Constitution. Many don't realize the Founders passed the Bill of Rights with a Preamble, which clarifies exactly what they intended:

The Conventions of a number of the States having at the time of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added: And as extending the ground of public confidence in the Government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its institution.

Funny how those don't make the cut for the United States Constitution.

Your type always seems to insert God where the rest of us see a purposeful omission. And like I said before, even if you proved to me that the founders did want God to be part of Government, there should be a separation of Church and State and I'll fight for it.

It's boring to get the same quotes from Postiive Atheism.org and Infidel.org. I don't understand why modern British subjects defy God so much. I know it's in fashion nowadays in London and Paris. The universe is most assuredly an open system, not a closed system, yet today we assume that the universe is "all there is" and that we have "figured it all out." Very much in error....

Anyhow, those quotes are virtually all out of context. Most of which were distinguishing between different denominations of Christianity, and most certainly were not in opposition to God. Remember, most Protestants feel that the individual should approach Scripture using his individual conscience as a guide, so a national Church would never be established in America.

The Founders strongly supported religion, primarily Christianity, and, except for a small handful, were not Deists.

The other piece to note is that their personal correspondence does not carry the weight of official declarations, which are even more strongly in favor of God, and represent the whole People, as opposed to an individual.

George Washington was not a Protestant and he and the names you know were primarily Deists. Yes, there were many who were Christian and even a few Jews, but Washington, Franklin, Payne, Hamilton, Madison, all promoted a strong a decisive seperation of Church and State. And guess what... it wasn't to protect the State. It was to protect the Church. They know that power breeds corruption and they didn't want the State to do that to the Church. Seems it's only those that are already corrupt that argue that this seperation is not in their interest. It's a handful of Christians afraid of losing their power in this country.

You have no right to that power. And I and other rational Christians will not allow you to corrupt our Faith.

Article III of the Massachusetts Constitution is more explicit:

Article III. As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

And? Yes, they tried and failed to force religion upon the general public. Are we supposed to cry for them?

George Washington was not a Protestant and he and the names you know were primarily Deists. Yes, there were many who were Christian and even a few Jews, but Washington, Franklin, Payne, Hamilton, Madison, all promoted a strong a decisive seperation of Church and State. And guess what... it wasn't to protect the State. It was to protect the Church. They know that power breeds corruption and they didn't want the State to do that to the Church. Seems it's only those that are already corrupt that argue that this seperation is not in their interest. It's a handful of Christians afraid of losing their power in this country.

You have no right to that power. And I and other rational Christians will not allow you to corrupt our Faith.

Going to church on Christmas and Easter doesn't give you much standing in the Faith. Amending the Scripture to take out the portions you don't like doesn't give you much standing in the Faith.

About 5% of the Founders were Deist. The rest were Christian.

Virginia, the base of support for Jefferson, your Deist-in-Chief, put this in their Constitution in the year 1776:

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Massachusetts, prominent agitator for the Bill of Rights, put this in their Constitution in the year 1780:

As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.

snip
Link to that 5% number?

Going to church on Christmas and Easter doesn't give you much standing in the Faith. Amending the Scripture to take out the portions you don't like doesn't give you much standing in the Faith.

What do your assumptions about who I am have to do with me? The only one I've seen amending the scripture is you. I doubt you do it on purpose. I don't think you know much about it that someone else didn't tell you.

You want to test my Faith, rather than making crap up about me start a thread, but when I show you that I've forgotten more about the Bible then you've ever bothered to learn, I expect an apology.

What part of Christianity would make you think that the fact you regularly go to service makes you a better Christian than me? Given the majority of your posts consist of you pretending to be someone you're not, I wouldn't start talking about what makes for a good Christian. What's that commandment about bearing false witness?


About 5% of the Founders were Deist. The rest were Christian.

Yeah, just the 5% we all remember were Deist. The ones who wrote the documents we all revere. Just them. We really should pretend like the 95% we've never heard of were the 'real' founders. Meanwhile, since I listed about 5 deists and there were only 39 signers of the Constitution, one writer of the Declaration, and three writers of the federalist papers, I don't see how one can argue that '95%' of the founders were not Deist. Can you please list the 95 non-Deists to match my 5 Deists to support your made up percentages?


Virginia, the base of support for Jefferson, your Deist-in-Chief, put this in their Constitution in the year 1776:

That religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and, therefore, all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practice Christian forbearance, love, and charity towards each other.

Are you actually claiming that Jefferson was not a Deist? Support, please. It's a well-known historical fact that Jefferson is a Deist. He was also one of the biggest supporters of the separation of Church and State. He believe it because he thought Christianity would be corrupted by the state, given the fact that prominent Christians are willing to lie in order to retain the power they think they have in this country, I'm quite certain he was correct.

Massachusetts, prominent agitator for the Bill of Rights, put this in their Constitution in the year 1780:

As the happiness of a people, and the good order and preservation of civil government, essentially depend upon piety, religion and morality; and as these cannot be generally diffused through a community, but by the institution of the public worship of God, and of public instructions in piety, religion and morality: Therefore, to promote their happiness and to secure the good order and preservation of their government, the people of this commonwealth have a right to invest their legislature with power to authorize and require, and the legislature shall, from time to time, authorize and require, the several towns, parishes, precincts, and other bodies politic, or religious societies, to make suitable provision, at their own expense, for the institution of the public worship of God, and for the support and maintenance of public Protestant teachers of piety, religion and morality, in all cases where such provision shall not be made voluntarily.
Massachusetts wrote this prior to the writing of the Constitution and the state constitutions have little bearing on the purpose of the first amendment. How can this argument not embarrass you? The states were considered little countries at the time of the writing of the Constitution. However, at the passing of the 14th that position of the states changed and the law was that all citizens must have equal rights, thus all have to have fully religious freedom.

Seriously, why is that someone who worships Jesus, and yes, despite your trolling, we know you worship Jesus, try to argue that allowing the State to interfere in religion is a good thing?

Link to that 5% number?

It is generally agreed upon that there are approximately 250 people who can be considered Founders. There was only a handful of Deists among them. 5% is already a generous percentage on my part.

This is knowledge I have acquired, I would urge you to study the actual words of the Founders to get a better idea of what they believed, not just what Atheism.org and Infidel.org put on their websites, usually out-of-context, or what your public (government-controlled) school teacher told you.

Retroactively, I looked up this site to be fairly good about the issue. It is a Christian site, so you may disqualify it, but otherwise study the actual words (in-context) of the Founders, or the Founding documents.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29

What do your assumptions about who I am have to do with me? The only one I've seen amending the scripture is you. I doubt you do it on purpose. I don't think you know much about it that someone else didn't tell you.

You might go to church, but I doubt you live the faith. (Contributing to the Democrat Party USA, NARAL and the ACLU don't count as charity.) I doubt that are a regular attendant, unless it is Episcopal or Unitarian or some other liberal Christian group, who are seeing their membership collaspe, and couldn't care less about following Scripture.

It seems highly doubtful that the Founders intended the Constitution to take God out of the country. They were fervant believers in the Almighty. The First Amendment was simply to prevent the establishment of a national church, much like the loathed Church of England, especially considering a large number of immigrants to the New World were either seeking religious or economic freedom. The "separation of Church and State" was only discovered by the Supreme Court in 1948, and highly ulilized in the Earl Warren Court of the 1960's, hardly the Founding era.

I don't accept any of the Founders you mention as Deists. Jefferson was highly skeptical of the claims of Christianity, but still supported its broad teaching. Washington, Madison and Adams were devout Christians.

It is generally agreed upon that there are approximately 250 people who can be considered Founders. There was only a handful of Deists among them. 5% is already a generous percentage on my part.

Source? You admit you made up the percentage. You make up another number about 250 founders while there was about a fifth of that and the Constitutional Convention, and obviously much less than that contributed to any of the founding documents we're discussing. Defending your unsourced material with more unsourced material is absurd.


This is knowledge I have acquired, I would urge you to study the actual words of the Founders to get a better idea of what they believed, not just what Atheism.org and Infidel.org put on their websites, usually out-of-context, or what your public (government-controlled) school teacher told you.

Retroactively, I looked up this site to be fairly good about the issue. It is a Christian site, so you may disqualify it, but otherwise study the actual words (in-context) of the Founders, or the Founding documents.

http://www.wallbuilders.com/resources/search/detail.php?ResourceID=29

You source a document while complaining about taking things out of context that doesn't quote a whole sentence from any of the founders, makes a suggestion that arguing that some founders were Deists is an argument for the irreligious rather than just pointing out they weren't building a Christian nation, and basically says things that are provably untrue. You'll notice my quotes of the founders were generally quite long gave what they said and offered some context to the statements. I can also give you even more context if you like. Tell me which one is out of context and I'll prove to you that with more context they still make the same statement. Your link isn't the pot calling the kettle black. It's the pot calling the snowflake black.

You might go to church, but I doubt you live the faith.

Based on what? You're knowledge of my ability to type. The fact that I don't lie about my beliefs on the internet like some of the 'real' Christians like yourself?

(Contributing to the Democrat Party USA, NARAL and the ACLU don't count as charity.)

How about working as a night janitor for free at a Baptist day-care center that was going to shut down because they couldn't afford to get the extra help? Working as a free tutor for underpriveleged youth? Preparing people for GED's for free? Golly, yes, I know your simple knowledge of my internet posts gives you a vast knowledge of my life.

Maybe one day I'll spend my time lying on the internet. Clearly, 'true' Christians do that.

I doubt that are a regular attendant, unless it is Episcopal or Unitarian or some other liberal Christian group, who are seeing their membership collaspe, and couldn't care less about following Scripture.

Again, based on what? My vast study of the scripture? Like I said, I dare you to test me. I double-dog dare you to test me on my knowledge of the scripture. But prepare to get embarrassed.

Also, can you point out to me where Jesus said what makes a 'real' Christian is a regular attender of Church? Actually, he more or less said that people who think such things make them better Christians are hypocrites.


It seems highly doubtful that the Founders intended the Constitution to take God out of the country. They were fervant believers in the Almighty. The First Amendment was simply to prevent the establishment of a national church, much like the loathed Church of England, especially considering a large number of immigrants to the New World were either seeking religious or economic freedom. The "separation of Church and State" was only discovered by the Supreme Court in 1948, and highly ulilized in the Earl Warren Court of the 1960's, hardly the Founding era.

No one is trying to take God out of the country. The founders intended to protect Christianity from the corruption of government and to protect religious freedom. That is exactly what current practices are trying to do. They are trying to allow people to keep their religion personal and seperate from the corruption of government.


I don't accept any of the Founders you mention as Deists. Jefferson was highly skeptical of the claims of Christianity, but still supported its broad teaching. Washington, Madison and Adams were devout Christians.
You don't accept. Well, that's compelling. Who can really tell what you accept since you have been caught repeatedly lying about what you do and don't believe. Now if you'd like to support your assertions, please do so. Show some proof.

Meanwhile, Jefferson believe in God. He believed Christ was a prophet and agreed with his teachings. He did not worship Christ. He thought the teachings of religion were good teachings. Teachings like 'thou shalt not bear false witness'.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=11427151&postcount=403

Try some support for your statements. Go ahead and show how the above quotes were taken out of context.

Based on what? You're knowledge of my ability to type. The fact that I don't lie about my beliefs on the internet like some of the 'real' Christians like yourself?

Try some support for your statements. Go ahead and show how the above quotes were taken out of context.

Your so cute to believe in a personal Christianity that allows for abortion, euthanasia and attacks on the sanctity of life. Your Christianity doesn't have many moral requirements, it's very similar to the majority faith of Evolutionism and the neo-pagan worship of Common Ancestor.

Most of those quotes were attacks on Catholicism or the Church of England, with the general idea that people shouldn't put their faith in the clergy, but in the truth itself, which originaties from the Scripture. They aren't attacks on Christianity, and they aren't sufficient reason meaning we have to purge the government of all recognition of Almighty.

The overwhelming majority (99+%) of all Americans were Christian in the time of the Founding, and would not have rallied around a "deist" cause. It would seem odd considering the primary recruiting area for the Continental Army took place in churches, and preachers used their sermons to rally people to the cause. In your scenario, the new leadership would simultaneously proclaim that the new Republic would purge Christianity from the nation and its institutions, and then expect us to believe that everyday Christians rallied to this cause.

Having the government recognize God and having the government operating churches is a different matter completely. I am not advocating for a government-operated church. However, the government must recognize the authority of Almighty God....otherwise it may begin to think that it is the creator and origin of our rights.

The overwhelming majority (99+%) of all Americans were Christian in the time of the Founding, and would not have rallied around a "deist" cause.
Does that include or exclude the Americans that were already on the continent before them?

Does that include or exclude the Americans that were already on the continent before them?

Indians had been defeated and had their own mini-nations. They were in the process of being Christianized. Most of the Founders supported evangelization of the natives.

See, you don't realize, Christianity is the true, most perfect, faith.

Indians had been defeated and had their own mini-nations. They were in the process of being Christianized. Most of the Founders supported evangelization of the natives.

See, you don't realize, Christianity is the true, most perfect, faith.

What are you smoking?

Can I have some?

Your so cute to believe in a personal Christianity that allows for abortion, euthanasia and attacks on the sanctity of life.

You mean the personal Christianity that the Christ preaches. Follow the religion of the pharisees. That's your choice. Me, I take the teaching of Christ above the teachings of man.

And I don't believe in Euthanasia or Abortion, my friend. I simply don't believe I get to choose for others. As for the sanctity of life, weren't you just suggesting killing people.


Your Christianity doesn't have many moral requirements, it's very similar to the majority faith of Evolutionism and the neo-pagan worship of Common Ancestor.


Ha. Amusing. My faith does have moral requirements. Not lying is one of them. How about you?


Most of those quotes were attacks on Catholicism or the Church of England, with the general idea that people shouldn't put their faith in the clergy, but in the truth itself, which originaties from the Scripture. They aren't attacks on Christianity, and they aren't sufficient reason meaning we have to purge the government of all recognition of Almighty.

You mean they were preaching a personal faith? Get out. That can't be. And so the quote where Jefferson actually says there is nothing redeeming about Christianity wasn't about Christianity. Interesting. I notice you've offered yet another argument with not a single quote of the actual writings of the people you are talking about. Again, you said the statements were taken out of context. Prove it. Provide the context of the quotes that would change the meaning. What's the matter? Can't do it?

The overwhelming majority (99+%) of all Americans were Christian in the time of the Founding, and would not have rallied around a "deist" cause. It would seem odd considering the primary recruiting area for the Continental Army took place in churches, and preachers used their sermons to rally people to the cause. In your scenario, the new leadership would simultaneously proclaim that the new Republic would purge Christianity from the nation and its institutions, and then expect us to believe that everyday Christians rallied to this cause.

Why? No one is claiming that Christianity shouldn't exist. It should. I support it. So did they. Apparently, your faith requires the support of the government or it will cease to exist. Your hyperbole aside, there is a happy medium where faith prospers among faithful people while the government sticks to *gasp* government and leaves faith alone.



Having the government recognize God and having the government operating churches is a different matter completely. I am not advocating for a government-operated church. However, the government must recognize the authority of Almighty God....otherwise it may begin to think that it is the creator and origin of our rights.
Not philosophically different. The government in promoting God violates religious freedom. It declares that one God has more credence than other faiths. I suspect you would have a completely different take if the government recognized Allah or Gaia.

Ha. That last bit is hilarious. So unless God is recognized by the government the government will lose it's mind and think it created rights that existed before it did? That is as amusing as it is nonsensical.

Meanwhile, would you consider it to infringe upon your religious rights if the government recognized Gaia as the origin of our rights?

Indians had been defeated and had their own mini-nations. They were in the process of being Christianized. Most of the Founders supported evangelization of the natives.

See, you don't realize, Christianity is the true, most perfect, faith.

Defeated? You mean murdered? So much for the sanctity of life, huh?

According to Christ, Christianity wasn't meant for the Native Americans. Was he wrong?

Can I join you all in a big WTF at Conscience and Truth?

Meanwhile, would you consider it to infringe upon your religious rights if the government recognized Gaia as the origin of our rights?

Jacobia, Gaia is not the origin of Rights. The Christian God (the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) is the origin. Name a neo-pagan society that believes in the inviolate nature of life, and of our sacred rights.

Christian morality is the highest of all the existing faiths, which argues for its truth. If you believe in Jesus Christ, as your Lord and Savior, then you need to love your neighbor by teaching him about our Lord.

The govenrment must submit to God, through the People, if it doesn't, our rights mean nothing.

As for my sourcing, I don't source because all I say was common knowledge just a decade or two ago (all the way back to the Founding), it's you who worships post-moderism and not Christ that takes your views from the latest scholarly work of a humanist professor.

Where are you from Jacobia and what is your age! :(

Can I join you all in a big WTF at Conscience and Truth?

WTF?

Can I join you all in a big WTF at Conscience and Truth?

Rainbowwws, what is your age and where are YOU from?

Be nice to me :( I have no friends.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion...
Let us look into the wording of the amendment itself a little bit.

What is the purpose of this part of the establishment clause? First of all, it was to prevent the creation of a state church in order to avoid the corruption of a theocracy. Secondly, it was to prevent the tenants of a certain religion from being legislated, and thus infringing on the beliefs of people with contrary ideas, including atheists. In order to preserve this second intent behind the first amendment, a separation between government and all types of religion is necessary.

Thus, if Creationism is taught in public school classrooms, it infringes on the beliefs of those who think otherwise. Evolution is not a religious belief; teaching it only informs students of what the word of science is on the matter of the origin of species, and thus does not cross into the beliefs category. It may conflict with some people's beliefs, but the fact is that the theory does not cross into the religion category and thus the government is not endorsing a particular religious belief with its teaching. Similarly, displays of the Christian religion and wording such as "under God" in the pledge of allegiance endorses certain religions, with the latter including all monotheistic religions, and therefore violates this second purpose of the establishment clause as well. It's really quite a simple test -- if anything affiliated with government mentions any sort of religious belief, it violates this second purpose of the first amendment.

Rainbowwws, what is your age and where are YOU from?

Be nice to me :( I have no friends.

Perhaps you would have more friends if you were not a troll.

Just a thought.

Rainbowwws, what is your age and where are YOU from?

Be nice to me :( I have no friends.
I suppose you reap what you sow. I wish I was from Vancouver and I wish I was 18.

Jacobia, Gaia is not the origin of Rights. The Christian God (the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) is the origin. Name a neo-pagan society that believes in the inviolate nature of life, and of our sacred rights.

Christian morality is the highest of all the existing faiths, which argues for its truth. If you believe in Jesus Christ, as your Lord and Savior, then you need to love your neighbor by teaching him about our Lord.

The govenrment must submit to God, through the People, if it doesn't, our rights mean nothing.

As for my sourcing, I don't source because all I say was common knowledge just a decade or two ago (all the way back to the Founding), it's you who worships post-moderism and not Christ that takes your views from the latest scholarly work of a humanist professor.
I don't know if this has already been posted, C+T:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
-- Thomas Jefferson, in the Treaty of Tripoli
http://www.nobeliefs.com/document.htm

Regardless of whatever Judeo-Christian beliefs may have been at work in the developing of the nation, the first amendment is clear about the government's role with religion. That's the only thing that need be considered, being that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land.

If the founders were too dumb to be specific when writing amendments and constitutions, then their intentions don't deserve to be honoured.

If the founders were too dumb to be specific when writing amendments and constitutions, then their intentions don't deserve to be honoured.
The Founders were smart when they wrote the amendments in a vague way. This allowed for future generations to interpret the amendments to fit new issues facing their time. Example: search and seizure is vague, and yet the same amendment from the 1700s protects us from searches and seizures relating to modern technology. If the fourth amendment only described wooden houses and papers, would that really work? I think not...And even if we decide to disregard the Constitution, what do we go by then?

Rainbowwws, what is your age and where are YOU from?

Be nice to me :( I have no friends.

Well, if you're like this to everyone, then I'm not surprised.

Jacobia, Gaia is not the origin of Rights. The Christian God (the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob) is the origin. Name a neo-pagan society that believes in the inviolate nature of life, and of our sacred rights.

Name a Christian society that believes it. You just defended the slaughter of Native Americans. The fact that you don't believe it is not the point. The point is that you were offended by the implication because it violates your freedom. You are the best proof of my point possible.


Christian morality is the highest of all the existing faiths, which argues for its truth. If you believe in Jesus Christ, as your Lord and Savior, then you need to love your neighbor by teaching him about our Lord.

Really? You desperately want to ignore the Salem Witch Trials, the genocide of blacks and native americans, slavery, the crusades, the burning of people at the stake for educating themselves, the brutality, murder and destruction done in the name of Christ by the Church.

Christians should rely on their own faith in the teachings of Christ, not some false claim that Christians are always better than other people.



The govenrment must submit to God, through the People, if it doesn't, our rights mean nothing.

And if the government submits to your view of God, our rights mean nothing. Because you'd subjugate them and you admit it.


As for my sourcing, I don't source because all I say was common knowledge just a decade or two ago (all the way back to the Founding), it's you who worships post-moderism and not Christ that takes your views from the latest scholarly work of a humanist professor.
Ah, so you COULD prove that we're taking things out of context, but you won't because you don't HAVE to. That's a strong argument. I'm waiting for you to say nanananabooboo.

You have lied so much on this forum about what you believe I can't tell if you're trolling or just shockingly unable to prepare an argument.

The Founders were smart when they wrote the amendments in a vague way. This allowed for future generations to interpret the amendments to fit new issues facing their time. Example: search and seizure is vague, and yet the same amendment from the 1700s protects us from searches and seizures relating to modern technology. If the fourth amendment only described wooden houses and papers, would that really work? I think not...And even if we decide to disregard the Constitution, what do we go by then?
Exactly, So we should ignore the interpretation at that time and look at these documents in a relative, modern and objective way.

Where are you from Jacobia and what is your age! :(

I'll be 32 in September and I'm from IL but have lived all over the country and traveled around the world. Not sure how this bears on the argument.

So I guess the next inevitable question in this whole equation about balancing church and state, as in keeping one away from the other, is money. Is it Constitutional to have "In God We Trust" printed on coins and bills? Can that be justified as a historical practice? Thoughts?

Canada has god in its national anthem, but thats ok because no Canadians know the words to it anyway.

So I guess the next inevitable question in this whole equation about balancing church and state, as in keeping one away from the other, is money. Is it Constitutional to have "In God We Trust" printed on coins and bills? Can that be justified as a historical practice? Thoughts?
Hardly. That practise began in the 1950s as yet another way to stick it to the "Godless Commies."

Canada has god in its national anthem, but thats ok because no Canadians know the words to it anyway.

They're too stoned to remember it, or why they even sing it other than that the ref won't start the hockey game until they do. :P

Hardly. That practise began in the 1950s as yet another way to stick it to the "Godless Commies."

This is a typical leftist view, that has gone out from some source. So, we hear it over, and over, and over again.

America was always under God, adding it outright was only a re-affirmation of a self-evident truth.

This is a typical leftist view, that has gone out from some source. So, we hear it over, and over, and over again. America was always under God, adding it outright was only a re-affirmation of a self-evident truth.

Then why not add it before Communism? And I'd like to see where in the Constitution it is written that this nation is "under God."

This is a typical leftist view, that has gone out from some source.
Aren't you done trolling?

This is a typical leftist view, that has gone out from some source. So, we hear it over, and over, and over again.

America was always under God, adding it outright was only a re-affirmation of a self-evident truth.
At least it's sourced (and accurately, which is beside the point for you, I'd imagine) as opposed to your contention, which is sourced only by the sounds coming from your own ass.

Then why not add it before Communism? And I'd like to see where in the Constitution it is written that this nation is "under God."

Part of this issue resides in another error in historical teaching.

Remember, the idea of the federal Constitution, particularly before the Civil War, was that of a limited federal government with only certain enumerated powers. It was a compact between the sovereign States. While it was encouraged that individual citizens learn the Constitution, it was also intended that it would have little impact on citizens everyday lives.

Since the usurpation of state power by the federal government, particularly during the 1930's, the omission of God has been read too significantly. The federal government was supposed to be neutral between the Christian denominations, but the states were free to teach whatever level of faith and morality that the people wanted.

George Washington, (NOT an obscure letter he wrote to an individual citizen)
FAREWELL ADDRESS:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

This is a typical leftist view, that has gone out from some source. So, we hear it over, and over, and over again.

America was always under God, adding it outright was only a re-affirmation of a self-evident truth.

So you're claiming it wasn't added in the 50's? http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Original pledge -

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]


Hmmmm... I guess always means after the 50's in your view.

Part of this issue resides in another error in historical teaching.

Remember, the idea of the federal Constitution, particularly before the Civil War, was that of a limited federal government with only certain enumerated powers. It was a compact between the sovereign States. While it was encouraged that individual citizens learn the Constitution, it was also intended that it would have little impact on citizens everyday lives.

Since the usurpation of state power by the federal government, particularly during the 1930's, the omission of God has been read too significantly. The federal government was supposed to be neutral between the Christian denominations, but the states were free to teach whatever level of faith and morality that the people wanted.

George Washington, (NOT an obscure letter he wrote to an individual citizen)
FAREWELL ADDRESS:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Not some obscure letter? You mean that it's more likely that the presidential address is more likely to reflect the personal views of Washington than a personal letter? In what world?

All the while, this farewell address supports freedom of religion among individuals not fettered by governmental intervention. Also, notice no mention of Christ.

So you're claiming it wasn't added in the 50's? http://history.vineyard.net/pledge.htm

Original pledge -

'I pledge allegiance to my Flag and (to*) the Republic for which it stands, one nation, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.' He considered placing the word, 'equality,' in his Pledge, but knew that the state superintendents of education on his committee were against equality for women and African Americans. [ * 'to' added in October, 1892. ]


Hmmmm... I guess always means after the 50's in your view.

I'm not talking about the Pledge. I'm talking about the idea that our nation has always believes its authority is under God. (Every nation is under God, whether it acknowledges it or not.)

(Every nation is under God, whether it acknowledges it or not.)
Is that missionary position or doggystyle?

I'm not talking about the Pledge. I'm talking about the idea that our nation has always believes its authority is under God. (Every nation is under God, whether it acknowledges it or not.)

Hmmm... strange that we actually find treaties that state otherwise in the very origins of the country. I guess Jefferson WHO WAS THERE was lying when he said that.

Seriously, you have a better argument than this don't you? Something. Anything. Honestly, it's not that I don't want to believe you, it's just that I can't ignore all evidence that suggests you're full of it.

Not some obscure letter? You mean that it's more likely that the presidential address is more likely to reflect the personal views of Washington than a personal letter? In what world?

All the while, this farewell address supports freedom of religion among individuals not fettered by governmental intervention. Also, notice no mention of Christ.

There are many letters written by Washington that would suggest he was strongly a Christian in his personal life.

What I'm saying is that personal letters do not represent law, or the beliefs of the whole people. I think one thing you don't understand is that we aren't ruled by an elite group in the USA.

What I'm saying is that the only things that are important are official documents, that represent the whole People, like the Constitutions of the states and other official documents.

The Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, starts with "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," Why didn't Ben Franklin object to this?

Hmmm... strange that we actually find treaties that state otherwise in the very origins of the country. I guess Jefferson WHO WAS THERE was lying when he said that.

Seriously, you have a better argument than this don't you? Something. Anything. Honestly, it's not that I don't want to believe you, it's just that I can't ignore all evidence that suggests you're full of it.

Your favorite Treaty of Tripoli, an obscure treaty, and all it says is that we don't live with the Bible as the only source of law. And we aren't a Christian nation in that sense. Do you honestly believe that the people two centuries ago were mostly atheist? It's just crazy revisionism.

You also believe that our Constitution was actually stolen from Iroquois Indians also, don't you?

You are obsessed with reading your Atheist.org sources, that are everything they can muster against Christians. The problem with Atheists is that they don't worship anything except themselves and prefer not to have any objective morality obstruct their sinfulness.

The problem is, even if you reject Christ, the moral law is written on your heart, and you know right and wrong. It's a question of whether we bring up children with this idea or if we want to become a self-indulgent society that ends up like the Roman Empire.

There are many letters written by Washington that would suggest he was strongly a Christian in his personal life.

Good. I'll wait for you to present them. It's a widely accepted historical perspective that he was not.


What I'm saying is that personal letters do not represent law, or the beliefs of the whole people. I think one thing you don't understand is that we aren't ruled by an elite group in the USA.

And apparently the farewell address does and the treaty of Tripoli doesn't. I see how this works. It's law when it says what you want it to say and it's not when it doesn't. Is that what passes for debate to you?


What I'm saying is that the only things that are important are official documents, that represent the whole People, like the Constitutions of the states and other official documents.

You mean like the Declaration of Independence that mentions the Creator (the typical Deist means of referencing God) and the Treaty of Tripoli (same author) that declared the opposite of your claims? The first amendment that supports religious freedom? The Constitution, where any mention of God or any specific religion are suspiciously absent? Hmmmm... like those documents? But, hey, you did list a farewell address, so I guess you're really pounding us with evidence here.



The Treaty of Paris, which ended the Revolutionary War, starts with "In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity," Why didn't Ben Franklin object to this?
How do you know he didn't?

I am completely in favor of a separation between church and state--it is an important and fundamental principle of individual liberty. However, the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution does NOT ensure a separation of church and state. What the amendment actually says is, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." No separation is guaranteed.

To ban schools and courthouses from displaying the Ten Commandments, or requiring that a menorah be put up alongside the Christmas tree in the town square each year, is a "law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." I am not a Christian, but I have absolutely no problem with a courthouse displaying the Ten Commandments. Doing so does not signify that the government endorses Christianity to the exclusion of other religions.

Ideally, of course, this sort of issue would be put down as a ballot measure and the voters would be allowed to decide (i.e. "Referendum 38: Are you in favor of allowing government buildings to display the Ten Commandments as listed in the Christian Bible? Yes/No")

Your favorite Treaty of Tripoli, an obscure treaty, and all it says is that we don't live with the Bible as the only source of law. And we aren't a Christian nation in that sense. Do you honestly believe that the people two centuries ago were mostly atheist? It's just crazy revisionism.

Who said they were? Besides trolls I mean. The point is they did believe in religious freedom and you can't, cannot, support an argument that they were religiously homogenous like you attempt to claim. That would also be revisionism.

And the Treaty of Tripoli does not 'only' say that. It says - Art. 11. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.

That's the entire context of the statement. Can you bold the word Bible in it? I can bold where it says we were NOT, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion. Guantlet down. Prove it 'only' says what you claim. The words says something quite different.


You also believe that our Constitution was actually stolen from Iroquois Indians also, don't you?

No, I'm not a troll.


You are obsessed with reading your Atheist.org sources, that are everything they can muster against Christians. The problem with Atheists is that they don't worship anything except themselves and prefer not to have any objective morality obstruct their sinfulness.

Am I? Amusing. I love it when you make things up. It makes you look silly and allows me to giggle. Meanwhile, can you actually address these arguments truthfully or are you just going to continue to make things up?


The problem is, even if you reject Christ, the moral law is written on your heart, and you know right and wrong. It's a question of whether we bring up children with this idea or if we want to become a self-indulgent society that ends up like the Roman Empire.
How's that moral law playing for you? Did you speedread past the part about being honest, because it seems like you don't care about being honest in any way? I'm a Christian. Talking to me about what atheists believe is nonsensical and pointless.

It's a widely accepted historical perspective that he was not.

Washington was definitely a Christian. You are absolutely a joke and a revisionst. It's amazing how his comtemporaries and then for another 200 years Americans understood it this way, and then suddenly a socialist-humanist professor "discovers" Washington was actually an athiest-humanist?

Which graduate school are you enrolled in right now? Isn't six years long enough for your doctorate in sociology?

This is what you prefer to quote anyway, I bet you claim this is in the Constitution between the lines of the 1st, 9th and 14th Amendments:

When, in the course of development, class distinctions have disappeared, and all production has been concentrated in the hands of a vast association of the whole nation, the public power will lose its political character. Political power, properly so called, is merely the organized power of one class for oppressing another. If the proletariat during its contest with the bourgeoisie is compelled, by the force of circumstances, to organize itself as a class; if, by means of a revolution, it makes itself the ruling class, and, as such, sweeps away by force the old conditions of production, then it will, along with these conditions, have swept away the conditions for the existence of class antagonisms and of classes generally, and will thereby have abolished its own supremacy as a class.
-Anyone know the source?

Part of this issue resides in another error in historical teaching.

Remember, the idea of the federal Constitution, particularly before the Civil War, was that of a limited federal government with only certain enumerated powers.

And it still is a limited federal government with certain powers.

It was a compact between the sovereign States.

No shit? And you probably mean pact. Compact is an adjective (verb sometimes) that basically means small.

Since the usurpation of state power by the federal government,

Because obviously, states can't place bans on certain things. :rolleyes:

particularly during the 1930's, the omission of God has been read too significantly.

Because they obviously forgot to put God in the Constitution, because it doesn't make sense to leave Him (or whatever the Hell you want to call God) out for a reason. :rolleyes:

The federal government was supposed to be neutral between the Christian denominations,

Because Buddhism, Taoism, Hindu, Islam, and not to mention many other religions in America are all denominations of Christianity. :rolleyes:

but the states were free to teach whatever level of faith and morality that the people wanted.

I suppose you're forgot that the 1st Amendment prohibits teaching faith when you wrote that.

...

Something tells me you're BSing most of this.

George Washington, (NOT an obscure letter he wrote to an individual citizen)
FAREWELL ADDRESS:
Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation, for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

I don't believe the Constitution was a speech. And he's basically saying that he does not believe that they are ready to live without religion.