NationStates Jolt Archive

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

apparently so
The Bill of Rights of the Texas Constitution (Article I, Section 4) allows people to be excluded from holding office on religious grounds. An official may be "excluded from holding office" if she/he does not "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being."

This would specifically exclude all Atheists and Agnostics from holding public office. It would also exclude: Most Buddhists, who do not believe in a personal deity.
Members of the Church of Satan; they are typically Agnostics.
Most Unitarian Universalists.
Some followers of the New Age who do not believe in the existence of a personal deity.


http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
I do not know enough to know whether this is true but hey wouldn't surprise me

I was under the impression the church and state were supposed to be kept separate.

There are seven states that still have this in their constitution, presumably because no one living there has had the balls to challenge them. In a couple of states, Atheists are also prohibited from serving as jury members. We are apparently one of those minorities people feel just fine about discriminating against.

I doubt that any of those laws would stand up in court, or even be enforced now-a-days, but given that, as Nazz likes to quote, most people would rather vote for anyone but an atheist it doesn't matter if there is or is not such a law.

apparently so

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
I do not know enough to know whether this is true but hey wouldn't surprise me
Well, this is the state that uses people's taxes to erect stone tablets of the ten commandments in front of their capitol, so it wouldn't surprise me either. But let's not stereotype Texans, though. I'm sure most would rather have a competent atheist than an incompetent christian if that's what a choice boiled down to.

I got the text from Wikisource:

Section 4. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

I was under the impression the church and state were supposed to be kept separate.
Oh, that's so 1770s.

I was under the impression the church and state were supposed to be kept separate.

No...

it's The Church and State are supposed to be separate... it actually refers to the Catholic Church, not churches in general.

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

Texas is made of fail. Someone should start an Athiest Revolution of some kind.

is this news? for me it is, but is it surprising? hell, no.. christians in the us, makes me have difficulty holding my lunch down sometimes. any wonder I advocate the abolishment of religion (like hell it's going to happen, but yeah I feel the world is better suited without organized religion)

Well, this is the state that uses people's taxes to erect stone tablets of the ten commandments in front of their capitol, so it wouldn't surprise me either. But let's not stereotype Texans, though. I'm sure most would rather have a competent atheist than an incompetent christian if that's what a choice boiled down to.

I got the text from Wikisource:

I would at least hope so

You know what keeps bugging me about the US? On the whole?

You guys are making it really FUCKING hard not to stereotype you!!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to try and regard the US as a modern, secular, rational democratic republic... but I'm fighting the evidence, it would sometimes seem. :(

I would at least hope so
Yet surveys are against me, it seems.:(

http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2004/09/09_200.html
52% wouldn't vote for a well-qualified atheist.

Although I won't vouch for its accuracy.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination_of_atheists
Shouldn't it be 'Discrimination against atheists'? Discrimination of atheists sounds like discrimination performed by atheists to me.

And just the phrase "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" sounds really, really stupid when it's in a formal Bill of Rights, IMO.

Shouldn't it be 'Discrimination against atheists'? Discrimination of atheists sounds like discrimination performed by atheists to me.

And just the phrase "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" sounds really, really stupid when it's in a formal Bill of Rights, IMO.
I would use the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Well, this is the state that uses people's taxes to erect stone tablets of the ten commandments in front of their capitol, so it wouldn't surprise me either. But let's not stereotype Texans, though. I'm sure most would rather have a competent atheist than an incompetent christian if that's what a choice boiled down to.

I got the text from Wikisource:

Well they had the choice between Ann Richards and George W. Bush. Guess which one they picked.

Shouldn't it be 'Discrimination against atheists'? Discrimination of atheists sounds like discrimination performed by atheists to me.

And just the phrase "acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being" sounds really, really stupid when it's in a formal Bill of Rights, IMO.

It actually is. The page's official name is 'against', and it redirects from 'of' to there for people like me who type in the incorrect name.

Well they had the choice between Ann Richards and George W. Bush. Guess which one they picked.
I was just thinking that very thing...

I would use the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
How about Cthulhu? And the administration would still be less evil than the current one. :p

http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2004/09/exhibit_02_220x160.gif
Oh dear.

n the 1988 U.S. presidential campaign, Republican presidential candidate George H. W. Bush reportedly said, "I don't know that atheists should be regarded as citizens, nor should they be regarded as patriotic. This is one nation under God." In the United States, there is widespread disapproval of atheists. For example, according to motherjones.com, 52% of Americans claim they would not vote for a well-qualified atheist for president.

*adds to the list of reasons that my country is awesome*

You know what keeps bugging me about the US? On the whole?

You guys are making it really FUCKING hard not to stereotype you!!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to try and regard the US as a modern, secular, rational democratic republic... but I'm fighting the evidence, it would sometimes seem. :(

QFT

wow! thats pretty fucked.

but am I surprised? no.

You know what keeps bugging me about the US? On the whole?

You guys are making it really FUCKING hard not to stereotype you!!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to try and regard the US as a modern, secular, rational democratic republic... but I'm fighting the evidence, it would sometimes seem. :(

Parts of America are. Sadly, even the most modern parts of the country seem to have this nostalgic vision of rural America in which farmers posess folksy wisdom that transcends the dry academic knowledge of those of us who have an education.

Sadly, they are mostly just uneducated idiots who's grandparents lost the family farm to a factory farming corporation. They part of America that it regards as its Heartland is in fact little more than an appendix. Or perhaps a spleen in that it performs a function, but could easily be done without.

52% of Americans deserve to be repeatedly punched in the face.
Fixed for accuracy. :mad:

It actually is. The page's official name is 'against', and it redirects from 'of' to there for people like me who type in the incorrect name.
Ah, sweet, sweet vindication.

Texas is made of fail. Someone should start an Athiest Revolution of some kind.


I thought about starting an athiest revolution once. I gave up when it came to thinking up slogans and speeches. 'For Reasoned Debate!' doesn't really have a ring to it.

I thought about starting an athiest revolution once. I gave up when it came to thinking up slogans and speeches. 'For Reasoned Debate!' doesn't really have a ring to it.

"If God is so smart, why do you fart?" -Scott Adams

Section 4. No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall anyone be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

*vomits profusely*

I thought about starting an athiest revolution once. I gave up when it came to thinking up slogans and speeches. 'For Reasoned Debate!' doesn't really have a ring to it.

Something like "Get your God out of my Gov." might work.

Yet mmore evidence that the USA only pretends to have "liberty and justice for all".

Yet mmore evidence that the USA only pretends to have "liberty and justice for all".

Yea, but we're wworking on it.

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

Dude, in just about every US state atheists are barred from holding public office. They are legally allowed to run, and in theory they could be sworn in and serve, but just try to run as an openly-atheist candidate in most US States. You'll say "atheist," but the majority of your potential constituents will hear "godless baby-eating monster."

Yet surveys are against me, it seems.:(

http://www.motherjones.com/news/exhibit/2004/09/09_200.html


Although I won't vouch for its accuracy.


LOL

WOULD JESUS DRIVE AN SUV?

Yes
29%

Yes (among SUV drivers)
46%

Yes (among non-SUV drivers)
25%

No
33%

And 7% volunteered that he would walk



Source: The Pew Forum on Religious and Public Life



genius

I don't believe there is a separation of church and state. I think the Constitution is very clear. We have the right and the freedom to exercise our religion no matter what it is anywhere we choose to do it. We have an opportunity to once again get back into the public arena.

erp.

LOL



genius

What Would Jesus Drive? (http://www.highrock.com/personal/WWJD/)

Yea, but we're wworking on it.

on what? discriminating against gays?

on what? discriminating against gays?

When I said we, I meant my friends and I. And when I said "working on it" I meant, "angry about it".

I was under the impression the church and state were supposed to be kept separate.

not specifically.

No where in the bill of rights does it say seperation of church and state.

it does say "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -the first amendment.

that's where the belief in a seperation of Church and State.

And don't blame the US for the actions of some citizens. when you have a representative democracy not everything makes sense.

And have you looked at the laws of some places? In Australia, it is illegal to roam the streets wearing black clothes, felt shoes and black shoe polish on your face as these items are the tools of a cat burgular.

and in my home state: A woman isn't allowed to cut her own hair without her husband's permission.

for more look here http://www.floydpinkerton.net/fun/laws.html

I'm just not very supprised by this. It sums up my notion of at leaset some Americans as intolerant and generaly not very nice. Not that this is a relfection on all Americans as I'm sure many are Atheist and would be just as vexed by this as I am.

Dude, in just about every US state atheists are barred from holding public office. They are legally allowed to run, and in theory they could be sworn in and serve, but just try to run as an openly-atheist candidate in most US States. You'll say "atheist," but the majority of your potential constituents will hear "godless baby-eating monster."

The programme did kind of imply that if you were an atheist you did not tell even close friends or family.

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.
This is is very incorrect. These laws are probably still on the books in southern states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee mainly) but are not considered true laws. Yes athesitss are elected.

This is is very incorrect. These laws are probably still on the books in southern states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee mainly) but are not considered true laws. Yes athesitss are elected.

How can they be laws, but not "true laws"???

"Oh, sure, we have laws. Some of them get written down, others don't. You'll just have to guess what's legal and what's not, buddy. Good luck!"

:confused:

How can they be laws, but not "true laws"???

"Oh, sure, we have laws. Some of them get written down, others don't. You'll just have to guess what's legal and what's not, buddy. Good luck!"

:confused:

Sounds like a normal government to me :rolleyes:

This is is very incorrect. These laws are probably still on the books in southern states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee mainly) but are not considered true laws. Yes athesitss are elected.

I don't know how accurate it is but theres a map of US senators by religion and there doesn't seem to be any atheists

http://www.tommcmahon.net/2005/05/2005_map_of_us_.html

How can they be laws, but not "true laws"???

"Oh, sure, we have laws. Some of them get written down, others don't. You'll just have to guess what's legal and what's not, buddy. Good luck!"

:confused:

I think that happens pretty much everywhere doesnt it? There are loads of laws like that in Britain and American which just exist because no-one has been charged with them in ages. The first person who gets charged with such a law will (hopfully) get it struck down.

I think that happens pretty much everywhere doesnt it? There are loads of laws like that in Britain and American which just exist because no-one has been charged with them in ages. The first person who gets charged with such a law will (hopfully) get it struck down.

Don't know about Britain and America, to be honest. The legal system I know best is the German one, and if there is a law, it's valid and legally binding.

Changing a law requires a lengthy process involving the government, the parliament, the senate and comissions of experts.

You know what keeps bugging me about the US? On the whole?

You guys are making it really FUCKING hard not to stereotype you!!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to try and regard the US as a modern, secular, rational democratic republic... but I'm fighting the evidence, it would sometimes seem. :(

it getting harder and harder not to see the country, as a stereotype, as being a few centuries out-of-date.
i mean, religion prevails amongst the populace, in the government, the president "speaks to god", and the pseudo-imperialist and militaristic/nationalistic tendancies seen in large portions of the population and administration are similarly old-hat in a 'been-there, done-that, moved-on' way....

I have little sympathy, to be blunt. If you don't like it, you can either change it or leave it. All the power in the world to you if you manage to change their minds, but if you're not going to, just get out of there. It'd make things so much easier in the long run.

it getting harder and harder not to see the country, as a stereotype, as being a few centuries out-of-date.
i mean, religion prevails amongst the populace, in the government, the president "speaks to god", and the pseudo-imperialist and militaristic/nationalistic tendancies seen in large portions of the population and administration are similarly old-hat in a 'been-there, done-that, moved-on' way....

They REALLY need to fix that

This is is very incorrect. These laws are probably still on the books in southern states (South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, North Carolina and Tennessee mainly) but are not considered true laws. Yes athesitss are elected.

Oh and aswell as there being no atheist senators theres no ahteist members of the House of Representatives aswell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States_Congress#House_of_Representatives

look for yourself if you wish

Oh and aswell as there being no atheist senators theres no ahteist members of the House of Representatives aswell

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_States_Congress#House_of_Representatives

look for yourself if you wish
I think a more accurate statement is to say that there are no openly atheistic members of Congress or the Senate. I'd be willing to bet there are a couple at least whose church membership is a beard at most.

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

While I find it a little hard to believe that people are barred from holding office due to beliefs, it doesn't surprise me that in some states, there may be something on the books that says otherwise. However, I think if you look at statistics, there is a larger concentration of religious followers in some states over others, so they may appear to discriminate. I have not actually heard of someone being barred from holding office. This isn't to say it doesn't happen.

I have, however, heard of many cases involving schools where the students of atheist parents have been severely discriminated against because the school, despite being public had either prayer or Bible studies.

I think a more accurate statement is to say that there are no openly atheistic members of Congress or the Senate. I'd be willing to bet there are a couple at least whose church membership is a beard at most.

I don't doubt it.
But the point that there are no open members just shows how much of a factor religion is.

Another question is would they lose their place in either house if they announced that they were atheist? I think so

I don't doubt it.
But the point that there are no open members just shows how much of a factor religion is.

Another question is would they lose their place in either house if they announced that they were atheist? I think so

A lot would depend on the area they represented, but it would certainly open even the strongest incumbent up to an attack, and that's shitty just because a person's religious beliefs shouldn't be a subject of political campaigns, period. It's just not relevant at all.

A lot would depend on the area they represented, but it would certainly open even the strongest incumbent up to an attack, and that's shitty just because a person's religious beliefs shouldn't be a subject of political campaigns, period. It's just not relevant at all.

agreed

agreed

I mean, it's not like belonging to a church offers some protection against becoming a douchebag crook. In fact, given that every political crook has belonged, at least nominally, to a church, I would think that church membership ought to make any politician automatically suspect.

I was under the impression the church and state were supposed to be kept separate.

"Supposed to be," yes. That doesn't mean they always are. :(

Eh, they're a minority belief in a country that is almost entirely theist and majority Christian. Sadly, they're going to be discriminated against by the assholes who can hide behind their faith or majority position.

This really wouldn't be a problem if there were fewer adherents to the Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell types and more Vetalias* in the theist community, but unfortunately there is a streak of religious belief, especially in conservative Christian circles, that is highly intolerant of differing opinions on religious matters. And, to make matters worse, those bigots are often in positions of power and influence within their community, and have the money and networks to smear anyone they don't like.

I mean, I'd vote for an atheist provided they are as accepting of others' beliefs as I am of theirs, and the same is true for a Muslim or a Christian or any religious tradition. Religious belief is inconsequential to me as long as you conduct yourself respectfully towards others.

*(or other theist NSGers...just wanted a chance for some shameless self promotion ;))

I think it's important to note that the separation of church and state applies specifically to the federal government, and not so much to the state government. Now, the federal courts can step in if they determine that individual rights are being threatened in this conflict, or if it falls under some other federal purview, but strictly speaking, I don't believe there is anything in the Constitution which forbids an individual state like Texas from having that religious test. I seriously doubt it's ever been challenged, however.

Religious belief is inconsequential to me as long as you conduct yourself respectfully towards others.

QFT 100%.

I mean, I'd vote for an atheist provided they are as accepting of others' beliefs as I am of theirs, and the same is true for a Muslim or a Christian or any religious tradition. Religious belief is inconsequential to me as long as you conduct yourself respectfully towards others.

I wouldn't even require that much. Some days I get to the point where I think I'd vote for a person who simply refused to answer questions about religion and said openly that it wasn't a matter for debate in a political race.

I wouldn't even require that much. Some days I get to the point where I think I'd vote for a person who simply refused to answer questions about religion and said openly that it wasn't a matter for debate in a political race.

I agree, but at this point in time religious beliefs still factor heavily in to peoples' opinions of candidates; I would prefer it simply be left unmentioned but given that it will inevitably come up I have no problem with voting for someone of any religious position or belief as long as they are respectful and accepting of other faiths.

I think it's important to note that the separation of church and state applies specifically to the federal government, and not so much to the state government. Now, the federal courts can step in if they determine that individual rights are being threatened in this conflict, or if it falls under some other federal purview, but strictly speaking, I don't believe there is anything in the Constitution which forbids an individual state like Texas from having that religious test. I seriously doubt it's ever been challenged, however.

From the US Constitution, Article VI

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the members of the several state legislatures, and all executive and judicial officers, both of the United States and of the several states, shall be bound by oath or affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

This quite clearly applies both within the federal purview and the state governments.

Not to mention that the Bill of Rights - including the 1st Amendment - when read through the 14th Amendment, applies to state governments as well.

If the Texas law were to be challenged, I'm quite certain it would fall.

I wouldn't even require that much. Some days I get to the point where I think I'd vote for a person who simply refused to answer questions about religion and said openly that it wasn't a matter for debate in a political race.

While I haven't seen it in partisan politics, I have seen this in a judicial race. The Christian Coalition sent a questionnaire about their religious and political stances to all of the judicial nominees for a court position in GA (I want to say it was a state supreme court position, but I'm not sure). Two or three of the candidates refused to fill it out, as their judicial and legal background should be the focus of the election - not their personal religious or political beliefs. IIRC, one of the guys who did fill it out was close, but the elected judge was one who had not.

No...

it's The Church and State are supposed to be separate... it actually refers to the Catholic Church, not churches in general.
That doesn't make much sense, considering we where a British colony and where breaking away from them it would make more sense, if it were true at all, that it be the Church of England.

The programme did kind of imply that if you were an atheist you did not tell even close friends or family.
It's a little weird to have to 'come out' to people. I wouldn't really compare it to gay/lesbian coming out, but it's still weird.

I wouldn't even require that much. Some days I get to the point where I think I'd vote for a person who simply refused to answer questions about religion and said openly that it wasn't a matter for debate in a political race.

Man, that'd be sweet. Of course that would just mean that that politicians opponents would paint him as a Satan worshiper...

Parts of America are. Sadly, even the most modern parts of the country seem to have this nostalgic vision of rural America in which farmers posess folksy wisdom that transcends the dry academic knowledge of those of us who have an education.

Sadly, they are mostly just uneducated idiots who's grandparents lost the family farm to a factory farming corporation. They part of America that it regards as its Heartland is in fact little more than an appendix. Or perhaps a spleen in that it performs a function, but could easily be done without.

*sigh*

May I ask a small favor? Go learn something before you make stupid-ass generalizations like this.

I am just tired as hell of hearing people tell me, "OMG you're from the Midwest! That means you're a stupid, illiterate pig farmer! LOL!!!1!!"

I am just tired as hell of hearing people tell me, "OMG you're from the Midwest! That means you're a stupid, illiterate pig farmer! LOL!!!1!!" Wow, you have chattering classes as well?

So where is the American equivalent of Islington? (There was a vox pop in the paper of Islington people, one of whom described their area as "cosmopolitan" - ANYONE who calls their area cosmopolitan is up themselves big time)

It's a little weird to have to 'come out' to people. I wouldn't really compare it to gay/lesbian coming out, but it's still weird. Well? It can be the same if you're in an atheist family/social group here - or in America, for that matter. For all the complaining about religious nutters, America is far freer - in the best ways mostly - than Britain or any European country.

Wow, you have chattering classes as well?

So where is the American equivalent of Islington? (There was a vox pop in the paper of Islington people, one of whom described their area as "cosmopolitan" - ANYONE who calls their area cosmopolitan is up themselves big time)

I'm afraid I've never been to Islington, so I can't offer you any particularly good analogues. If I get wealthy enough to afford a trip to England, I'll get back to you. :)

You don't want to go there, you want to go… here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol)!

You don't want to go there, you want to go… here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bristol)!

Heh. Knowing me, I probably want to go to both. I like visiting new places. Sadly, intercontinental travel is expensive as all heck, so the chances of my getting anywhere east of the Atlantic in the foreseeable future are rather low.

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

I'm sure their are atheist in public office, they just dont admit it. I'm sure there are more atheists in public office than Muslims so I hardly think atheists have a great deal of discrimination against them.

I don’t think I have ever been the subject of any kind of discrimination for being an atheist.

A big mistake some people make is trying to make general statements about the US. There is a massive difference in culture from region to region. I happen to live in the Baltimore-Washington metropolitan area (in the mid-Atlantic region), which is not known for its religious persecutions of non-believers. Religion does not play any significant role in the lives of my family or friends. Most of the people I meet out in the general populace give a nod towards religion, but the vast majority of the people are the type to think about showing up to church on Christmas or Easter, but that’s it.

These laws are the type that was put in place by an opportunistic politician when they could exploit a particular situation. Since passing legislation removing these laws would take political capital, will potentially loose voters, and have no gain (since they are not enforced anyway, just forgotten) nobody will push for their removal. Do not think that these reflect upon the average American in the least. It is about as relevant as it being illegal to curse within Baltimore city limits.

I'm sure there are more atheists in public office than Muslims so I hardly think atheists have a great deal of discrimination against them.

What on Earth makes you think that?

What on Earth makes you think that?
Anyone who consciously adopts a label for the sake of being recognised as such will always suspect that they are being neglected. 'tis the sad fact about associative behaviour.

legally a law exists until it is challenged, or overturned through a legislative process.

Those laws EXIST, but they are entirely unenforceable. The 14th amendment steadfastly prohibits it. Those laws predate the 14th amendment, and are thus "on the books" but can not be enforced.

I'm sure their are atheist in public office, they just dont admit it. I'm sure there are more atheists in public office than Muslims so I hardly think atheists have a great deal of discrimination against them.
Well, in the US Congress, there's one open Muslim serving, and zero open atheists. The Muslim got elected while everyone knew he was one, but no open atheist has been elected to the Congress (recently).

I'm sure their are atheist in public office, they just dont admit it. I'm sure there are more atheists in public office than Muslims so I hardly think atheists have a great deal of discrimination against them.

absolutely discrimination is there, atheists keep a low profile to keep their jobs and generally shunned, here(Canada) the media doesn't delve into politicians beliefs as it's considered personal and no one's business, except if the candidate is holds some weird belief (alien abduction, the earth is only 6,000 yrs old etc.)...if you're not an atheist you wouldn't understand...

Anyone who consciously adopts a label for the sake of being recognised as such will always suspect that they are being neglected. 'tis the sad fact about associative behaviour.

The layman's term for this is "ATTENTION WHORE".

*sigh*

May I ask a small favor? Go learn something before you make stupid-ass generalizations like this.

I am just tired as hell of hearing people tell me, "OMG you're from the Midwest! That means you're a stupid, illiterate pig farmer! LOL!!!1!!"

I've never heard that...

I've never heard that...

I'd think "corn farmer" myself. :p

I've never heard that...

You're lucky, then. I've heard it far too much, and it gets a bit tiresome after a while.

You're lucky, then. I've heard it far too much, and it gets a bit tiresome after a while.

Maybe you're from Iowa or something?

I'd think "corn farmer" myself. :p

Hey, that would at least make the stereotype a tad bit closer to reality. :)

I think you guys are picking on the mid-west and central states too much and unfairly...

More cannon fodder for those of you that like to pretend America wasn't founded as a Christian nation.

Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter II. (EXECUTIVE POWER) SECTION I, Article II.
The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.]

Note: the thousand pounds thing was amended, but I don’t think the Christian religion stuff was…

Vermont Constitution
Article 3. …Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

Just remember, the USA is a huge huge place.

That just shows that Massachussetts was founded as a Christian state.

Hey, that would at least make the stereotype a tad bit closer to reality. :)

At least I live in a suburban area, keeps any jokes at bay. If I just said I lived in Ohio, you knows what I'd get? ;)

I think you guys are picking on the mid-west and central states too much and unfairly...

More cannon fodder for those of you that like to pretend America wasn't founded as a Christian nation.

Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter II. (EXECUTIVE POWER) SECTION I, Article II.
The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.]

Note: the thousand pounds thing was amended, but I don’t think the Christian religion stuff was…

Vermont Constitution
Article 3. …Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

I would think that despite these sections, they are merely holdovers from an older time that doesn't exist anymore. It would be nice if these states took the time to delete them but at the very least they are ignored. Besides, all of New England was basically origionally settled by Christian fundies.

How many atheists even want to be in politics?

I don't know of any.....

Maybe you're from Iowa or something?

Missouri, actually. Which makes generalizations all the sillier, since it's about the swingiest swing state there is, on nearly every political issue.

(I think part of why I've heard too much anti-Midwestern nonsense, though, is that I went to college in Massachusetts with a bunch of New Englanders. New England is a dear, wonderful place, but an awful lot of its inhabitants have very little conception of a world outside New England.)

That doesn't make much sense, considering we where a British colony and where breaking away from them it would make more sense, if it were true at all, that it be the Church of England.


It's a little weird to have to 'come out' to people. I wouldn't really compare it to gay/lesbian coming out, but it's still weird.



Man, that'd be sweet. Of course that would just mean that that politicians opponents would paint him as a Satan worshiper...

You'd be surprised. Some families, especially religious ones (not even going so far as the ultrareligious "we'll stab you if you convert away" kind) can have trouble dealing with a relative who converts out. My parents, for instance, still think I'm a Hindu, despite the fact that I've made it clear to them on previous instances that I no longer subscribe to that particular faith. Or any faith for that matter.

I think you guys are picking on the mid-west and central states too much and unfairly...

More cannon fodder for those of you that like to pretend America wasn't founded as a Christian nation.

Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter II. (EXECUTIVE POWER) SECTION I, Article II.
The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.]

Note: the thousand pounds thing was amended, but I don’t think the Christian religion stuff was…

Vermont Constitution
Article 3. …Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

Treaty of Tripoli
Article 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."

:D

Treaty of Tripoli
Article 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."

:D But since the US has declared war on a "Mahometan" nation, does that render the treaty null and void? :p

How many atheists even want to be in politics?

I don't know of any.....

Indeed. In most, if not all American political situations (representative or higher) you're a puppet of a lobbyist or two or three or four. Once you're elected, you're in a prison of fear that your words can (and could quite easily) be turned around on you and destroy your career forever.

But since the US has declared war on a "Mahometan" nation, does that render the treaty null and void? :p

Well, the treaty itself has been null and void for a long, long time. However, given that the people responsible for drawing up and approving this treaty were the founders of the United States, I figure we can probably trust them to know what the founders of the United States thought about this "Christian nation" nonsense. :)

Well, the treaty itself has been null and void for a long, long time. However, given that the people responsible for drawing up and approving this treaty were the founders of the United States, I figure we can probably trust them to know what the founders of the United States thought about this "Christian nation" nonsense. :)

We're a Christian nation, not a Christian nation.

At least I live in a suburban area, keeps any jokes at bay. If I just said I lived in Ohio, you knows what I'd get? ;)

Deppends on who you're telling. In my state? A "you suck" and a rendition of "Hail to the Victors"

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

Holy shit. I'm American and I didn't know that. Thankfully, I don't live in Texas.

Deppends on who you're telling. In my state? A "you suck" and a rendition of "Hail to the Victors"

What can I expect from someone residing in Michigan? You all secretly wish to be Buckeyes. :p

Treaty of Tripoli
Article 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."

:D

Honestly my favorite quote from any US legal document I've read. I use that all the damn time, it's just fantastic.

Well, the treaty itself has been null and void for a long, long time. However, given that the people responsible for drawing up and approving this treaty were the founders of the United States, I figure we can probably trust them to know what the founders of the United States thought about this "Christian nation" nonsense. :)

The treaty is still legit, isn't it? Under Article VI, if a treaty is ratified by the Senate, it becomes the "Supreme Law of the Land". Unless the Treaty of Tripoli was specifically nullified at some point, which I know nothing about so I suppose it's possible...
It's still tons of fun to wave that in the fundies' faces as often as possible.

Treaty of Tripoli
Article 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."

:D

Fixed for relevant points...


Article 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."

i.e., we wont' attack you just because you are muslims...

I don't get all this controversy over the FFs' wishes anyway. If what the US was founded as is so important, then where are the slaves?

Fixed for relevant points...


Article 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."

i.e., we wont' attack you just because you are muslims...

Indeed, that is what Article 11 states. It also states that a significant part of the reason we don't start religious wars is that the United States is not a Christian nation. Since you were attempting to argue that the United States was founded as a Christian nation, the fact that it was not founded as a Christian nation would logically seem relevant to the discussion, don't you think?

Fixed for relevant points...


Article 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."

i.e., we wont' attack you just because you are muslims...

Actually what it says is, in a nutshell, that because we're not a nation of any one religion we won't attack you just because you are.

Seriously, read it.

What can I expect from someone residing in Michigan? You all secretly wish to be Buckeyes. :p

Oh, Ohohoho, ohoho. You crazy Ohians and your humor. How quaint. :p

What happens if Atheists go frm the minniority to the majority in Texas and can't get into public office?

Actually what it says is, in a nutshell, that because we're not a nation of any one religion we won't attack you just because you are.

Seriously, read it.

It says no such thing.

American ships had previously been protected by the British ransoms, and then the French ransom payments to the pirates during the revolution, but after the revolution the American ships were fair game. The treaty you are talking about was a failed attempt to disassociate ourselves from the Europeans the Muslim pirates considered their natural enemy. We attempted to proclaim ourselves as non-Europeans, not natural enemies of Islam, and that we wouldn't attack them (so that we too wouldn't have to pay them ransoms). However, it didn't work, at all, not even a little bit. We didn't fool them into not attacking us and then did declare war on us anyway.

It took an unpopular war by Jefferson to settle it, but until the war settled it we had to pay "Christian" ransoms to the pirates for many years first. And I call it "Christian ransoms" because that's what the Muslims called it. They were NOT allowed to attack other Muslims, they were at war with Europeans because they were Christians and could hold them for ransoms, getting very rich at it as a matter of fact, and they considered us their natural enemies because we were Christians...

Start here, read up on your history, perhaps you won't misconstrue the meanings once you have a better understanding of the history around it. http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/jefferson_papers/mtjprece.html

What happens if Atheists go frm the minniority to the majority in Texas and can't get into public office?

Then they'll amend it. Like they are supposed to do to change a consititution.

At least I live in a suburban area, keeps any jokes at bay. If I just said I lived in Ohio, you knows what I'd get? ;)



Pfft, I live in a city with a larger population then Miami, but people hear Nebraska and guess what I get? Man I would kill to get the reactions you probably get for being from Ohio.;)

Pfft, I live in a city with a larger population then Miami, but people hear Nebraska and guess what I get? Man I would kill to get the reactions you probably get for being from Ohio.;)

Hey, it could be worse. At least you probably don't regularly get insults associated with a state you don't even live in. The darn state next door just had to go and name itself after the same river as my city of origin... :p

Pfft, I live in a city with a larger population then Miami, but people hear Nebraska and guess what I get? Man I would kill to get the reactions you probably get for being from Ohio.;)

Ohioans are the default characters of the United States RPG.

Hey, it could be worse. At least you probably don't regularly get insults associated with a state you don't even live in. The darn state next door just had to go and name itself after the same river as my city of origin... :pPfft, yeah but you guys deserve that for stealing our thunder, we'd get a lot more attention as a city if it weren't for you bums.;)

Ohioans are the default characters of the United States RPG.

Really? I always imagined it more as Nebraska.

Ohioans are the default characters of the United States RPG.

Yeah, I'm probably being thick but is that a real RPG or a joke. I'm guessing joke, but there are some odd RPGs out there, like that one that keeps exploding how can you get anyone to play that.;)

Really? I always imagined it more as Nebraska.

Ohio has a population of 11.3 million, so there's enough of us (plus Ohioans in other states) to be ubiquitous across the United States.

Really? I always imagined it more as Nebraska.

According to the Colbert Report, we have the most general American accent in the country. If thats a good thing or a bad thing is a matter of debate.

Yeah, I'm probably being thick but is that a real RPG or a joke. I'm guessing joke, but there are some odd RPGs out there, like that one that keeps exploding how can you get anyone to play that.;)

It's a joke...the US RPG would be pretty damn boring.

"Roll 1d20 plus your MS Office skill modifier to see if the printer collates properly!"

Ohio has a population of 11.3 million, so there's enough of us (plus Ohioans in other states) to be ubiquitous across the United States.

What about Texas, then?

What about Texas, then?

Southern accent. You have to speak General American.

Southern accent. You have to speak General American.

...And you're applying that to Ohians.

...And you're applying that to Ohians.

We're pretty damn generic. A few other states come close, but they don't have enough people.

Sounds like nothing more than unenforceable blue laws to me.

apparently so

http://www.religioustolerance.org/texas.htm
I do not know enough to know whether this is true but hey wouldn't surprise me

Religious Tolerance is usually pretty reliable, I think.

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

And there's ABSOLUTELY no christian bashing, I take that's what you're saying?

Yea, but we're wworking on it.

On it, or against it. Because the majority seems to be working against it.

And there's ABSOLUTELY no christian bashing, I take that's what you're saying?

Actually, I think he/she's probably saying that he/she watched a documentary in which laws against atheists holding public office were mentioned.

There's some discrimination towards Atheists here in Canada as well. There are some municipalities that still recite The Lord's Prayer before every city council meeting. Absolutely absurd for this day and age.

I think that happens pretty much everywhere doesnt it? There are loads of laws like that in Britain and American which just exist because no-one has been charged with them in ages. The first person who gets charged with such a law will (hopfully) get it struck down.

In a world where you "Britain and America" qualify as "pretty much everywhere", this kind of laws will indeed exist. That's because of this strange case law thing you do in the states; once some judge makes a decision about some special circumstances, *poof* you've got a new law, so you end up with cities where "it is illegal to educate a dog (http://www.floydpinkerton.net/fun/laws.html)". I think it was Asimov who made some (moderately) funny story about that ("every crowd has a silver fining" was one of the case laws). In sensible (:D) countries, judges don't make up laws.

(Obviously, the atheist thing is not an instance of case law, though)

(Snip)

Ok, what don't you get here?
It says, straight out, that the US is not a Christian nation in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Treaties (along with some other stuff) are the supreme law of the land according to the US constitution.
So, until that treaty was broken, the law of the land said that the US was not a Christian nation.
And according to you, they broke it, not us, so at least in our opinion it still isn't.
It doesn't matter why they said it, the point is that they did say it.

And by the way, Jefferson and Adams were deists, not Christians, and Ben Franklin said "As to Jesus...(?) I have some doubts as to his divinity."
BTW, Ben Franklin was probably the most religious of the founding fathers (considering he was the one who proposed to start the constitutional convention with a prayer AFAIK), so if he said that, you can bet that everyone else agreed with him.
And so if three of the most major founding fathers weren't Christian, I'd say that goes a long way towards proving that the US is in no way a Christian nation.
Not to mention that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

And there's ABSOLUTELY no christian bashing, I take that's what you're saying?

Aside from a handful of people with no influence whatsoever, yes.

On it, or against it. Because the majority seems to be working against it.

(See next post of mine.)

Ok, what don't you get here?
It says, straight out, that the US is not a Christian nation in the Treaty of Tripoli.
Treaties (along with some other stuff) are the supreme law of the land according to the US constitution.
So, until that treaty was broken, the law of the land said that the US was not a Christian nation.
And according to you, they broke it, not us, so at least in our opinion it still isn't.
It doesn't matter why they said it, the point is that they did say it.

And by the way, Jefferson and Adams were deists, not Christians, and Ben Franklin said "As to Jesus...(?) I have some doubts as to his divinity."
BTW, Ben Franklin was probably the most religious of the founding fathers (considering he was the one who proposed to start the constitutional convention with a prayer AFAIK), so if he said that, you can bet that everyone else agreed with him.
And so if three of the most major founding fathers weren't Christian, I'd say that goes a long way towards proving that the US is in no way a Christian nation.
Not to mention that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."

As to the treaty, we established another one after fighting and the old one was obsolete, this new one too has a section that says the same thing as the article you are referring to from the first one... More examples from the same people. Together you can better understand what they were saying.

http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/diplomacy/barbary/bar1805t.htm

The Barbary Treaties :
Treaty of Peace and Amity, Signed at Tripoli June 4, 1805
ARTICLE 14th
As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer. The Consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the Territories of each other, both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any Vessel that they may think proper to visit; they shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Brokers.

We wrote both treaties, we meant both treaties, and both treaties say what I said they say. We are not at enmity with Muslims. It is NOT talking about the condition of America, Christian or otherwise, only that we are not, like a European country of the time, a Christian enemy of Islam.

And as to congress shall make law establishing a religion, they put that in there specifically because all the individual states already had a Christian denomination sponsored by their state and they didn't want the federal government to pick a different one than their own, so in compromise they decided that it was best for the federal governmnet to not pick any one over another, but at the time they fully intended that each state would continue to have it's own Christian denomination.

FYI: in addition to Franklin suggesting they have a prayer before opening congress each session, they also held church services in the house on Sundays, and the congress voted to pay Chaplin’s and taught with the Bible in public education...

Perhaps you should do some reading here:

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

I like how on the Discrimination against Atheists wikipedia page Sweden comes immediately after the US, with what I'd consider somewhat more aggregious charges against it than those that are leveled against the US.

As the Government of the United States of America, has in itself no character of enmity against the Laws, Religion or Tranquility of Musselmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan Nation, except in the defence of their just rights to freely navigate the High Seas: It is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from Religious Opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the Harmony existing between the two Nations; And the Consuls and Agents of both Nations respectively, shall have liberty to exercise his Religion in his own house; all slaves of the same Religion shall not be Impeded in going to said Consuls house at hours of Prayer. The Consuls shall have liberty and personal security given them to travel within the Territories of each other, both by land and sea, and shall not be prevented from going on board any Vessel that they may think proper to visit; they shall have likewise the liberty to appoint their own Drogoman and Brokers.


I should point out that nowhere in that does it say that the US is a Christian nation; only that its ambassadors may have some kind of religion. It doesn't even say its ambassadors will be Christian specifically, it just says they might be some religion that Muslims would concivably try to prevent from praying.


We wrote both treaties, we meant both treaties, and both treaties say what I said they say. We are not at enmity with Muslims. It is NOT talking about the condition of America, Christian or otherwise, only that we are not, like a European country of the time, a Christian enemy of Islam.

If they meant "The United States should not be taken as an enemy of Islam on account of its Christianity" they would have said it. Instead they said, "The US is not, IN ANY SENSE, founded on the Christian religion."

And as to congress shall make law establishing a religion, they put that in there specifically because all the individual states already had a Christian denomination sponsored by their state and they didn't want the federal government to pick a different one than their own, so in compromise they decided that it was best for the federal governmnet to not pick any one over another, but at the time they fully intended that each state would continue to have it's own Christian denomination.

I don't agree with this, but I don't really have anything with which to argue against it, so I'll concede the point for now.

FYI: in addition to Franklin suggesting they have a prayer before opening congress each session, they also held church services in the house on Sundays, and the congress voted to pay Chaplin’s and taught with the Bible in public education...

Perhaps you should do some reading here:

[INDENT]The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand."

First of all, you forgot the next few lines:
"The only foundation of a free Constitution is pure Virtue, and if this cannot be inspired into our People in a greater Measure than they have it now, They may change their Rulers and the forms of Government, but they will not obtain a lasting Liberty. They will only exchange Tyrants and Tyrannies. "
He's not going for religion, he's going for morality.

He also said, by the way:
We think ourselves possessed, or, at least, we boast that we are so, of liberty of conscience on all subjects, and of the right of free inquiry and private judgment in all cases, and yet how far are we from these exalted privileges in fact! There exists, I believe, throughout the whole Christian world, a law which makes it blasphemy to deny or doubt the divine inspiration of all the books of the Old and New Testaments, from Genesis to Revelations. In most countries of Europe it is punished by fire at the stake, or the rack, or the wheel. In England itself it is punished by boring through the tongue with a red-hot poker. In America it is not better; even in our own Massachusetts, which I believe, upon the whole, is as temperate and moderate in religious zeal as most of the States, a law was made in the latter end of the last century, repealing the cruel punishments of the former laws, but substituting fine and imprisonment upon all those blasphemers upon any book of the Old Testament or New. Now, what free inquiry, when a writer must surely encounter the risk of fine or imprisonment for adducing any argument for investigating into the divine authority of those books? Who would run the risk of translating Dupuis? But I cannot enlarge upon this subject, though I have it much at heart. I think such laws a great embarrassment, great obstructions to the improvement of the human mind. Books that cannot bear examination, certainly ought not to be established as divine inspiration by penal laws. It is true, few persons appear desirous to put such laws in execution, and it is also true that some few persons are hardy enough to venture to depart from them. But as long as they continue in force as laws, the human mind must make an awkward and clumsy progress in its investigations. I wish they were repealed. The substance and essence of Christianity, as I understand it, is eternal and unchangeable, and will bear examination forever, but it has been mixed with extraneous ingredients, which I think will not bear examination, and they ought to be separated.

And Washington said:
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.



Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.


The truth is, that the greatest enemies of the doctrine of Jesus are those, calling themselves the expositors of them, who have perverted them to the structure of a system of fancy absolutely incomprehensible, and without any foundation in his genuine words. And the day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the supreme being as his father in the womb of a virgin will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter … But may we hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with this artificial scaffolding, and restore to us the primitive and genuine doctrines of this most venerated reformer of human errors.
Letter to John Adams (April 11, 1823) (Scan at The Library of Congress)
Ooh, calling a central tenent of Christanity a myth. Doesn't sound very Christian to me.
(He did seem to like Jesus as a person, but that doesn't prove anything. I like Jesus and I'm an atheist.)

And here's Madison:
Besides the danger of a direct mixture of religion and civil government, there is an evil which ought to be guarded against in the indefinite accumulation of property from the capacity of holding it in perpetuity by ecclesiastical corporations. The establishment of the chaplainship in Congress is a palpable violation of equal rights as well as of Constitutional principles. The danger of silent accumulations and encroachments by ecclesiastical bodies has not sufficiently engaged attention in the U.S. —
Being outvoted in the bill to establish the office of Congressional Chaplain, from the Detached Memoranda

Madison also wrote something called Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, which ought to be pretty damn strong proof he supported seperation of church and state.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html
This paragraph shows about how unbiased your link is:


This exhibition demonstrates that many of the colonies that in 1776 became the United States of America were settled by men and women of deep religious convictions who in the seventeenth century crossed the Atlantic Ocean to practice their faith freely. That the religious intensity of the original settlers would diminish to some extent over time was perhaps to be expected, but new waves of eighteenth century immigrants brought their own religious fervor across the Atlantic and the nation’s first major religious revival in the middle of the eighteenth century injected new vigor into American religion. The result was that a religious people rose in rebellion against Great Britain in 1776, and that most American statesmen, when they began to form new governments at the state and national levels, shared the convictions of most of their constituents that religion was, to quote Alexis de Tocqueville’s observation, indispensable to the maintenance of republican institutions. The efforts of the Founders of the American nation to define the role of religious faith in public life and the degree to which it could be supported by public officials that was not inconsistent with the revolutionary imperatives of the equality and freedom of all citizens is the central question which this exhibition explores.

Not enough time to reply to everything tonight... but this was particularly telling on your part.

....
This paragraph shows about how unbiased your link is:

Really? You think the US Library of Congress is an unreliable source for telling us American History? Hmmmm. Interesting. I think perhaps you are mistaken.

Not enough time to reply to everything tonight... but this was particularly telling on your part.



Really? You think the US Library of Congress is an unreliable source for telling us American History? Hmmmm. Interesting. I think perhaps you are mistaken.

Normally, I do trust it.
But if the opinion of the LoC contridicts the opinion of every historian I've heard of, then the LoC has a good chance of being wrong.
Especially if it's so very obviously biased (Come on, Jefferson religious? Are you nuts? Jefferson wasn't even Christian, he was a deist by every source I've heard, including himself. Browsing through Wikiquote, I saw him call Adams, as a compliment, "as disinterested as his maker", which would put him as an obvious deist. )
By the way, if a site says on the front page that it's going to prove that the US was founded as a Christian nation, you may assume that it will ignore any evidence that the US was not founded as a Christian nation. Which this site does.

Normally, I do trust it.
But if the opinion of the LoC contridicts the opinion of every historian I've heard of, then the LoC has a good chance of being wrong.
Especially if it's so very obviously biased (Come on, Jefferson religious? Are you nuts? Jefferson wasn't even Christian, he was a deist by every source I've heard, including himself. Browsing through Wikiquote, I saw him call Adams, as a compliment, "as disinterested as his maker", which would put him as an obvious deist. )
By the way, if a site says on the front page that it's going to prove that the US was founded as a Christian nation, you may assume that it will ignore any evidence that the US was not founded as a Christian nation. Which this site does.What so one has to be Christian to be religious?

Note: Yes I realize that as a Deist Jeferson probably followed the clockmaker atitude towards a higher power and as such was himself probably note super religous, but I think what you said was kinda poorly worded.

Really? You think the US Library of Congress is an unreliable source for telling us American History? Hmmmm. Interesting. I think perhaps you are mistaken.
I'd say an exhibit that shows only one thing without mentioning other relivent evidence might be showing some bias, yes.

*snip*

Not this again. "I know it SAYS that we were not IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian relgion, but what they really meant was the exact opposite."

Don't you get tired of saying that documents don't mean what they literally and specifically say? The reasoning for stating it is something you're correct on, but it does not change what they CHOSE to say and that they were telling the truth when they said it. This isn't a 2000-year-old document. These were educated men whose language was not much different from our own. There is no reason to think they would say exactly the opposite of what you claim unless they were either liars or you're wrong.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains..." It's the same old same old. Unless you can show that they were lying or that that it doesn't say what was quoted, then you fail. Period. It's a treaty and was ratified as a part of the supreme law of the land according to law. The founders of our nation wrote it. It says what it says. Why is not nearly as significant as what when words are as explicit and clear as found here.

The treaty -
1. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

2. as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen;

3. and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation,

4. 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 co
countries."

1, 2 and 3 are statements of the givens for the treaty. 4 is point derived from the first 3 statements. However, you just ignore the first statement and then try to shift focus to the other two givens. THe first is still there. It's not pick and choose. There's an "AND" because all three of those things are true. The semicolons are used because statement 1 is a statement in and of itself. That means that the founding fathers were saying "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Period. Nothing said after that by standard use of language or by any evidence you've presented was meant to edit that statement despite your claims.

"Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains..." It's the same old same old. Unless you can show that they were lying or that that it doesn't say what was quoted, then you fail. Period. It's a treaty and was ratified as a part of the supreme law of the land according to law. The founders of our nation wrote it. It says what it says. Why is not nearly as significant as what when words are as explicit and clear as found here.

The treaty -
1. As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

2. as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen;

3. and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation,

4. 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 co
countries."

1. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains..." It's the same old same old.
Here Jocabia tells us to pay no attention to his post…

2. Unless you can show that they were lying or that that it doesn't say what was quoted, then you fail. Period.
Here Jocabia shows that he can’t show that I was lying, thus, his argument fails, period.

3. It's a treaty and was ratified as a part of the supreme law of the land according to law.
Here Jocabia shows that he knows we are talking about a treaty.

4. The founders of our nation wrote it. It says what it says.
Here Jocabia shows us that he knows who wrote the treat (but he’s mistaken, they didn’t write it, they passed it, it was written by an ambassador).

5. Why is not nearly as significant as what when words are as explicit and clear as found here.
Here Jocabia shows us why it would be in our best interest to make sure that he never, ever, presides over, or decides, constitutional matters. He plainly puts forth that he doesn’t care “why” a thing is said or a law is a law, thus proving that he is incapable of discerning matters that require judgment and analyses.

That’s too bad then for us then isn’t it? That he writes such long winded posts, quoting other people even, but all done entirely without actually addressing the actual points brought up in the posts he quotes. Other than saying the post he objects to is entirely correct but he disagrees with it anyway…


That means that the founding fathers were saying "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion." Period. Nothing said after that by standard use of language or by any evidence you've presented was meant to edit that statement despite your claims.

Actually, no, they did NOT use a period there, YOU want a period there, but there isn't one there at all. Perhaps you should stop lying now, people can look it up for themselves. The author added an entire paragraph after that sentence to explain what it means. But you already told us you don't care "why" someone says something, so long as you get to misrepresent their words for your purposes, thats what you want... :rolleyes: Well, when you think about what you do, that's sad, really.

I like how on the Discrimination against Atheists wikipedia page Sweden comes immediately after the US, with what I'd consider somewhat more aggregious charges against it than those that are leveled against the US.

They are the ONLY 2 that have gotten in there so far and the article is proceeded by
The neutrality of this section is disputed.

WTF does the listed order have to do with anything?

I'd say an exhibit that shows only one thing without mentioning other relivent evidence might be showing some bias, yes.

It's an exhibit. It's not the view of the LOC. It was created by people and permitted to be placed on the LOC site. It has an clear purpose of making a particular argument. It's not weird that it leaves out some evidence that doesn't support it's point. However, we can't pretend it's unbiased unless we're simply blind to the facts.

Meanwhile, even as a biased source it's suspect. Unless I missed it, it doesn't appear to address the Treaty of Tripoli, which is like making an argument about the motivations of the Iraq War and not addressing the WMD's. It's an oversight so glaring as to make the entire argument suspect.

*sigh*

Every time the issue of religion and government comes up, some set of idiots have to insist that "the First Amendment doesn't say separation of Church and State" and make wild arguments about the religious heritage of this nation.

Although the Constitution does not include the phrase "Separation of Church & State," neither does it say "Freedom of religion." However, the Constitution implies both in the First Amendment. As to our freedoms, the First Amendment provides exclusionary wording:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The First Amendment doesn't expressly use the phrase "wall of separation of Church and State." The phrase as been adopted by the US Supreme Court as a metaphor --an illustrative shorthand -- for the First Amendment's Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses for at least 125 years.

In Reynolds v. United States (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=98&invol=145#164), 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), Chief Justice Waite for the unanimous Court characterized Jefferson's phrase "wall of separation between Church and State" as ''almost an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment.''

The concept of a wall of separation of Church and State is firmly emeshed in the language of the Free Exercise Clause and Establishment Clause, in the original intent of the Founders, and in 200 or so years of Supreme Court caselaw up to the recent Ten Commandment decisions.

As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education (http://www.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=330&invol=1#16), 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.'

As to the treaty, we established another one after fighting and the old one was obsolete, this new one too has a section that says the same thing as the article you are referring to from the first one... More examples from the same people. Together you can better understand what they were saying.[snip]
We wrote both treaties, we meant both treaties, and both treaties say what I said they say. We are not at enmity with Muslims. It is NOT talking about the condition of America, Christian or otherwise, only that we are not, like a European country of the time, a Christian enemy of Islam.

You've already been well taken to task for this pathetic attempt to use context to ignore the explicit words of the Treaty of Tripoli. You cannot explain away the express language: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

At a minimum, that means what it says -- the US government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. QED.

And as to congress shall make law establishing a religion, they put that in there specifically because all the individual states already had a Christian denomination sponsored by their state and they didn't want the federal government to pick a different one than their own, so in compromise they decided that it was best for the federal governmnet to not pick any one over another, but at the time they fully intended that each state would continue to have it's own Christian denomination.

As shown above and below, this is utter bullshit.

Perhaps you should do some reading here:

The first two Presidents of the United States were patrons of religion--George Washington was an Episcopal vestryman, and John Adams described himself as "a church going animal." Both offered strong rhetorical support for religion. In his Farewell Address of September 1796, Washington called religion, as the source of morality, "a necessary spring of popular government," while Adams claimed that statesmen "may plan and speculate for Liberty, but it is Religion and Morality alone, which can establish the Principles upon which Freedom can securely stand." Thomas Jefferson and James Madison, the third and fourth Presidents, are generally considered less hospitable to religion than their predecessors, but evidence presented in this section shows that, while in office, both offered religion powerful symbolic support.

http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel06.html

1. Perhaps you should have read the first paragraph of your own source, which belies your entire argument about the origin and meaning of the First Amendment:

In response to widespread sentiment that to survive the United States needed a stronger federal government, a convention met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and on September 17 adopted the Constitution of the United States. Aside from Article VI, which stated that "no religious Test shall ever be required as Qualification" for federal office holders, the Constitution said little about religion. Its reserve troubled two groups of Americans--those who wanted the new instrument of government to give faith a larger role and those who feared that it would do so. This latter group, worried that the Constitution did not prohibit the kind of state-supported religion that had flourished in some colonies, exerted pressure on the members of the First Federal Congress. In September 1789 the Congress adopted the First Amendment to the Constitution, which, when ratified by the required number of states in December 1791, forbade Congress to make any law "respecting an establishment of religion."

2. Moreover, the fact that many people in the US in the late 1700s -- including many of the Founders -- were religious, especially Christian, does not mean that seperation of Church and State was not intended. Even just reading your sources, nothing proves a majority was in favor of state-sponsored religion. To the contrary, James Madison -- the author of the First Amendment -- and other Founders were leading proponents of the view that Church and State should be seperate for the good of both religion and government. James Madison, in particular, repeatedly referred to and advocated a "perfect separation" of Church and State. Here are just a few examples (emphasis added):

"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst 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" (Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819).

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and & Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history" (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820).

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together" (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822).

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others. (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832).

*snip*


Interesting that you came here to post nothing but a strawman. Did I say they supported a state religion? Did I argue for such a thing. Why no, no I did not. So why are you arguing against such a thing? It can't be against me, yet you qoute me as IF I said such thing...

Nice try at the world's biggest diversionary distraction though... :rolleyes:

1. "Pay no attention to the man behind the curtains..." It's the same old same old.
Here Jocabia tells us to pay no attention to his post…

Oh, look, you make no argument.

2. Unless you can show that they were lying or that that it doesn't say what was quoted, then you fail. Period.
Here Jocabia shows that he can’t show that I was lying, thus, his argument fails, period.

Again, no argument.

3. It's a treaty and was ratified as a part of the supreme law of the land according to law.
Here Jocabia shows that he knows we are talking about a treaty.

Again, no argument.

4. The founders of our nation wrote it. It says what it says.
Here Jocabia shows us that he knows who wrote the treat (but he’s mistaken, they didn’t write it, they passed it, it was written by an ambassador).

Again, no argument.

5. Why is not nearly as significant as what when words are as explicit and clear as found here.
Here Jocabia shows us why it would be in our best interest to make sure that he never, ever, presides over, or decides, constitutional matters. He plainly puts forth that he doesn’t care “why” a thing is said or a law is a law, thus proving that he is incapable of discerning matters that require judgment and analyses.

Again, no argument. Five points in and you've yet to actually make an argument. Just attacks or attempts to subvert the argument. Hmm... what's the matter? I'll take that as an admission that you can't support your side of the debate.


That’s too bad then for us then isn’t it? That he writes such long winded posts, quoting other people even, but all done entirely without actually addressing the actual points brought up in the posts he quotes. Other than saying the post he objects to is entirely correct but he disagrees with it anyway…

Oh, look, yet another point with not an argument in it. Just attacks or attempts to subvert the argument. That's an awful lot of post with no substance.


Actually, no, they did NOT use a period there, YOU want a period there, but there isn't one there at all. Perhaps you should stop lying now, people can look it up for themselves. The author added an entire paragraph after that sentence to explain what it means. But you already told us you don't care "why" someone says something, so long as you get to misrepresent their words for your purposes, thats what you want... :rolleyes: Well, when you think about what you do, that's sad, really.

Finally, you make something that looks like an argument and it rests on ignoring the fact that I quoted the actual treaty with semi-colons before quoting a part in the sentence you focused on and on ignoring that I said "not as significant" which established by rule of language that both are significant.

They used a semi-colon because they were part of a bigger point, but they wre listed clearly as individual givens, thus the semi-colons and the word "AND". It's not pick and choose as you'd like it to be. The clause was not the point of the sentence and the rest of the sentence is to explain the point of the treaty not the point of the clause. Seriously this is basic English.

But you already told us you don't care "why" someone says something,
Now, I can't say it's surprising that an idividual who argues that a statement actually means the opposite in a legal document can't tell the difference between "I don't care" and "is not as significant as", but please attempt a tiny bit of intellectual honest. I mean, people can read what I wrote and that you're lying about what it said. "Why is not nearly as significant as what when words are as explicit and clear as found here."

I said for this debate and the significance of the quote the why is not as important as the what. If I say that Springfield is the capitol of Illinois in a legal document you can try all you like to make the focus about why I included that statement, but it won't change that I included it and that I expressly stated that, in fact, Springfield is the capitol of Illinois.

I'm not asking anyone to ignore the why. I'm pointing out that you're trying to pretend what it says doesn't matter and that we should instead focus on something else. It's smoke and mirrors on your part.

Does it say the US was not IN ANY SENSE founded on the Christian religion? Yes. You can argue why they included this truth if you like, but it won't change that they included it and that they put this truth into law.

no argument.



Again, no argument.



Again, no argument.

...

As usual, your normal post.

As usual, your normal post.

Oh, look once again, you manage to attack me and ignore my arguments. One would think if you are trying to actually give credence to your side of the debate that you would apply a bit more vigelance.

Interesting that you came here to post nothing but a strawman. Did I say they supported a state religion? Did I argue for such a thing. Why no, no I did not. So why are you arguing against such a thing? It can't be against me, yet you qoute me as IF I said such thing...

Nice try at the world's biggest diversionary distraction though... :rolleyes:

And look, again, you make no argument. He specifically addresses both your individuals points about the Treaty of Tripoli and the larger point about the founding of our country and the line between Church and State and your reply is basically "Ignore the man behind the curtain..."

Interesting that you came here to post nothing but a strawman. Did I say they supported a state religion? Did I argue for such a thing. Why no, no I did not. So why are you arguing against such a thing? It can't be against me, yet you qoute me as IF I said such thing...

Nice try at the world's biggest diversionary distraction though... :rolleyes:

Um. Classic example of someone caught with their pants down.

Does that mean you retract this bullshit?


And as to congress shall make law establishing a religion, they put that in there specifically because all the individual states already had a Christian denomination sponsored by their state and they didn't want the federal government to pick a different one than their own, so in compromise they decided that it was best for the federal governmnet to not pick any one over another, but at the time they fully intended that each state would continue to have it's own Christian denomination.

Do you agree then that the First Amendment erects a wall of seperation of Church and State?

(BTW, your federalism argument falls apart the instant the 14th Amendment was passed. Prior to incorporation through the 14th Amendment, none of the Bill of Rights provisions applied to the states).

EDIT: By the way, you flatter yourself. The arguments made in my post were not directed only at you, but also at idiots that had said earlier in the thread that there was no seperation of Church and State in the First Amendment.

EDIT2: Do you remember saying this bullshit? What was that about a strawman?

I think you guys are picking on the mid-west and central states too much and unfairly...

More cannon fodder for those of you that like to pretend America wasn't founded as a Christian nation.

Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter II. (EXECUTIVE POWER) SECTION I, Article II.
The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.]

Note: the thousand pounds thing was amended, but I don’t think the Christian religion stuff was…

Vermont Constitution
Article 3. …Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

*snip*

TCT, good to see you, brother. It's nice to see you're still fighting the good fight. It's interesting that I post only a couple of times a month these days and that I encountered you. Happy coincidence.

TCT, good to see you, brother. It's nice to see you're still fighting the good fight. It's interesting that I post only a couple of times a month these days and that I encountered you. Happy coincidence.

It is nice to see you too. I'm trying to keep my addiction to NSG under control, so I rarely post these days. It is cool to be fighting the good fight with you again.

I'm wondering if anyone has brought up the point that the Treaty of Tripoli actually has two official versions, one in Arabic, and one in English. The Arabic version does not contain the introduction claiming that the US is not a Christian nation, that the US has no inherent hostility to Mulims, and that the US has no inherent hostility towards Mohamedan nations. That introduction was written exclusively for an American audience, and I think that bears some thought. Going to the why, I think it is important to at least contemplate "Why would these ambassadors, representatives of the fledgling American democracy, and representatives of her elected leaders, include specific wording for an American audience that the US was not founded as a Christian nation?" It seems to me that there is really only one reason - that is, to state unambiguously, for time immemorial, that the US, though comprised mostly of Christians, is not a Christian nation. I think that's important, and I think they might have felt the same way.

I'm wondering if anyone has brought up the point that the Treaty of Tripoli actually has two official versions, one in Arabic, and one in English. The Arabic version does not contain the introduction claiming that the US is not a Christian nation, that the US has no inherent hostility to Mulims, and that the US has no inherent hostility towards Mohamedan nations. That introduction was written exclusively for an American audience, and I think that bears some thought. Going to the why, I think it is important to at least contemplate "Why would these ambassadors, representatives of the fledgling American democracy, and representatives of her elected leaders, include specific wording for an American audience that the US was not founded as a Christian nation?" It seems to me that there is really only one reason - that is, to state unambiguously, for time immemorial, that the US, though comprised mostly of Christians, is not a Christian nation. I think that's important, and I think they might have felt the same way.

Excellent point.

I'm wondering if anyone has brought up the point that the Treaty of Tripoli actually has two official versions, one in Arabic, and one in English. The Arabic version does not contain the introduction claiming that the US is not a Christian nation, that the US has no inherent hostility to Mulims, and that the US has no inherent hostility towards Mohamedan nations. That introduction was written exclusively for an American audience, and I think that bears some thought. Going to the why, I think it is important to at least contemplate "Why would these ambassadors, representatives of the fledgling American democracy, and representatives of her elected leaders, include specific wording for an American audience that the US was not founded as a Christian nation?" It seems to me that there is really only one reason - that is, to state unambiguously, for time immemorial, that the US, though comprised mostly of Christians, is not a Christian nation. I think that's important, and I think they might have felt the same way.

Yeah, no kidding. That is a great point. You should source that though.

I'm not surprised that people, especially in the US, despise Athiesists but I didn't know it was that bad to where people are banned from running for public offices in ceartain states. It really disapoints me that we pride ourselves on freedom of religion and yet some of us are still not capable of accepting athiests. I live in the US myself and luckly the school that I go to and its students don't mind me about my belief in Athiesim.

I'm extremely surprised that more than half of US citizens go to church. I though it would be lower like 40%

...
EDIT2: Do you remember saying this bullshit? What was that about a strawman?

Oh for shame. According to you, quoting the state constitutions of Massachusetts and Vermont, verbatim mind you, are now bullshit arguments? Interesting :rolleyes: Okaaay then.

Oh, look once again, you manage to attack me and ignore my arguments. One would think if you are trying to actually give credence to your side of the debate that you would apply a bit more vigelance.

How did I attack you? By pointing out that you didn't make an actual arguemnt based on the positions? No, that's not an attack on you, that's an attack on your lack of arguments...

Oh for shame. According to you, quoting the state constitutions of Massachusetts and Vermont, verbatim mind you, are now bullshit arguments? Interesting :rolleyes: Okaaay then.
I am getting the feeling that your grasp of the English language is lacking as Cat-Tribes was pointing out that you quoted those two documents and showed, quite clearly, that you claim the founding fathers favored state religion(s).

Trying to (badly) dance around the issue does not get you out of the words you yourself have typed here.

I am getting the feeling that your grasp of the English language is lacking as Cat-Tribes was pointing out that you quoted those two documents and showed, quite clearly, that you claim the founding fathers favored state religion(s).

Trying to (badly) dance around the issue does not get you out of the words you yourself have typed here.

Do those two documents actually SAY the word Christian? Why yes, yes they do. Are those two documents federal papers? Why no, no they are not. Perhaps you need a lesson to differentiate between state and federal governments?

I am getting the feeling that your grasp of the English language is lacking as Cat-Tribes was pointing out that you quoted those two documents and showed, quite clearly, that you claim the founding fathers favored state religion(s).

Trying to (badly) dance around the issue does not get you out of the words you yourself have typed here.

Well, come on, his argument is an attempt to get out of the express wording of the Treaty of Tripoli. Is it really surprising that he is attempting to get around his own expressed statements?

Oh for shame. According to you, quoting the state constitutions of Massachusetts and Vermont, verbatim mind you, are now bullshit arguments? Interesting :rolleyes: Okaaay then.

Nice try, but you did more than merely quote the state constitutions of Massachusetts and Vermont. You claimed such quotes was "[m]ore cannon fodder for those of you that like to pretend America wasn't founded as a Christian nation."

You clearly implied that America was founded as a Christian nation. That is utter bullshit.

But enough of your diversionary tactics:

1. Do you retract your bogus theory about the origin and meaning of the First Amendment?

2. Do you admit that the First Amendment erects a wall of seperation of Church and State?

If your answer to either of these questions is no, please go back to my post full of copious evidence that you are full of shit.

Do those two documents actually SAY the word Christian? Why yes, yes they do. Are those two documents federal papers? Why no, no they are not. Perhaps you need a lesson to differentiate between state and federal governments?

Add, of course, did the fourteenth amendment apply at the time? No, no, it didn't. Does it now? Yes, yes, it does. You're trying so hard to simply ignore established facts. What was okay on the state level is not okay now because of the fourteenth amendment. Of course, TCT demonstrated this in his post that you claimed didn't address your arguments.

Maybe, TCT is a precog, since apparently he addressed your argument before you made it. Or perhaps more reasonably you were lying when you said his post didn't address your arguments.

How did I attack you? By pointing out that you didn't make an actual arguemnt based on the positions? No, that's not an attack on you, that's an attack on your lack of arguments...

You dropped my arguments.

I'll state them again.

1. The Treaty of Tripoli states "As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;"

2. It was not the point of the treaty so the rest of the treat is not an explanation of it or amendment of it, but of the purpose of the treaty itself.

3. No amount of explaining why this statement is there will change that it is there. It is explicit and why it's there doesn't change what it says.

That's good for now. Try addressing an actual argument instead of squirming around the point to TCT, myself and others.

Do those two documents actually SAY the word Christian? Why yes, yes they do. Are those two documents federal papers? Why no, no they are not. Perhaps you need a lesson to differentiate between state and federal governments?

Let's go through this again, pay close attention now:

You said: Interesting that you came here to post nothing but a strawman. Did I say they supported a state religion? Did I argue for such a thing. Why no, no I did not. So why are you arguing against such a thing? It can't be against me, yet you qoute me as IF I said such thing...

Nice try at the world's biggest diversionary distraction though...

Cat-Tribes responded with: Does that mean you retract this bullshit?


Quote: Originally Posted by PootWaddle
And as to congress shall make law establishing a religion, they put that in there specifically because all the individual states already had a Christian denomination sponsored by their state and they didn't want the federal government to pick a different one than their own, so in compromise they decided that it was best for the federal governmnet to not pick any one over another, but at the time they fully intended that each state would continue to have it's own Christian denomination.

Do you agree then that the First Amendment erects a wall of seperation of Church and State?

And: EDIT2: Do you remember saying this bullshit? What was that about a strawman?


Quote: Originally Posted by PootWaddle
I think you guys are picking on the mid-west and central states too much and unfairly...

More cannon fodder for those of you that like to pretend America wasn't founded as a Christian nation.

Massachusetts Constitution
Chapter II. (EXECUTIVE POWER) SECTION I, Article II.
The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.]
Note: the thousand pounds thing was amended, but I don’t think the Christian religion stuff was…

Vermont Constitution
Article 3. …Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

And you you are trying to get out of what you have previously said here by trying to say "Well, I never said that exactly, and this was a state document, but it shows the founder's will, except when it doesn't".

Please, I can read, you apprently cannot.

Let's go through this again, pay close attention now:

You said:

Cat-Tribes responded with:

And you you are trying to get out of what you have previously said here by trying to say "Well, I never said that exactly, and this was a state document, but it shows the founder's will, except when it doesn't".

Please, I can read, you apprently cannot.

Does anyone else notice that when a strong challenge comes up, we get anything but a substantive post from Pooty. It seems his entire focus has become to try and argue that he's not arguing some point in order to ignore the evidence only to argue that exact point later.

Look at how his entire reply to TCT was to say it doesn't address his argument only to later contine to argue about state law. That same post TCT was talking about the difference between federalist law then and now due to the fourteenth amendment. Obviously, this addresses his arguments about state laws from then, but he pretends he's not making any argument pertinent to what TCT said. It's logically flawed and intellectually dishonest.

Does anyone else notice that when a strong challenge comes up, we get anything but a substantive post from Pooty. It seems his entire focus has become to try and argue that he's not arguing some point in order to ignore the evidence only to argue that exact point later.
Yup, I think he's hoping we'll forget what he said or how to navigate the forum to go back to his old posts.

Yup, I think he's hoping we'll forget what he said or how to navigate the forum to go back to his old posts.

Yes, I've always found this particular tactic quite odd on the part of PootWaddle. It's a forum. It's not like there isn't a quote function. Pretending you said something else is just silly.

Example:

What I said:
As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion;

What he says I said:
But you already told us you don't care "why" someone says something,

It completely ignores that the quote function exists and that what he claims I said is provably a lie.

And there's ABSOLUTELY no christian bashing, I take that's what you're saying?

Actually, I think he/she's probably saying that he/she watched a documentary in which laws against atheists holding public office were mentioned.

Thanks Poliwanacraca.

You know what keeps bugging me about the US? On the whole?

You guys are making it really FUCKING hard not to stereotype you!!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to try and regard the US as a modern, secular, rational democratic republic... but I'm fighting the evidence, it would sometimes seem. :(

There's a lot of internal divisions and conflict. It's actually pretty polarized right now.

Sweet Jeebus, this is just getting too painful even for me. PootWaddle, just run away. Please. I want to be able to read this thread, but watching you get thrashed this thoroughly from every direction is making me cringe at every post. Please just walk away from this. You're wrong. You're spectacularly wrong. Cut your losses.

You know what keeps bugging me about the US? On the whole?

You guys are making it really FUCKING hard not to stereotype you!!!
Seriously, I'm doing my best to try and regard the US as a modern, secular, rational democratic republic... but I'm fighting the evidence, it would sometimes seem. :(

Pay attention to the REAL America, not the redneck states in the "heartland". Some states really are secular, progressive and modern as the US constitution intends. New Jersey is a good example.

I like oregano.

Sweet Jeebus, this is just getting too painful even for me. PootWaddle, just run away. Please. I want to be able to read this thread, but watching you get thrashed this thoroughly from every direction is making me cringe at every post. Please just walk away from this. You're wrong. You're spectacularly wrong. Cut your losses.

You really think so Bottle? I would like to know how you figure that? What I see is that we’ve got a lawyer pretending that he doesn’t need to reference a second document from the same people about the same subject in dispute, when every additional document would help clarify the intended position of the parties in question, but he doesn’t want it reviewed even though it allows us a better understanding of the topic from the party's perspectives (it's absurd, it is like he was advocating that we ignore the most recent court rulings on a particular topic but instead focus only on the older and over-ruled rulings he himself favors…:rolleyes: ). I fail to see how that this type of position helps his case here, perhaps you think limiting our data and not presenting all the evidence helps his case, and in a way it does because his conclusions can only be supported via ignorance of the total material available. The more you know about it the less his interpretation holds water.

And as if that wasn’t enough, he keeps referencing the Fourteenth Amendment as though it could somehow be used by us to help us understand the founding of America and the founders perspectives. However, we all know that the Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t even proposed until June 13, 1866. 90 to 60 years AFTER the events in question. A totally irrelevant red herring argument on his part to bring it up over and over again.

Secondly, we have Jocabia, saying he doesn’t care why someone says what they say, if they said something differently later then that too is irrelevant to him (or so he says once but denies later), his interpretation of what they said is all that matters apparently. Jocabia requires that we add periods that don’t exist and emphasize words that weren’t emphasized and pretend like the entire paragraph doesn’t constitute a single statement so he would read the sentence alone and not allow us to read it in context :rolleyes: … and like the TCT, he can’t seem to focus his bad attacks onto the actual discussion time period and wants to entirely change the topic from the ‘founding’ of America to what America law is today. Wanting to apply two hundred plus years of development and project it backwards, as if he could assign it to the founding fathers. Utter nonsense.

And all of the posters against me would rather insult and distract rather than debate the actual evidence pertaining to the period in question, even going so far as to pretend that the LoC article is biased, simply because it doesn’t share their preconceived misconceptions.

I ended discussing this with them because, as usual, they choose to not progress, they don't process new information that doesn’t agree with their positions. They are intentionally vulgar and insulting (which is pretty much normal around here and I'm not above it myself from time to time, but this is ALL they do and so the conversation doesn't progress), and thus, to debate with them is pointless. They pretend like they've won because they stay the longest and get the last insults posted. I wouldn't have posted in this thread again except you too decided to pretend ignorance (and I said 'pretend' because I don't for a minute believe you are actually ignorant) on the subject but in desire to support them you are forced to defend their bad debate methodologies ... For shame.

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

In my opinion, that's the problem with the world today: too much focus on religion. :headbang:

In my opinion, that's the problem with the world today: too much focus on religion. :headbang:

No kidding. If we just left it alone and let people believe what they want as long as it doesn't harm anyone, it would be so much better. Besides, nobody knows who is right in the end anyways, so why spend so much time bickering?

Only it does, all the time.

And that's why things need to change.

as long as it doesn't harm anyone

Only it does, all the time.

And that's why things need to change.

And how do you change them?

Clearly it follows that there are some beliefs that ought to be respected (beliefs that don't harm anyone) and beliefs that ought not to be respected (beliefs that do harm people), yet what if a large portion of the population has beliefs that fall into the latter category?

How can we stop focusing so much on religion in circumstances like that... and how can we stop them without violating the liberal tradition of freedom of religion?

I'm just not very supprised by this. It sums up my notion of at leaset some Americans as intolerant and generaly not very nice. Not that this is a relfection on all Americans as I'm sure many are Atheist and would be just as vexed by this as I am.

Even some of us who are religious are vexed by this.

The programme did kind of imply that if you were an atheist you did not tell even close friends or family.

I can't speak for everywhere in the country, obviously, but in NYC, that's hogwash. There are plenty of openly atheistic people, and nobody really minds as it's no one else's business.

I can't speak for everywhere in the country, obviously, but in NYC, that's hogwash. There are plenty of openly atheistic people, and nobody really minds as it's no one else's business.

And there are those of us in Minnesota (a "Blue" state) which would be ostracized by their small town if people knew ...

You should see how they treat someone who is gay ...

That just shows that Massachussetts was founded as a Christian state.

Massachusetts Bay Colony had its roots in the theocratic state created by the Puritans (who were, as I recall, kicked out of England because they couldn't get along with anyone), so having outdated laws requiring one to be Christian doesn't surprise me.

Ohio has a population of 11.3 million, so there's enough of us (plus Ohioans in other states) to be ubiquitous across the United States.

:) New York has a population of 19,254,630; we've 8,085,742 just in the five boroughs of NYC alone. ;)

Something like "Get your God out of my Gov." might work.

The Fundies in this country have twisted church/state separation to mean that the state can't interfere with their church, but their church (and only their church) is free to interfere with the state. Indeed, they feel free to try to sieze control of the state.

Massachusetts Bay Colony had its roots in the theocratic state created by the Puritans (who were, as I recall, kicked out of England because they couldn't get along with anyone), so having outdated laws requiring one to be Christian don't surprise me.

For the record, PootWaddle was wrong in thinking that part of the Massachusetts Constitution was still intact. It was in brackets on the Massachusetts Constitution website because it was overruled by amendment long ago. (I haven't figured out how long ago it was amended, but it was early in the history of the state -- as it was only the seventh amendment to the Mass. Constitution.)

Article II. The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.] [See Amendments, Arts. VII, XXXIV, LXIV and LXXX.]

I can't speak for everywhere in the country, obviously, but in NYC, that's hogwash. There are plenty of openly atheistic people, and nobody really minds as it's no one else's business.

Depends on where you are, and in those places where it's not a big deal, it's a relatively new phenomenon. In a way, atheists are going through what gays went through in the 70s--we're coming out of the closet. There's less a threat of physical violence against us--at least in the places where I've lived--than there was against gays when they started coming out en masse, but the general idea is the same.

I suppose it's how I was raised, oddly enough -- I was shocked on another forum when a friend of mine discovered I was Catholic and said pretty much that she expected I'd never talk to her again because she had just made some reference to being a pagan.

I don't know, for the two years previous that I'd talked to her, I'd come to the conclusion she was a GOOD PERSON, so finding out that her beliefs didn't match up with mine didn't make her transform instantly into an abomination. I've also *gasp* associated a lot while being educated, while being at work, and socially, with people of all sorts of faiths, creeds and philosophies. Religion as I see it is only one kind of commonality, and I'll be the first to say I consider some religious people to be assholes of monumental proportions. Yes, even other Catholics. ;)

I guess growing up where I did in the 70s and 80s made accepting differences the norm.

*snip*

Typical. You have yet to answer a single substantive point I made in my main post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323649&postcount=140). You have yet to answer my clear questions (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323874&postcount=158) regarding your slippery position.

Instead of arguing for your position (whatever the hell that is), you make wild, vague assertions about our allegedly bad debating style. Sorry, but continuing to avoid the point is bad debating.

What I see is that we’ve got a lawyer pretending that he doesn’t need to reference a second document from the same people about the same subject in dispute, when every additional document would help clarify the intended position of the parties in question, but he doesn’t want it reviewed even though it allows us a better understanding of the topic from the party's perspectives

I never made any such argument.

But you still can't explain how referencing the second treaty would change our understanding of the express words of the first treaty: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

As I said before and you never answered, at a minimum, that language means what it says -- the US government is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion. QED.

And as if that wasn’t enough, he keeps referencing the Fourteenth Amendment as though it could somehow be used by us to help us understand the founding of America and the founders perspectives. However, we all know that the Fourteenth Amendment wasn’t even proposed until June 13, 1866. 90 to 60 years AFTER the events in question. A totally irrelevant red herring argument on his part to bring it up over and over again.

Um. I brought up the Fourteenth Amendment exactly once. I was anticipating your ridiculous attempt to point to state laws as evidence of what the Founders thought the First Amendment meant at a time when the First Amendment didn't apply the states. :headbang:

Now, if you have anything substantive to say on the substantive points I raised -- including the quotes from your own source, from the Supreme Court, and from James Madison (the author of the First Amendment) -- then kindly quit with the smokescreens and address the substance.

I suppose it's how I was raised, oddly enough -- I was shocked on another forum when a friend of mine discovered I was Catholic and said pretty much that she expected I'd never talk to her again because she had just made some reference to being a pagan.

I don't know, for the two years previous that I'd talked to her, I'd come to the conclusion she was a GOOD PERSON, so finding out that her beliefs didn't match up with mine didn't make her transform instantly into an abomination.

I guess growing up where I did in the 70s and 80s made accepting differences the norm.

I had almost the polar opposite experience. I was raised Hindu, but very loosely, and given that both of my parents were well educated I read a lot of the more "advanced" books for my age. So naturally, looong before high school bio, I knew and trusted the theory of evolution.

My area is, or at least was at the time, almost entirely WASP, with a few Catholics as well. I went to a magnet school (basically they ship you half an hour away from home to a central school for the county that teaches some specialized things, like engineering in my case).

In 10th grade, we started learning about Bio, in a more detailed manner than before, and once while conversing with one of my best friends at the time, I discovered that not only was she an (absurdly) devout Baptist, she believed evolution to be completely wrong, and happened to be a young-earth creationist. I was totally shocked, since this didn't fit into my world-view of "Everyone believes this thing." This sparked a lengthy debate, and given the fact that I was better versed on Evo than she was on at the very least having to defend her views, I won. Our friendship really hasn't been the same ever since.


Though that might be me being an intolerant dick too...I don't really know.

For the record, PootWaddle was wrong in thinking that part of the Massachusetts Constitution was still intact. It was in brackets on the Massachusetts Constitution website because it was overruled by amendment long ago. (I haven't figured out how long ago it was amended, but it was early in the history of the state -- as it was only the seventh amendment to the Mass. Constitution.)



Perhaps you are right, I admitted I wasn’t sure, But I also know that the articles did NOT specifically annul it. Which amendments took it out?

Article II. The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.] [See Amendments, Arts. VII, XXXIV, LXIV and LXXX.]
And here are the Amendments…

Here’s the seventh, not a word about it…
Article VII. The privilege and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this commonwealth in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding twelve months.

And the rest…

Article XXXIV. So much of article two of section one of chapter two of part the second of the constitution of the commonwealth as is contained in the following words: "and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds"; is hereby annulled. (This part does NOT say that the Christian part was annulled, only the Thousand pound part)

Article LXIV. [Section 1. The governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, secretary, treasurer and receiver-general, attorney-general, auditor, senators and representatives, shall be elected biennially. The governor, lieutenant-governor and councillors shall hold their respective offices from the first Wednesday in January succeeding their election to and including the first Wednesday in January in the third year following their election and until their successors are chosen and qualified. The terms of senators and representatives shall begin with the first Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall extend to the first Wednesday in January in the third year following their election and until their successors are chosen and qualified. The terms of the secretary, treasurer and receiver-general, attorney-general and auditor, shall begin with the third Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall extend to the third Wednesday in January in the third year following their election and until their successors are chosen and qualified.] [Superseded by Amendments, Art. LXXX.]

Article LXXX. [Article LXIV of the Amendments to the Constitution is hereby amended by striking out section 1 and inserting in place thereof the following section:-

Section 1. The governor, lieutenant-governor, councillors, secretary, treasurer and receiver-general, attorney-general, auditor, senators and representatives shall be elected biennially. The terms of the governor, lieutenant-governor and councillors shall begin at noon on the Thursday next following the first Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall end at noon on the Thursday next following the first Wednesday in January in the third year following their election. If the governor elect shall have died before the qualification of the lieutenant-governor elect, the lieutenant-governor elect upon qualification shall become governor. If both the governor elect and the lieutenant-governor elect shall have died both said offices shall be deemed to be vacant and the provisions of Article LV of the Amendments to the Constitution shall apply. The terms of senators and representatives shall begin with the first Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall extend to the first Wednesday in January in the third year following their election and until their successors are chosen and qualified. The terms of the secretary, treasurer and receiver-general, attorney-general and auditor, shall begin with the third Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall extend to the third Wednesday in January in the third year following their election and until their successors are chosen and qualified.] [Annulled and superseded by Amendments, Art. LXXXII.]

Article LXXXII. Article LXIV of the Amendments to the Constitution, as amended by Article LXXX of said Amendments, is hereby annulled, and the following is adopted in place thereof:-

Article LXIV. Section 1. The governor, lieutenant-governor, secretary, treasurer and receiver-general, attorney general, and auditor shall be elected quadrennially and councillors, senators and representatives shall be elected biennially. The terms of the governor and lieutenant-governor shall begin at noon on the Thursday next following the first Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall end at noon on the Thursday next following the first Wednesday in January in the fifth year following their election. If the governor elect shall have died before the qualification of the lieutenant-governor elect, the lieutenant-governor elect upon qualification shall become governor. If both the governor elect and the lieutenant-governor elect shall have died both said offices shall be deemed to be vacant and the provisions of Article LV of the Amendments to the Constitution shall apply. The terms of the secretary, treasurer and receiver-general, attorney general, and auditor shall begin with the third Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall extend to the third Wednesday in January in the fifth year following their election and until their successors are chosen and qualified. The terms of the councillors shall begin at noon on the Thursday next following the first Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall end at noon on the Thursday next following the first Wednesday in January in the third year following their election. The terms of senators and representatives shall begin with the first Wednesday in January succeeding their election and shall extend to the first Wednesday in January in the third year following their election and until their successors are chosen and qualified.

So, exactly where was I mistaken?

link (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart080.htm)

Perhaps you are right, I admitted I wasn’t sure, But I also know that the articles did NOT specifically annul it. Which amendments took it out?

Article II. The governor shall be chosen [annually]; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless at the time of his election, he shall have been an inhabitant of this commonwealth for seven years next preceding; [and unless he shall at the same time, be seised in his own right, of a freehold within the commonwealth of the value of one thousand pounds; and unless he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion.] [See Amendments, Arts. VII, XXXIV, LXIV and LXXX.]
And here are the Amendments…

Here’s the seventh, not a word about it…
Article VII. The privilege and benefit of the writ of habeas corpus shall be enjoyed in this commonwealth in the most free, easy, cheap, expeditious and ample manner; and shall not be suspended by the legislature, except upon the most urgent and pressing occasions, and for a limited time not exceeding twelve months.

*snip*

So, exactly where was I mistaken?

link (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart080.htm)

LOL. You are looking in the wrong place. You quoted Article VII of Chapter V. You need to look at Article VII of the Articles of Amendment (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart007.htm)(there was a link to the right place in the original website).

Article VII. No oath, declaration or subscription, excepting the oath prescribed in the preceding article and the oath of office, shall be required of the governor, lieutenant governor, councillors, senators or representatives, to qualify them to perform the duties of their respective offices.

This annulled the provision that a govern must declare himself a Chirstian.

By the way, I read down the page while Jolt was eating my first two responses to this post. The first nine Articles of Amendment were adopted together in 1821.

Typical. You have yet to answer a single substantive point I made in my main post (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12323649&postcount=140).

You mean you want to know why I ignored these references, In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):, in a discussion about the foundation of America? Notice the bolded years please... Now you know why I ignored it, because YOU got off topic with red herrings and strawman arguments. That's why.

As well as this quote of yours...


You've already been well taken to task for this pathetic attempt to use context to ignore the explicit words of the Treaty of Tripoli.

How can you even say that with a straight face? Since when is considering the context in which words are spoken a pathetic attempt at understanding them? Utterly ridiculous by you and unworthy of response by me.

But you still can't explain how referencing the second treaty would change our understanding of the express words of the first treaty: "[T]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."

Of course I did, BOTH treaties were by the same people over the exact same topic. Together they give a clearer picture of the intent of the treaty and it’s words, all of the words and both treaties. You misconstrue the meaning of part of one paragraph and it’s possible meaning, and thus, the reason for your feeble attempt to try and justify eliminating the discussion of context from the debate... :headbang:


BTW: Stating that America was founded as a Christian nation is NOT negated by the fact that the federal government was directed to not designate a state church. Try as you might to pretend otherwise, each state was protecting themselves from every other state’s denomination, especially the larger states and they were afraid of becoming second class states by not having the right Christian denomination, they weren’t afraid of their own state denominations.

LOL. You are looking in the wrong place. You quoted Article VII of Chapter V. You need to look at Article VII of the Articles of Amendment (http://www.mass.gov/legis/const.htm#cart007.htm)(there was a link to the right place in the original website).
...

If I was looking in the wrong place, it's because I copied too much and decided to eliminate much of it for space and took the links in the website take you for clicking on the articles they mention...

However,

Article VII. No oath, declaration or subscription, excepting the oath prescribed in the preceding article and the oath of office, shall be required of the governor, lieutenant governor, councillors, senators or representatives, to qualify them to perform the duties of their respective offices.

Article VI. Instead of the oath of allegiance prescribed by the constitution, the following oath shall be taken and subscribed by every person chosen or appointed to any office, civil or military under the government of this commonwealth, before he shall enter on the duties of his office, to wit:

"I, A. B., do solemnly swear, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, and will support the constitution thereof. So help me God."

Provided, That when any person shall be of the denomination called Quakers, and shall decline taking said oath, he shall make his affirmation in the foregoing form, omitting the word "swear" and inserting instead thereof the word "affirm;" and omitting the words "So help me God," and subjoining, instead thereof, the words "This I do under the pains and penalties of perjury." [see Constitution, Chapter VI, Art. I].

I saw something on the news about there only being 3 million Athiests in the entire US. Does that sound right to any one?

I suppose it's how I was raised, oddly enough -- I was shocked on another forum when a friend of mine discovered I was Catholic and said pretty much that she expected I'd never talk to her again because she had just made some reference to being a pagan.
Sadly I have run into that a number of times, people who started thinking, when they found out I am a Christian, that I would automatically start condeming them for their beliefs or sexual orientation, even though it had never been an issue before.

In 10th grade, we started learning about Bio, in a more detailed manner than before, and once while conversing with one of my best friends at the time, I discovered that not only was she an (absurdly) devout Baptist, she believed evolution to be completely wrong, and happened to be a young-earth creationist. I was totally shocked, since this didn't fit into my world-view of "Everyone believes this thing." This sparked a lengthy debate, and given the fact that I was better versed on Evo than she was on at the very least having to defend her views, I won. Our friendship really hasn't been the same ever since.

Win-win situation for me: my mom is devoutly Catholic, but also a science teacher, and does not see the theory of Evolution as something at odds with her religious beliefs. None of that young earth stuff for us -- regular field trips to the American Museum of Natural History to see the dinosaurs! :D

You mean you want to know why I ignored these references, In Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145, 164 (1879), As for what the Establishment Clause means, see Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1, 15-16 (1947):, in a discussion about the foundation of America? Notice the bolded years please... Now you know why I ignored it, because YOU got off topic with red herrings and strawman arguments. That's why.

*sigh*

Go read the links I provided to the Reynolds and Emerson. In Both cases the Supreme Court discussed at length the relevant facts concerning the drafting and meaning of the First Amendment. That is why I cited to those cases and why they are relevant.

And, pray tell, why you also "ignored" the many quotes from James Madison I provided? Are they not relevant to what the author of the First Amendment meant.


How can you even say that with a straight face? Since when is considering the context in which words are spoken a pathetic attempt and understanding them? Utterly ridiculous by you and unworthy of response by me.

Looking at context to understand language is not pathetic.

Trying to use context to completely contradict express language is pathetic.

Understand the difference?



Of course I did, BOTH treaties were by the same people over the exact same topic. Together they give a clearer picture of the intent of the treaty and it’s words, all of the words and both treaties. You misconstrue the meaning of part of one paragraph and it’s possible meaning, and thus, the reason for your feeble attempt to try and justify eliminating the discussion of context from the debate... :headbang:

The meaning of the relevant paragraph is clear.

The fact that 8 years later they adopted a new treaty with different language doesn't tell us that they didn't mean what they expressly said the first time.



BTW: Stating that America was founded as a Christian nation is NOT negated by the fact that the federal government was directed to not designate a state church. Try as you might to pretend otherwise, each state was protecting themselves from every other state’s denomination, especially the larger states and they were afraid of becoming second class states by not having the right Christian denomination, they weren’t afraid of their own state denominations.

Ah, he is the crux of where you are wrong and is the very point my arguments have been directed against.

The First Amendment does not merely direct the federal government "to not designate a state church." It says that the government "shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

Over 125 years ago, in Reynolds, the Supreme Court looked into what the Establishment Clause meant and came to the conclusion based on historical facts that it erected a "wall of separation of Church and State." Later, in Emerson, the Court re-analyzed the history and came to the same conclusion and provided further detail on what this wall of separation meant.

You have failed to respond to these decisions. You have failed to respond to the many quotes from James Madison that show he wanted a perfect separation of Church and State and that was the meaning of the First Amendment. You have failed to respond to the quote from your own biased source that contradicts your position.

At least you are no longer claiming that you took no such position. I guess failing to defend it is an improvement.

I've skipped 50 posts or so after the arguing started. Don't tell me it's continued this long...

Win-win situation for me: my mom is devoutly Catholic, but also a science teacher, and does not see the theory of Evolution as something at odds with her religious beliefs. None of that young earth stuff for us -- regular field trips to the American Museum of Natural History to see the dinosaurs! :D

I'm actually not sure what my parents' stance on it is. Mom's got a Master's in Chem, I'd hope she at least entertains the notion it works.

Really, my first encounter with any real form of Creationism was that moment in 10th grade.

I guess Hindus don't care as much about where the world came from.

Though I must admit the environment you were raised in seems to have a nice balance of spirit/secular.

...
You have failed to respond to these decisions. You have failed to respond to the many quotes from James Madison that show he wanted a perfect separation of Church and State and that was the meaning of the First Amendment. You have failed to respond to the quote from your own biased source that contradicts your position.

At least you are no longer claiming that you took no such position. I guess failing to defend it is an improvement.


Failed to defend it? Oh nonsense.

Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

National Anthem:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

George Washington, Declaring a National Holiday, Thanksgiving.
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.


State Constitutions from the first to the last:
DELAWARE (1st):
ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS
§ 1. Freedom of religion.
Section 1. Although it is the duty of all persons frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no person shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his or her own free will and consent..."

OHIO (17th):
PREAMBLE: "We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
§ 1.07 "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience... Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction..."

FLORIDA (27th):
PREAMBLE "We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

CALIFORNIA (31st):
PREAMBLE: "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."

HAWAII (50th):
PREAMBLE: "We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, 'Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono...'

Although the right to Atheism is accepted in America, as well it should be, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion...

The national anthem and the Declaration of Independance are not legally binding. And if a state constitution goes against the federal constitution, it loses if challenged.

Failed to defend it? Oh nonsense.
Oh please, from your own quote here:

Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."
None of the above refer to the Judeo-Christian God. Further more, you seem to forget that the Declaration, beautiful as is, is not the law of the land, never has been and never will be. That honor belongs to the Constitution.

National Anthem:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!
Last I checked, Francis Scott Key wasn't at the convention in Philidelpia in 1787. And, it should be noted, the Star Spangled Banner wasn't addopted as our national anthem for a VERY long time AFTER it had been written (1931, well after 100 years).

George Washington, Declaring a National Holiday, Thanksgiving.
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.
And you ignore the other quotes already given to you from Washington showing his deist leanings. Cat-Tribes has you pegged as usual.


State Constitutions from the first to the last:
[INDENT]DELAWARE (1st):
ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS
§ 1. Freedom of religion.
Section 1. Although it is the duty of all persons frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no person shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his or her own free will and consent..."
Did you forget to read that part?

In any case:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Nope, no God here. Founding document and all that fun stuff. Supreme law of the land, trumps any and all state constitutions. If they really ment it, you'd think they would have put it in, if it was so important.

Texas is made of fail. Someone should start an Athiest Revolution of some kind.

Seconded.

The national anthem and the Declaration of Independance are not legally binding. And if a state constitution goes against the federal constitution, it loses if challenged.

Of course they aren't legally binding, and neither should they be. I'm not talking about what it is today, I'm talking about what was founded... Again I will point out the ignored example of my first two examples in this thread.

Vermont Constitution…
That all persons have a natural and unalienable right, to worship Almighty God, according to the dictates of their own consciences and understandings, as in their opinion shall be regulated by the word of God; and that no person ought to, or of right can be compelled to attend any religious worship, or erect or support any place of worship, or maintain any minister, contrary to the dictates of conscience, nor can any person be justly deprived or abridged of any civil right as a citizen, on account of religious sentiments, or peculiar mode of religious worship; and that no authority can, or ought to be vested in, or assumed by, any power whatever, that shall in any case interfere with, or in any manner control the rights of conscience, in the free exercise of religious worship. Nevertheless, every sect or denomination of Christians ought to observe the sabbath or Lord's day, and keep up some sort of religious worship, which to them shall seem most agreeable to the revealed will of God.

http://www.usconstitution.net/vtconst.html#Article3

Like I said earlier, if it goes against the federal constitution and is challenged, the federal one takes precedence.

Failed to defend it? Oh nonsense.

Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

National Anthem:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

George Washington, Declaring a National Holiday, Thanksgiving.
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.


State Constitutions from the first to the last:
DELAWARE (1st):
ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS
§ 1. Freedom of religion.
Section 1. Although it is the duty of all persons frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no person shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his or her own free will and consent..."

OHIO (17th):
PREAMBLE: "We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
§ 1.07 "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience... Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction..."

FLORIDA (27th):
PREAMBLE "We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

CALIFORNIA (31st):
PREAMBLE: "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."

HAWAII (50th):
PREAMBLE: "We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, 'Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono...'

Although the right to Atheism is accepted in America, as well it should be, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion...

Yet, not one thing you cited amounts to a single piece of evidence. The declaration of Indiependence is not a legal document in regards to the US. The SBA is hardly a legal declaration. And the last examples are not federal documents. Period.

Now I know Atheism is scary for you because they have a more logical argument than you, but in the end the rest of us are willing to make a better case for Christianity than you ever can. There is a pretty good case for God without dishonest claims about the origins of the nation.

\Secondly, we have Jocabia, saying he doesn’t care why someone says what they say, if they said something differently later then that too is irrelevant to him (or so he says once but denies later), his interpretation of what they said is all that matters apparently.

Quote me, liar. If I'm "saying that he doesn't care", then you quote me and prove you're not repeatedly lying.

Once again you completely avoid the substantive portions of posts and have even posted claiming that you don't have to address those arguments because you don't like the poster. How quaint.

One thing I noticed is that Athiest seem to enjoy attacking religious institutions. Perhaps I should rephrase that; they seem more openly vocal. Honestly it really depends on where you live in the US. There are tons of religious people around where I live, but none of them push their beliefs onto others. Nor have I ever witnessed someone of another religion (i include Athiest in this group) being discriminated against, en masse, because of their beliefs. I've lived in a lot of different states and cities in the US too. Never have I seen any of this so-called widespread discrimination.

Before anyone jumps on my case it should be known that my dislike of religion, as a whole, is first class. Religion is nothing more than a tool to control the masses. It worked well in the Dark Ages and seems to be doing the people of Islam equally as well now. I don't pretend to know every religion in the world, not even close, but it's my understanding that religion is man-made and not passed down by a God. He never said " 'X' religion is the correct one!" as far as I can tell. Please prove me wrong if any of you have seen that in a religious text. I may not hold myself to any religion, but I do believe in a God.

As it was pointed out earlier, the courts would dismiss such a thing if anyone tried to enforce that law. Am I the only one who has seen the scary trend of judges legislating from the bench? Not to mention our court system is far more liberal than it was 50 years ago. But just because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as it should be, doesn't mean it is enforced as such. Laws are written all the time that infringe on constitutional rights yet are not repealed or challenged in any court ... local, state or federal.

And if Athiest feel they are truely being discriminated against then people of religious faith have the right to complain too. Christians and Muslims seem to get it the most from where I'm watching. Telling me my baby Jesus can't be put up on my own freakin' lawn because I might offend someone but the Jew across the street can put up his Star of David.

There are always two sides to the coin. Instead of complaining, people should put that energy to more effecient use by acting to fix wrongs. Just do it in a fair way by not infringing on my right to practice any faith I so choose. Don't infringe on my rights because I'm not going to infringe on yours. Why is that concept so hard for people to understand?

Now, I'm an atheist, but I still think this is the place to post this:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HBkUWbFjdpg

Hehe.

I was under the impression the church and state were supposed to be kept separate.

It depends on the country you're living in.

USA: a country who prints on money "In God we trust"... looks like you're practically compelled to adhere to a religion featuring a personal God, although not a specific one.
UK: for a country that has a state religion with the Head of the State being also the Head of the Church... well, I feel that Britain is very secular
Italy: formally separated, but the Holy See meddles a lot with secular politics
France: ultimately secular state, vive la Republique!

But just because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as it should be, doesn't mean it is enforced as such. Laws are written all the time that infringe on constitutional rights yet are not repealed or challenged in any court ... local, state or federal.


WHAAT? You're actually saying that in the US such laws aren't immediately cancelled by the Supreme Court or some other court?
Here in Italy laws suspected of infringing the Constitution are challenged by the government or by the regions or by the presidency in the Constitutional Court (that isn't the Supreme Court or the "Cassazione" Court, although it says so in the CIA World Factbook: gee, the guys at Langley can't even read a constitution).

WHAAT? You're actually saying that in the US such laws aren't immediately cancelled by the Supreme Court or some other court?
Here in Italy laws suspected of infringing the Constitution are challenged by the government or by the regions or by the presidency in the Constitutional Court (that isn't the Supreme Court or the "Cassazione" Court, although it says so in the CIA World Factbook: gee, the guys at Langley can't even read a constitution).

What's more disturbing is that they get away with it a lot of the time under the guise of the liberals favorite addage, "It's for the greater good."

The branches of our government don't even know the powers they have over eachother either. The President isn't allowed to write laws but he does in the form of Executive Orders. The Supreme Court, as well as just about every other court, now has judges who legislate from the bench. Congress, which is now under Democrat control, thinks that by passing bills they can stop Bush from sending in more troops. He is the CIC and he has the last say where they are sent. If Congress doesn't like it, they can always cut funding for the troops in Iraq, forcing them back home. Our Founding Fathers designed it that way; one hand holds the sword but the other holds the wallet.

The Constitution is no longer the law of the land here as it should be. Instead, statists from the Democratic Party seek to destroy our Liberty with useless government intervention into our private lives and to handicap our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling taxation. Statists from the Republican Party seek to destroy our Liberty with a different set of useless laws attacking different portions of our private lives. The Republicans seek to protect us from foreign threats; the Democrats seek to protect us from ourselves. Who will protect us from them? The American secession from Britain was sparked by excessive government intervention into private affairs, by unreasonable taxation, and by government from a distance. These three statements described colonial America in 1776 - and they describe modern America in 2007.

I watched a documentary about Madalyn Murray O'Hair that was on television in the UK recently. During the programme it was stated that in some states of the US atheists are barred from holding public office. Does anybody know if this is actually true, as I found the idea plainly backward and undemocratic.

That is true. In many states, the state constitution states that (paraphrasing) "Whoever does not believe that there is One God may not hold public office".

Also remember the words of former President George H. W. Bush: "I don't even think Atheists should be considered citizens".

In America, non-Christians always are the "sub-humans". Pretty soon, it's going to be non-Evangelicals.

What's more disturbing is that they get away with it a lot of the time under the guise of the liberals favorite addage, "It's for the greater good."

The branches of our government don't even know the powers they have over eachother either. The President isn't allowed to write laws but he does in the form of Executive Orders. The Supreme Court, as well as just about every other court, now has judges who legislate from the bench. Congress, which is now under Democrat control, thinks that by passing bills they can stop Bush from sending in more troops. He is the CIC and he has the last say where they are sent. If Congress doesn't like it, they can always cut funding for the troops in Iraq, forcing them back home. Our Founding Fathers designed it that way; one hand holds the sword but the other holds the wallet.

The Constitution is no longer the law of the land here as it should be. Instead, statists from the Democratic Party seek to destroy our Liberty with useless government intervention into our private lives and to handicap our Pursuit of Happiness with crippling taxation. Statists from the Republican Party seek to destroy our Liberty with a different set of useless laws attacking different portions of our private lives. The Republicans seek to protect us from foreign threats; the Democrats seek to protect us from ourselves. Who will protect us from them? The American secession from Britain was sparked by excessive government intervention into private affairs, by unreasonable taxation, and by government from a distance. These three statements described colonial America in 1776 - and they describe modern America in 2007.

Liberals? Hmmm... I suppose it's liberal who have allowed detention without trial. Oh, wait... Or illegal search and seizure. Oh, wait... Or denied rights to people based on their sex. Oh, wait... Shall I keep going? Or denied our first amendment rights. Oh, wait...

It's not a liberal or a conservative addage. It's a political addage and it's frequently employed by the religious right as well as the far left.

I guess Hindus don't care as much about where the world came from.

Well, according to Hinduism the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. When science confirms part of your theology you tend to accept it more freely.

I saw something on the news about there only being 3 million Athiests in the entire US. Does that sound right to any one?

There are 300 million people in the U.S. Most statistics peg the population of the U.S. that is atheist at around four to five percent, so that number is far too low. It should be around 12 to 15 million.

Well, according to Hinduism the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. When science confirms part of your theology you tend to accept it more freely.

According to every major religion but Christianity this is true. Even some Christians believe the Bible supports this...

Well, according to Hinduism the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old. When science confirms part of your theology you tend to accept it more freely.

Does it really? Having broken with the faith a few years back I'm afraid I'm not as well versed on the details as I probably could be.

Though that does make sense, why we'd then kick back and relax about the whole deal.

According to every major religion but Christianity this is true. Even some Christians believe the Bible supports this...

I'm talking about the theology. Most religions accept the age of the Earth given by science, but Hinduism explicitly pegged the Earth at that age.

Texas is made of fail. Someone should start an Athiest Revolution of some kind.

It already exists... it's known as the Anti-Christian Litigation Union (ACLU). :rolleyes:

It already exists... it's known as the Anti-Christian Litigation Union (ACLU). :rolleyes:
Oooooh, yay! My favorite game evar!!!

It's called, "Give specific examples of how the ACLU is anti-Christian"!

It's a really fun game, because I never lose. Never once, in the entire time I've been playing, has any person been able to present a single case in which the ACLU was unjustly attacking Christians. :D

I'm talking about the theology. Most religions accept the age of the Earth given by science, but Hinduism explicitly pegged the Earth at that age.

That lends a lot of credence to Hinduism.

That's just stupid. Seriously. The ACLU has defended Christians on many occasions. It just doesn't defend anyone's right to violate the constitutional rights of others. Real Americans support the constitution and respect those who defend it. I guess you're not a real American. So what are you doing over here?

I'm not American, do you expect me to stop posting in the thread too?

It already exists... it's known as the Anti-Christian Litigation Union (ACLU). :rolleyes:

That's just stupid. Seriously. The ACLU has defended Christians on many occasions. It just doesn't defend anyone's right to violate the constitutional rights of others. Real Americans support the constitution and respect those who defend it. I guess you're not a real American. So what are you doing over here?

That lends a lot of credence to Hinduism.

Not really. For one, Hinduism had pegged the age of the universe as the age of the Earth. For two, out of the 5000 or so religions around, one of them is bound to get something right.

Not really. For one, Hinduism had pegged the age of the universe as the age of the Earth. For two, out of the 5000 or so religions around, one of them is bound to get something right.

Not to mention the Caste system.

Not to mention unequal rights for women.

Not to mention a general xenophobic and homophobic stance on things.

There's a reason I'm no longer a Hindu.

Not to mention the Caste system.

Not to mention unequal rights for women.

Not to mention a general xenophobic and homophobic stance on things.

There's a reason I'm no longer a Hindu.
Yeah, there was a while in my youth when I toyed with the idea of adopting an Eastern religion, if only because it was different from the same boring Judeo-Christian myths I'd been hearing for years. But then I realized that Hinduism, Buddhism, and the rest still have a lot of the same entrenched problems (castes, sexism, xenophobia/racism, etc) that drag down Western religions. What a bummer.

It already exists... it's known as the Anti-Christian Litigation Union (ACLU). :rolleyes:

I've been waiting for a chance to post this link. :)

http://www.aclufightsforchristians.com/

Yeah, there was a while in my youth when I toyed with the idea of adopting an Eastern religion, if only because it was different from the same boring Judeo-Christian myths I'd been hearing for years. But then I realized that Hinduism, Buddhism, and the rest still have a lot of the same entrenched problems (castes, sexism, xenophobia/racism, etc) that drag down Western religions. What a bummer.

I've found that religion in general tends to be a load of bullsh*t. If you can replace it with your own abstract theistic/deist philosophy, that fits in with what you feel to be right, then you've got something worth believing in, whether it has some fancy name or not.

Personally I keep referring to myself as an agnostic, but in many ways I have a lot of Pantheistic beliefs.

I'm not American, do you expect me to stop posting in the thread too?

I meant in the USA. You're ok to post here. Carry on.

It already exists... it's known as the Anti-Christian Litigation Union (ACLU). :rolleyes:


Where do I send my donation?

I've found that religion in general tends to be a load of bullsh*t.

Well, I view superstition as mostly a form of mental masturbation, so you can imagine how I feel when people claim that they've built an entire social and moral system around it. I've got no problem with masturbation, and I certainly think it serves its purposes, but I don't really think wanking is a solid foundation for one's value system.

What bums me out is seeing how pretty much every single major religion includes the SAME mistakes. They all include excuses for the same kinds of bigotry and injustice (always sexism, almost always racism, almost always classism of one kind or another, etc). I know there are plenty of people who DON'T make up bullshit excuses for that lame sort of behavior, but none of them end up founding popular religions.

I meant in the USA. You're ok to post here. Carry on.
Wooo, a blank cheque for mayhem.
Where do I send my donation?

I'll take it.

>.>
<.<

Well, I view superstition as mostly a form of mental masturbation, so you can imagine how I feel when people claim that they've built an entire social and moral system around it. I've got no problem with masturbation, and I certainly think it serves its purposes, but I don't really think wanking is a solid foundation for one's value system.

What bums me out is seeing how pretty much every single major religion includes the SAME mistakes. They all include excuses for the same kinds of bigotry and injustice (always sexism, almost always racism, almost always classism of one kind or another, etc). I know there are plenty of people who DON'T make up bullshit excuses for that lame sort of behavior, but none of them end up founding popular religions.

It has to do with the patriarchal nature of every major society in the world. And toying with cause and effect. Basically if the religions are right, we must assume that societies tend to be patriarchal because of an imposition of will by a higher power. If they are wrong, however, then those religions are nothing more than a tool to enforce through fear and faith an already existing social system.

I hate to bring up a TV show in connection with this, but if you've seen the Saudi Arabian episode of American Dad, the son has a religious epiphany where he discovers god is a woman. He then relates his vision to people around him, who believe in him until he mentions that god is a women. Then they try and kill him.

Trying to make this short. As a self-employed atheist with many clients it's in my best interest to keep my mouth shut about my religious, political or philosophical thought. While I am silent, my clients have no problem constantly spouting their religious/political views. I would estimate that I'd lose at least half of them if they found out I was an atheist.
In my younger years I was a bit more outspoken but the society is going more towards the religious right, especially in my state where about 80% of the voting population went against allowing gays to marry (I believe this is primarily because of fundamentalist religion).
A few years ago I had a Darwin fish sticker on the back of my car. Somebody ran a key or something down the side of it so I decided discretion was the better part of valor.

I'll take it.

>.>
<.<

Will you use every single penny to oppress Christians?

Trying to make this short. As a self-employed atheist with many clients it's in my best interest to keep my mouth shut about my religious, political or philosophical thought. While I am silent, my clients have no problem constantly spouting their religious/political views. I would estimate that I'd lose at least half of them if they found out I was an atheist.
In my younger years I was a bit more outspoken but the society is going more towards the religious right, especially in my state where about 80% of the voting population went against allowing gays to marry (I believe this is primarily because of fundamentalist religion).
A few years ago I had a Darwin fish sticker on the back of my car. Somebody ran a key or something down the side of it so I decided discretion was the better part of valor.
Plenty willing to spout out what they want, but woe betide anyone who tries to do the same.:(

Failed to defend it? Oh nonsense.

Declaration of Independence:
"When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them..."

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

"We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions"

"And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

National Anthem:
Oh! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved homes and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the Heaven-rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

George Washington, Declaring a National Holiday, Thanksgiving.
"Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor- and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.


State Constitutions from the first to the last:
DELAWARE (1st):
ARTICLE I. BILL OF RIGHTS
§ 1. Freedom of religion.
Section 1. Although it is the duty of all persons frequently to assemble together for the public worship of Almighty God; and piety and morality, on which the prosperity of communities depends, are hereby promoted; yet no person shall or ought to be compelled to attend any religious worship, to contribute to the erection or support of any place of worship, or to the maintenance of any ministry, against his or her own free will and consent..."

OHIO (17th):
PREAMBLE: "We, the people of the State of Ohio, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, to secure its blessings and promote our common welfare, do establish this Constitution.
§ 1.07 "All men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the dictates of their own conscience... Religion, morality, and knowledge, however, being essential to good government, it shall be the duty of the general assembly to pass suitable laws to protect every religious denomination in the peaceable enjoyment of its own mode of public worship, and to encourage schools and the means of instruction..."

FLORIDA (27th):
PREAMBLE "We, the people of the State of Florida, being grateful to Almighty God for our constitutional liberty, in order to secure its benefits, perfect our government, insure domestic tranquility, maintain public order, and guarantee equal civil and political rights to all, do ordain and establish this constitution.

CALIFORNIA (31st):
PREAMBLE: "We, the People of the State of California, grateful to Almighty God for our freedom, in order to secure and perpetuate its blessings, do establish this Constitution."

HAWAII (50th):
PREAMBLE: "We, the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawaii State motto, 'Ua mau ke ea o ka aina i ka pono...'


LOL. Pathetic.

What the hell do you think this gibberish proves? What is your freaking point?

I explained in my first post that no one is denying religion has played a role in this country. But that is completely off-point. The question is the proper meaning of the First Amendment. One of the reasons the Founders wanted the First Amendment to create a wall of separation of Church and State was because that is as good for religion as it is for politics. I'd like to see you try to explain how anything you cite rebuts that.

But, since you went to the trouble of cutting and pasting such desperately pointless slop, I'll make a few observations:

1. You still aren't defending your position. You haven't responded to the historical analyses by the Supreme Court in Reynolds (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=98&invol=145) and Everson (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=330&invol=1).

You still haven't responded to the quotes from James Madison -- the author of the First Amendment -- explaining that the Founders sought a perfect separation of Church and State.

And you still failed to respond to the quote from your own source that shows the origins of the First Amendment are not what you contend.

2. You have a peculiar sense of history. You claimed you could ignore the definitive historical analyses of Reynolds and Everson because they were written in 1878 and 1947, respectively. (Nevermind that is crap.) But then you cite from a bunch of state constitutions
that date from all over the timeline: 1845, 1850, 1851, 1959, etc. Explain again which dates are relevant ones?

3. You ignore -- or deliberately edit out -- where each of the state constitutions you quote call for the seperation of Church and State. This rather fucks your entire argument that the states were meant to have state religions and that the First Amendment was just to keep the federal government from meddling with those state religions.

Article I, Sec. 4 of the Hawaiian Constitution is identical to the First Amendment. Similarly, Article I, Sec 4 of the California Constitution provides (in relevant part): "The Legislature shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion." The relevant portion of the Delaware Constitution has already been pointed out to you, and the Vermont Constitution has similar language. Article I, Sec. 3 of the Florida Constitution states:

"There shall be no law respecting the establishment of religion or prohibiting or penalizing the free exercise thereof. ... No revenue of the state or any political subdivision or agency thereof shall ever be taken from the public treasury directly or indirectly in aid of any church, sect, or religious denomination or in aid of any sectarian institution."

Finally, you edited out the most important part of Article I, Sec. 1.07 of the Ohio Constitution:

No person shall be compelled to attend, erect, or support any place of worship, or maintain any form of worship, against his consent; and no preference shall be given, by law, to any religious society; nor shall any interference with the rights of conscience be permitted. No religious test shall be required, as a qualification for office, nor shall any person be incompetent to be a witness on account of his religious belief; but nothing herein shall be construed to dispense with oaths and affirmations.

So, explain again how these state constitutions support your view?

Although the right to Atheism is accepted in America, as well it should be, it's freedom of religion, not freedom from religion...

WTF? That is a meaningless slogan.

The First Amendment does not simply forbid an established federal church: it forbids any law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We should not approve the slightest breach.

..big huge snip..

What exactly are you arguing against? As in, what do you think my position is?

I posted first what I said was cannon fodder for those that say America was not founded as a Christian nation. I then argued that the treaty with Tripoli was being misrepresented (which I still argue that it is being misrepresented if it is used to mean something more than as a mere treaty with the the Muslim pirates) when it was presented as the first objection to my position.

I have since then pointed out the various state positions of the time and after (those position as having religions in them etc.,), and I pointed out some obvious Christianity favoring positions in some state constitutions, as well as other places.

I never said the federal government was established with an exclusive eye for Christians and Christianity, and neither do I think it should be today. What I have said by implication of intent is that Atheism, of all things, was defended as an option then for individuals, as well as it should be now, but that the idea of forced public Atheism then was NOT a thing that they advocated, contrary to the opinions of some. The people then could have scarcely conceived of such an idea as public banishment of recognizing God. With even Jefferson then, attending Christian services in the Congress halls and even court rooms of the day, how can anyone today claim that separation of church and state then means the absolute forbidding of the recognition or the acknowledgement of God in the public institution of our country?

IMO, those that hold that argument are taking an impossibly absurd position, not that it can't be accomplished in the future though, I recognize that that is the direction the world is taking. But those that argue that position backwards in time are flatly wrong, it’s a lie to try and transpose that standard backwards onto the founding of America.

What exactly are you arguing against? As in, what do you think my position is?

I posted first what I said was cannon fodder for those that say America was not founded as a Christian nation. I then argued that the treaty with Tripoli was being misrepresented (which I still argue that it is being misrepresented if it is used to mean something more than as a mere treaty with the the Muslim pirates) when it was presented as the first objection to my position.

I have since then pointed out the various state positions of the time and after (those position as having religions in them etc.,), and I pointed out some obvious Christianity favoring positions in some state constitutions, as well as other places.

I never said the federal government was established with an exclusive eye for Christians and Christianity, and neither do I think it should be today. What I have said by implication of intent is that Atheism, of all things, was defended as an option then for individuals, as well as it should be now, but that the idea of forced public Atheism then was NOT a thing that they advocated, contrary to the opinions of some. The people then could have scarcely conceived of such an idea as public banishment of recognizing God. With even Jefferson then, attending Christian services in the Congress halls and even court rooms of the day, how can anyone today claim that separation of church and state then means the absolute forbidding of the recognition or the acknowledgement of God in the public institution of our country?

IMO, those that hold that argument are taking an impossibly absurd position, not that it can't be accomplished in the future though, I recognize that that is the direction the world is taking. But those that argue that position backwards in time are flatly wrong, it’s a lie to try and transpose that standard backwards onto the founding of America.

First, nice job of not answering any questions or arguments.

Second, you have deliberately tap-danced around a solid position. You've made a few stray points here are there (like America was founded as a Christian nation) and then denied those were your positions. You continue that dance with your non-responsive answer above.

Third, the Founders did not always live up to their ideals. See slavery and the Alien and Sedition Act. Nonetheless, they were crystal fucking clear as to what those ideas were and the mixing of church and state was not looked on with favor. See my quotes from James Madison.

I already told you several times for what the First Amendment stands. You keep arguing against me, but only obliquely. Do you or do you not agree with the wall of separation of church and state as explained in Everson?

Massachusetts Bay Colony had its roots in the theocratic state created by the Puritans (who were, as I recall, kicked out of England because they couldn't get along with anyone), so having outdated laws requiring one to be Christian doesn't surprise me.

Well it was kind of a mutual decision they bailed. The English separatists (we call them the Puritans) first went to Holland which was a place for outcasts of the time. There you would find the Hugonaughts, the Belgian Wollan, etc.

In the attempts to spread the myth of the puritans seeking Religious freedom, we kind of like to leave out that they had that in Holland. However, they didn't like being integrated into Dutch Society so they left.

When they landed here, they hardly practiced anything remotely close to Religious Freedom. It was a quasi-theocracy where you could find yourself tossed from the settlement for violating puritan law and or challenging the elders.

Of course we also forget to mention their practice of robbing Aboriginal graves and the fact they would kill aboriginals for violating Puritan law.

The one thing I remember was being told they were the first ones here. Kind of forget to mention Jamestown.

First, nice job of not answering any questions or arguments.

Second, you have deliberately tap-danced around a solid position. You've made a few stray points here are there (like America was founded as a Christian nation) and then denied those were your positions. You continue that dance with your non-responsive answer above.

Third, the Founders did not always live up to their ideals. See slavery and the Alien and Sedition Act. Nonetheless, they were crystal fucking clear as to what those ideas were and the mixing of church and state was not looked on with favor. See my quotes from James Madison.

I already told you several times for what the First Amendment stands. You keep arguing against me, but only obliquely. Do you or do you not agree with the wall of separation of church and state as explained in Everson?

I'm NOT arguing against the first amendment, you keep thinking that your interprestation of the first amendment means today exactly what they thought it meant then. But what I am saying is that they (the founding fathers) actions prove your interpretation is wrong. But I also say that the world's interpretation is now what you say it is, but not then...

My intent is not to argue with the court, but to present the people and their opinions as a movement then, even the deist and the non-believers thought America as a country thanked God for it's very existence…And since you get to quote the same old same olds over and over again… I'll throw a few in.

Patrick Henry
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded not by religionists but by Christians, not on religion but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. We shall not fight alone. God presides over the destinies of nations."
(quoting Patrick Henry does not endorse constitution law, but constitutional law is not my intent. Describing the world of the founding fathers and the founding of America is my intent)

John Quincy Adams
"The highest story of the American Revolution is this: it connected in one indissoluble bond the principles of civil government with the principles of Christianity."

John Quincy Adams
"It is no slight testimonial, both to the merit and worth of Christianity, that in all ages since its promulgation the great mass of those who have risen to eminence by their profound wisdom and integrity have recognized and reverenced Jesus of Nazareth as the Son of the living God."
(and some will argue that Adams was a Unitarian, but a Unitarian then and Unitarian now don’t mean the same thing, as is obviously evident from the quote above)

Samuel Chase
"There is no repentance in the grave; for after death comes judgment; and as you die so you must be judged. By repentance and faith, you are the object of God's mercy; but if you will not repent, and have faith and dependance upon the merits of the death of Christ, you die a hardened and impenitent sinner, you will be the object of God's justice and vengeance. You will sincerely repent and believe, God hath pronounced his forgiveness; and there is no crime too great for his mercy and pardon."

John Quincy Adams:
“Why is it that, next to the birthday of the Savior of the world, your most joyous and most venerated festival returns on this day [the Fourth of July]?" “Is it not that, in the chain of human events, the birthday of the nation is indissolubly linked with the birthday of the Savior? That it forms a leading event in the progress of the Gospel dispensation? Is it not that the Declaration of Independence first organized the social compact on the foundation of the Redeemer's mission upon earth? That it laid the cornerstone of human government upon the first precepts of Christianity"?
--1837, at the age of 69, when he delivered a Fourth of July speech at Newburyport, Massachusetts.

In 1787 when Franklin helped found Benjamin Franklin University, it was dedicated as "a nursery of religion and learning, built on Christ, the Cornerstone."

Alexander Hamilton:
Hamilton began work with the Rev. James Bayard to form the Christian Constitutional Society to help spread over the world the two things which Hamilton said made America great:
(1) Christianity
(2) a Constitution formed under Christianity.
“The Christian Constitutional Society, its object is first: The support of the Christian religion. Second: The support of the United States.”
On July 12, 1804 at his death, Hamilton said, “I have a tender reliance on the mercy of the Almighty, through the merits of the Lord Jesus Christ. I am a sinner. I look to Him for mercy; pray for me.”
John Hancock:
“In circumstances as dark as these, it becomes us, as Men and Christians, to reflect that whilst every prudent measure should be taken to ward off the impending judgments,”April 15, 1775

Samuel Johnston:
“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

I never said the federal government was established with an exclusive eye for Christians and Christianity, and neither do I think it should be today. What I have said by implication of intent is that Atheism, of all things, was defended as an option then for individuals, as well as it should be now, but that the idea of forced public Atheism then was NOT a thing that they advocated, contrary to the opinions of some.


Ahh what? And that has nothing to do with what is being debated. The govement advocates nothing (well it could be argued these days) about Religion.

People think the fact that no Religious test is required is a sign of govermental indoctrination of atheism.

People think the phrase "Freedom of Religion and Freedom from Religion" means athiesm.

The establishment clause might be argued by extreme effort an advocation of athiesm by the simple fact they will not force religion and they will prevent a religion from oppressing others.

The people then could have scarcely conceived of such an idea as public banishment of recognizing God.

Oh you know soooo little about the fight of the separation of church and state.

The Baptists of the time were defenders of the Separation. One of the more famous was a minister by the name of John Leland.

. . . Disdain mean suspicion, but cherish manly jealousy; be always jealous of your liberty, your rights. Nip the first bud of intrusion on your constitution. Be not devoted to men; let measures be your object, and estimate men according to the measures they pursue. Never promote men who seek after a state-established religion; it is spiritual tyranny--the worst of despotism. It is turnpiking the way to heaven by human law, in order to establish ministerial gates to collect toll. It converts religion into a principle of state policy, and the gospel into merchandise. Heaven forbids the bans of marriage between church and state; their embraces therefore, must be unlawful. Guard against those men who make a great noise about religion, in choosing representatives. It is electioneering. If they knew the nature and worth of religion, they would not debauch it to such shameful purposes. If pure religion is the criterion to denominate candidates, those who make a noise about it must be rejected; for their wrangle about it, proves that they are void of it. Let honesty, talents and quick despatch, characterise the men of your choice. Such men will have a sympathy with their constituents, and will be willing to come to the light, that their deeds may be examined. . . .

Source:

Excerpt from "July 4th Oration by John Leland, July 5, 1802". The Writings of John Leland, Edited by L.F. Greene, Arno Press & The New York Times New York (1969) pp.260-270) Originally published as: The Writings Of The Late Elder John Leland Including Some Events In His Life, Written By Himself, With Additional Sketches &c. By Miss L.F. Greene, Lanesboro, Mass. Printed By G.W. Wood, 29 Gold Street, New York 1845.


With even Jefferson then, attending Christian services in the Congress halls and even court rooms of the day, how can anyone today claim that separation of church and state then means the absolute forbidding of the recognition or the acknowledgment of God in the public institution of our country?


Jefferson also mentioned the separation of church and state.

And acknowledgment of God is not baned. As long is it's not done with the intent of promoting Christianity, giving preference to Christianity, or giving the impression of endorsing Christianity, it's ok.

You should read some cases on this.


IMO, those that hold that argument are taking an impossibly absurd position, not that it can't be accomplished in the future though, I recognize that that is the direction the world is taking. But those that argue that position backwards in time are flatly wrong, it’s a lie to try and transpose that standard backwards onto the founding of America.

America was not founded for Christianity. It doesn't matter how many times you declare it. It's still not true.

Finally, you really don't want to pick a fight the the cat. He will bury you in facts and the history of the law.

Honestly, this agnostic (I don't care, as per the fact that I've not put much thought into it) has not experienced any, I repeat, any, discrimination.

Honestly, this agnostic (I don't care, as per the fact that I've not put much thought into it) has not experienced any, I repeat, any, discrimination.

YOU HEATHEN BASTARD! Nobody gave you gave you wait.....I'm an agnostic!

On my god it's spreading!

YOU HEATHEN BASTARD! Nobody gave you gave you wait.....I'm an agnostic!

On my god it's spreading!

It makes sense.

Why bother with this stuff. If I cannot sense it with the five (or my top-secret-double-awesome sixth sense) then why worry about it?

*snip*
Samuel Johnston:
“It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans (Muslims), pagans, etc., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President or other high office, [unless] first the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves.
[Elliot’s Debates, Vol. IV, pp 198-199, Governor Samuel Johnston, July 30, 1788 at the North Carolina Ratifying Convention]

I may come back and deal with your pettifoggery later, but this I had to note: we've come full circle.

You are now quoting bigotry against non-Christians in defense of your position.

Yeah, I known about the bullshit in the Texas Constitution for a while. But being from Austin does have the honor of being where Madeleine Murray O'Hair decided to base her effort to drive the Christian right even more batshit than they already are.

Been an honor watching you work, Cat.

I would use the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Yay!!!
http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y9/MAR-Peeves/applause_crowd.gif

Well it was kind of a mutual decision they bailed. The English separatists (we call them the Puritans) first went to Holland which was a place for outcasts of the time. There you would find the Hugonaughts, the Belgian Wollan, etc.

In the attempts to spread the myth of the puritans seeking Religious freedom, we kind of like to leave out that they had that in Holland. However, they didn't like being integrated into Dutch Society so they left.

When they landed here, they hardly practiced anything remotely close to Religious Freedom. It was a quasi-theocracy where you could find yourself tossed from the settlement for violating puritan law and or challenging the elders.

Of course we also forget to mention their practice of robbing Aboriginal graves and the fact they would kill aboriginals for violating Puritan law.

The one thing I remember was being told they were the first ones here. Kind of forget to mention Jamestown.

And the vikings. Just thought I'd throw that out there.

Nobody would ever vote for an atheist.

Nobody would ever vote for an atheist.
"Nobody will ever vote for a black man."

"Nobody will ever vote for a woman."

"Nobody will ever vote for a homosexual."

Don't you people ever get tired of being wrong?

Nobody would ever vote for an atheist.

Now, I definitely think you're a troll. Not only will someone eventually vote for an atheist, but people already have.

When you say something this clearly wrong, I have to wonder if you're not simply trying to make the position you're appearing to hold look absurd.