Non-separation of church and State.

[Lisa]

Again, I will pray for you because this line of thought will send you to hell, something I dont want for anyone, except those who deny God who he himself has said will go to Hell.

If you want to pray for me that is just fine. I will think for you in return.

 

[bomberfox]

I made traditional Hoppin’ John and collard greens for New Years and used lard and ham hocks for both. And I am of Jewish descent. I don’t think that’s what would send me to Hell, though. So many other things.

Then again the jewish faith doesnt have a hell so thats one thing going well.

 

[rahl]

Established, no. By default, yes, we are a Christian nation.

We are, quite clearly and very specifically, not a christian nation. We are and were founded as, a secular nation. It's right there in the constitution.

 

[Lisa]

It says the waters were released from the heavens, your points are not valid and could easily be explained as the Biblical world was the world it referred to, but that doesnt matter as you will go to hell either way so the Bible doesn't actually matter to you.

Heavens don't exist. The Earth is a closed hydrologic system which means that there is no loss or gain of water because of the atmosphere. All of the water that was here when the earth was formed is still here and has been recycled many times over. The amount of water that would be required for the great flood simply does not exist. Where could it have possibly drained to if it did happen? The oceans were already 30,000 feet higher than they are now if the entire world was covered by water.

The atmosphere heats up during a thunderstorm so if it rained for 40 days all over the glode the earth would literally be hotter than hell.

Anyone who believes that the great flood actually happened is too stupid to graduate from 8th grade to be a high school freshman.

 

[pinqy]

We are, quite clearly and very specifically, not a christian nation. We are and were founded as, a secular nation. It's right there in the constitution.

Well, at the time of the constitution, “Christian” was synonymous with “White,” “European,” and “Civilized.” The world was roughly divided into Christian, Mahammoden, and Heathen. So most people would have considered the US to be Christian in that sense, rather than an officially Christian state.

 

[rahl]

Well, at the time of the constitution, “Christian” was synonymous with “White,” “European,” and “Civilized.” The world was roughly divided into Christian, Mahammoden, and Heathen. So most people would have considered the US to be Christian in that sense, rather than an officially Christian state.

And yet, we are, always have been, and was founded specifically to NOT be a christian or any other religious nation.

 

[Lisa]

You are not a Christian so you would not know that it is still widely accepted among us that working on the Sabbath is immoral. Food prohibitions still are in effect as well such as limited alcohol and meat. The Ten Commandments are still the major influence on all modern law.

NO, they are not the source of US law. The Framers were very clear on this, Our government was designed to be absolutely secular for the protection of the rights of all people equally.

he Founders and the Framers Adamantly Did Not Intend to Make the Ten Commandments Law

Thomas Jefferson specifically railed against attempts to claim that the common law incorporated the Ten Commandments when he criticized judges for "lay[ing] the yoke of their own opinions on the necks of others by declaring that [the Ten Commandments] make a part of the law of the land." John Adams also questioned the influence of the Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount on the legal system.

At the Constitutional Convention, the Framers looked to the examples of antiquity--the Greeks and the Romans - and not to the Ten Commandments. They were a pragmatic lot, and they were not interested in being bound by their religious heritage (despite today's claims to the contrary). Rather, they were searching for virtually any idea--from virtually any source--that would work to create a better government than the failure produced by the Articles of Confederation.

Those Framers who were well educated had studied antiquity and the classics in depth (unlike the vast majority of Americans today, even those who are college educated). Thus, they were perfectly comfortable borrowing and adapting whatever suited their purposes. It would be a huge overstatement to say that they felt themselves constrained by the four corners of the Bible in finding the right government, or setting up the ultimate law that would rule the U.S.

The sources that influenced the Framers ranged from Greek and Roman law, to John Locke, to Scottish Common Sense philosophers, to Grotius. The influence of the Common Sensists was quite evident in the Framers' strong belief in the power of reason--not revelation or Biblical passages--to determine government. They were also influenced by the dominant religion of the time--Calvinism--in the sense that their world view was rooted in distrust of any human who holds power. And this list is only a beginning.

Meanwhile, the very tenor of the times was distrustful of organized religion, and especially stakeholder claims to truth by religious individuals. Madison declared, in his Memorial and Remonstrance of 1785, "experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries, the legal establishment of Christianity has been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."

And when Benjamin Franklin presented the draft Constitution to the Congress, he declared: "Most men indeed as well as most sects in Religion, think themselves in possession of all truth, and that wherever others differ from that it is so far error. Steele[,] a Protestant[,] in a Dedication tells the Pope, that the only difference between our Churches in their opinions of the certainty of their doctrines is, the Church of Rome is infallible and the Church of England is never in the wrong. But though many private persons think almost as highly of their own infallibility as to that of their sect, few express it so naturally as a certain French lady, who in a dispute with her sister, said "I don't know how it happens, Sister but I meet with no body but myself, that's always in the right . . . ."

The Ten Commandments and American Law | FindLaw

Read Legal Commentary: The Ten Commandments and American Law at FindLaw.com

supreme.findlaw.com

Well, at the time of the constitution, “Christian” was synonymous with “White,” “European,” and “Civilized.” The world was roughly divided into Christian, Mahammoden, and Heathen. So most people would have considered the US to be Christian in that sense, rather than an officially Christian state.

 

[Lisa]

Well, at the time of the constitution, “Christian” was synonymous with “White,” “European,” and “Civilized.” The world was roughly divided into Christian, Mahammoden, and Heathen. So most people would have considered the US to be Christian in that sense, rather than an officially Christian state.

You should read the words of Jefferson,. He was very clear on this matter that the US was not a Christian country or based on Christian laws. He was adamant that all regions enjoyed equal freedoms. he mentioned Hindus, Muslims, and even unbelievers.

The bill for establishing religious freedom, the principles of which had, to a certain degree, been enacted before, I had drawn in all the latitude of reason and right. It still met with opposition; but, with some mutilations in the preamble, it was finally passed; and a singular proposition proved that its protection of opinion was meant to be universal. Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed, by inserting the word "Jesus Christ," so that it should read, "a departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by a great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mahometan, the Hindoo, and Infidel of every denomination.

 

[screenwriter]

It is a hypothetical. The "right thing" in the hypothetical was some generic thing both do which is generally agreed to be moral.

The point of the hypothetical was the motivation, not the thing itself.

So as long as both agree something is "moral" that's all that matters? People love to condemn the slaughter in the bible - so if your Satanist and your Bible person agree that the first born son must die - that makes it "moral". Got it.

 

[screenwriter]

We are, quite clearly and very specifically, not a christian nation. We are and were founded as, a secular nation. It's right there in the constitution.

And yet the government has usurped the traditional duties of the Church - because it is the "moral" thing to do - to the point it has become the new religion.

 

[NolanVoyd]

So as long as both agree something is "moral" that's all that matters? People love to condemn the slaughter in the bible - so if your Satanist and your Bible person agree that the first born son must die - that makes it "moral". Got it.

Nope. Don't put words in my mouth.

Not the point. The point was the motivation to be moral, not the act itself.

It was a hypothetical.

Listing what is moral and what is not is another discussion entirely.

But in fact, basic morality is pretty universal, regardless of religion or lack there of. No doubt there are gray areas are around the edges though.

 

[screenwriter]

Nope.

Not the point. The point was the motivation to be moral, not the act itself.

It was a hypothetical.

Listing what is moral and what is not is another discussion entirely.

But in fact, basic morality is pretty universal, regardless of religion or lack there of. No doubt there are gray areas are around the edges though.

If you think "basic morality" is "pretty universal" - you need to open your eyes and look again.

 

[NolanVoyd]

If you think "basic morality" is "pretty universal" - you need to open your eyes and look again.

It is.

For example. The vast majority of people world wide, regardless religion or lack thereof, agree that it would be immoral to kill your neighbor, because you want his SUV or his wife.

That kind of basic moral understanding is nearly universal

 

[pinqy]

And yet, we are, always have been, and was founded specifically to NOT be a christian or any other religious nation.

Sort of kind of. Article 6 and the 1A did not apply to the states, so several states were explicitly Christian. The Federal Government, and the nation as a whole were officially secular but de facto Protestant for a very long time.

I think the best example of how things were considered are in the words of James Iredell in the 1788 Debates on ratification in Hillsborough NC:

“But it is objected, that the people of America may perhaps chuse Representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth.”

Me. Iredell, later US Supreme Court Justice appointed by Washington, was clearly stating that Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, were indeed eligible for office, but would never be elected because of the Christian Nature of US society. So officially secular, unofficially Christian.

Now, this was before the BoR was passed, but it does represent the general thoughts and prejudices at the time.

And in case anyone misinterprets: no, I personally do not think that that attitude is still or should be preserved. I would hope we have gotten past such prejudices.

 

[Questerr]

Sort of kind of. Article 6 and the 1A did not apply to the states, so several states were explicitly Christian. The Federal Government, and the nation as a whole were officially secular but de facto Protestant for a very long time.

I think the best example of how things were considered are in the words of James Iredell in the 1788 Debates on ratification in Hillsborough NC:

“But it is objected, that the people of America may perhaps chuse Representatives who have no religion at all, and that Pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always in the right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels. But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said, that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth.”

Me. Iredell, later US Supreme Court Justice appointed by Washington, was clearly stating that Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, were indeed eligible for office, but would never be elected because of the Christian Nature of US society. So officially secular, unofficially Christian.

Now, this was before the BoR was passed, but it does represent the general thoughts and prejudices at the time.

And in case anyone misinterprets: no, I personally do not think that that attitude is still or should be preserved. I would hope we have gotten past such prejudices.

And since then, the 14th Amendment was passed, which applies the same restrictions as the 1st Amendment to state governments. So no government in the US can have an official religion.

 

[NolanVoyd]

Sort of kind of. Article 6 and the 1A did not apply to the states, so several states were explicitly Christian.

Correction.

The 1st ammendment and every ammendment, and the entire constitution, apply to every single state.

 

[screenwriter]

It is.

For example. The vast majority of people world wide, regardless religion or lack thereof, agree that it would be immoral to kill your neighbor, because you want his SUV or his wife.

That kind of basic moral understanding is nearly universal

"Illegal" and "Immoral" aren't the same thing. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered for their possessions - "morality" wouldn't constrain from this. It's more that it is "illegal" - if morality could constrain, we wouldn't need "illegal".

 

[pinqy]

You should read the words of Jefferson,. He was very clear on this matter that the US was not a Christian country or based on Christian laws. He was adamant that all regions enjoyed equal freedoms. he mentioned Hindus, Muslims, and even unbelievers.

I have read Jefferson. And you are not contradicting anything I said. They considered the US “Christian” in the sense of it belonging to White European culture, NOT in a religious sense.

 

[pinqy]

And since then, the 14th Amendment was passed, which applies the same restrictions as the 1st Amendment to state governments. So no government in the US can have an official religion.

Exactly.

 

[NolanVoyd]

"Illegal" and "Immoral" aren't the same thing. Millions upon millions of people have been murdered for their possessions - "morality" wouldn't constrain from this. It's more that it is "illegal" - if morality could constrain, we wouldn't need "illegal".

I know illegal and immoral aren't the same thing. I never suggested otherwise.

My point stands.

It is a nearly universal moral concept, worldwide, regardless of religion or lack of religion, that such a thing is immoral.

And we all know that just because a thing is immoral, doesn't mean a small percentage of people won't do it anyway.

So I don't see how your point applies.

 

[pinqy]

Correction.

The 1st ammendment and every ammendment, and the entire constitution, apply to every single state.

Not before the 14th amendment, they didn’t. And the SCOTUS has never ruled that the no religious tests clause of Article 6 applies to the states: State religious tests were found unconstitutional under 1st amendment grounds, not Article 6.

 

[Lisa]

I have read Jefferson. And you are not contradicting anything I said. They considered the US “Christian” in the sense of it belonging to White European culture, NOT in a religious sense.

There is no such thing as Christian culture. Christianity is one of the Abrahamic religions and the US is to have a secular government with equal religious rights for all to believe or not to believe equally. The government is not to be endorsing religious belief over nonbelief or supporting or endorsing one sect over the others. This is not in any sense a Christian country, despite what you may want to believe because doing so would be a violation of both religious clauses of the First amendment. You are seeking to weaken the first amendment as a way to push your religious beliefs into government, bit by bit.

Religion is to be a personal matter on your own time. It is not to be mixed with the government by any means.

 

[screenwriter]

I know illegal and immoral aren't the same thing. I never suggested otherwise.

My point stands.

It is a nearly universal moral concept, worldwide, regardless of religion or lack of religion, that such a thing is immoral.

And we all know that just because a thing is immoral, doesn't mean a small percentage of people won't do it anyway.

So I don't see how your point applies.

If, as you say, it is morality is universal and it is morality, not illegality, that is stopping people - why bother with having "it" be "illegal" then? The ones who are going to do "it" (whatever the good moral people define "it" to be) are going to do "it" anyway. You make that sound like such a minuscule number.

The good "moral" people can do some good ol' "moral" vigilante justice instead of the legal system. Most people understand the legal system is horribly broken and ineffective with dealing with such amoral people - so these "moral" people all over the world (who have that innate morality) can easily fill those shoes. Think of the money saved by not taking the "amoral" into the court system. Instead of police-police we would have morality police.

 

[Lursa]

If, as you say, it is morality is universal and it is morality, not illegality, that is stopping people - why bother with having "it" be "illegal" then? The ones who are going to do "it" (whatever the good moral people define "it" to be) are going to do "it" anyway. You make that sound like such a minuscule number.

Since when has the recognition of something being immoral stopped people from performing the immoral acts?

If something is socially codified as illegal, then society can take action against the immoral person for the offense.

 

[NolanVoyd]

If, as you say, it is morality is universal and it is morality, not illegality, that is stopping people - why bother with having "it" be "illegal" then? The ones who are going to do "it" (whatever the good moral people define "it" to be) are going to do "it" anyway. You make that sound like such a minuscule number.

The good "moral" people can do some good ol' "moral" vigilante justice instead of the legal system. Most people understand the legal system is horribly broken and ineffective with dealing with such amoral people - so these "moral" people all over the world (who have that innate morality) can easily fill those shoes. Think of the money saved by not taking the "amoral" into the court system. Instead of police-police we would have morality police.

Where did I say that morality would stop crime?

Basic morality is pretty universal. It is also pretty universal that there will always be some people that act immorally.