Seperation of Church and State--- Already a Memory

[myself]

I never attacked all christians, just the stereotypical bush-loving American-god christians, the ones who act like if somefing someone else does or sais insn't in context wif the bible they throw a fit, picket and protest, and trample on the rights of aothers, and that is when it becomes an attack on freedom. Once again I'm not saying all christians, just the ones who abuse the rights of others. And many of those are Bush supporters.
I love freedom, which is why I don't think someone who votes for a candidate who obviously wants to take freedom away from us is American. Voting for Bush is unAmerican because Bush is stripping away our rights and bringing forth the very New World Order warned about in your bible. Look at how he stole office in the 2000 election, manipulated politics, passed the Patriot Act through congress by intimidation, making them neglect to read it before signing it, how he promised a war BEFORE he got into office, BEFORE 9/11, had a meeting with the 9/11 hijackers 2 days before it happened in Palestine (and this was on the news, although they've swept it under the rug now), how he used this to rally support, strengthen security, invade privacy, obliterate constitutional rights through the Patriot Act, and even took a shot at us saying "it would be easier to run a dictatorship, as long as I am the dictator". What more evidence do you need? The guy is a liability, and he should be tried on charges of treason and conspiracy, and lying under oath, and prosecuted to the full extent of the law!

 

[myself]

But to an extent your right. If someone chooses to live in a police state they made that choice, though that may be one of the last free choices they make. By voting Bush your voting for a coming police state. Though like I pointed out earlier, most people did not vote Bush in the 2000 election. He had ppl planted in the supreme court, he pulled politics (through his various UN connections most likely) and the supreme court put him in office, not the people.

 

[SHodges]

I highly doubt that George W. Bush of all people has any connections in the United Nations worth a damn...

 

[myself]

Well yes and no. Bush is a puppett, the real power behind him is the UN. He's just basically the stooge playing his role in it. Chances are nobody has seen or heard of the real people pushing the agenda. But it's working under the Vatican Church and a group of international bankers. The real "antichrist" as I stated earlier is the Pope. I'm not concluding indefinately that religion isn't the right path, or I'm not concluding indefinately that Christianity isn't the right path. Because things are fitting into the guidelines of the end times. However my personal belief is that they are merely fulfilling their own prophecies in the bible as a way to play those people who catch on. Some form of antagonization, meaning they do have a sick ego too. Scientifically speaking, most scientologist see religion as mere mythology. I can see some possible truth to it though. Notice i said "possible". Once one goes far enough along with, and gains enough of a perspective on science, magic, and the scientific application of [magic] it does eventually start to make since alittle more. Still I don't think any religion or lack of should push their beliefs into politics. Taking "under god" out of the pledge of allegiance is not anti-Christian, it's an open door policy designed not to alienate anyone. My personal belief is that if there is a god we know nothing of him, her, or it.
Because philosophically speaking, I believe in life on other worlds.. Intelligent life. Because statistically there would have to be, I doubt we're an exception. Now if we go to *their* world, and theyr like us, chances are they've never heard of Jesus, Buddha, Allah, or whatever. And chances are we haven't ever heard of their gods. So there are probably thousands of different interpretations throughout the universe. But that's just my opinion, and to those who disagree I respect that.
Going back to school and the pledge, I do believe that kids should have the right to practice their religion in schools, in private, or with others of the same beliefs. But the class room is not the place for this. In some schools they have bible studies, and I think this is great. It gives them a place to worship where they are amoung other Christians. However, I think they should expand this to have Talmud studies, Koran studies, scientology studies, even pagan studies, so kids of all religions can have the ability to worship in shools amoung others of their same faith. But within the context of a multi-religious class setting, the words "under god" are unfair to those who don't believe in a god. I don't think it's unfair to Christians because they can still worship their god during reccess or in bible studies.

 

[Duke]

Well, Seperation of Church and State, it was good while it lasted.


Duke

 

[myself]

I'd also like to add, just so you know I'm not attacking all Christians when I condemn the Vatican, that the Vatican is NOT Christian at all. It's a big elaborate lie. They are the most morally twisted, psychotic, evil, greedy people on the earth. The "antichrist" is the Pope. It said in the bible the antchrist would have 10 kingdoms upon the earth, with 10 kings respectively. For us this is Bush. So Bush is like the mini-antichrist.

 

[AlbqOwl]

I'd also like to add, just so you know I'm not attacking all Christians when I condemn the Vatican, that the Vatican is NOT Christian at all. It's a big elaborate lie. They are the most morally twisted, psychotic, evil, greedy people on the earth. The "antichrist" is the Pope. It said in the bible the antchrist would have 10 kingdoms upon the earth, with 10 kings respectively. For us this is Bush. So Bush is like the mini-antichrist.

You do understand, myself, that you speak from the mindset of a tiny group that calls itself Christian, and that your views are not even remotely shared by millions upon millions that constitute most Christians who believe that neither the Pope nor the President are the anti-Christ or mini-anti-Christs, nor are Catholics as a group morally twisted, psychotic, evil, or greedy. And I say that from about as WASP a perspective as it gets.

 

[SHodges]

While an unapologetic conspiracy theorist myself, I have to say that I disagree about the UN pulling the strings. If anything, the puppeteers would pull strings both here and in the UN.

 

[Obras]

Well, Seperation of Church and State, it was good while it lasted.


Duke

Separate of Church and State is silly. It should be done away with. The MAJORITY of America is Christian, so why shouldn't that be the official religion? The president doesn't have to win by a huge margin to be president.. All other heathen religions would still be legal, but the government would make decisions based on Christian values.

 

[myself]

you are ignorant

No, we should not have laws that enforce the moral values and traditions of one religion over another. This is a multi-religious nation, it clearly states in the first admendment that we have the freedom of religion, free from alienation. That includes evertyone, and that doesn't make it ok to enforce your religious values and ideas upon others. That is just communistic. You really are sipping the kool-aid. When you see a bar code on your left hand your not tripping, it'll really be there.

 

[myself]

As I stated before, religion is replacing freedom of religion, and by playing it in the direction of the "majority", the small minded portion of the Christian beliefs (notice I'm not saying all), are buying into it without question, without an outside perspective, and not looking at how this effects others, because of the "our way is better" mentality that this type of thing breeds. it's not your fault, your being conditioned.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Separate of Church and State is silly. It should be done away with. The MAJORITY of America is Christian, so why shouldn't that be the official religion? The president doesn't have to win by a huge margin to be president.. All other heathen religions would still be legal, but the government would make decisions based on Christian values.

Separation of Church and State is indeed silly as there was never any intent by the authors of the Constitution that the religious would have no interest in government or that those in government would not be religious. They are surely rolling over in their graves at the outrageousness of the attempt by the anti-religious and some in the courts to remove all evidence of religious beliefs from the public sector and, I believe, would consider that to be grossly unconstitutional.

The "wall of separation" referenced by Thomas Jefferson was an assurance to people of faith that they were in no danger of interference or retaliation by their government as the Constitution explicitly protected them.

The other side of that coin is that neither could the government favor or reward them over any others and thereby subject people of different beliefs to second class status. In other words, the Constitution requires the government to be 100% neutral when it comes to approval or favor or disapproval and punitive toward people of faith.

A "state religion' would therefore of course be expressly unconstitutional, as well it should be.

That the courts have perverted the original Constitutional intent will, I hope, be remedied at some point.

 

[myself]

Seperation of church and state is neccessary for a system equal to all men even if they aren't Christians. We shouldn't have to bow down to your faith. Because there are still thousands and thousands of people accross America who are NOT Christians. And we shouldn't have other peoples' religious ideas imposed upon us. Just like what if a muslim governor told the meat markets to take pork off the shelves. There would be alot of angry people in the sticks wouldn't there? So how are we supposed to feel when you biggotedly say that this country should favor your religion over everyone else's?
Just keep sipping the kool-aid.

 

[myself]

What gets me is that people like you are trying to rewrite history saying this country was basically founded just for people of your faith. It made it clear in the first amendment when it stated freedom of religion, without fear of alienation. America was built on freedom... F-F-F-F-F-R-R-R-E-E-E-E-E-D-D-D-D-O-O-O-M-M-M-M!!!

 

[Diogenes]

That the courts have perverted the original Constitutional intent will, I hope, be remedied at some point.

Agreed. The libertines who would discard all moral restraint by claiming that the standards are religiously based have done a lot of damage to our society in the last forty years.

 

[myself]

By saying that your saying non-christians have no morals I take it?

 

[leejosepho]

This is a multi-religious nation, it clearly states in the first amendment that we have ... freedom of religion ...

As I stated before, religion is [now] replacing freedom of religion ...

What gets me is that people ... are trying to rewrite history saying this country was basically founded just for people of [one] faith.

For as far as that get-along, multi-religious ideal might actually be able to go within a human-governed society, myself, you are in agreement with myself. However, I do wonder whether the “founding fathers” actually intended for their budding land of “US” to be “a multi-religious nation”.

For example: I have heard that the celebration of Christmas was *not* allowed here in the early days ...

 

[AlbqOwl]

For as far as that get-along, multi-religious ideal might actually be able to go within a human-governed society, myself, you are in agreement with myself. However, I do wonder whether the “founding fathers” actually intended for their budding land of “US” to be “a multi-religious nation”.

For example: I have heard that the celebration of Christmas was *not* allowed here in the early days ...

The Puritans were the first settlers in what became the USA and they were a pretty somber group who didn't allow for much fun and celebration including the celebration of Christmas. They were soon followed by other groups, however, who didn't have such restrictions.

Though many of the new settlers came to the USA to escape the authoritarian tyranny of the European churches and have religious freedom, few expected to afford religious freedom to anybody else. (The European churches of that time were certainly not tolerant of each other.) So we started out with a lot of little colonies, most of which had their own little 'state religion'.

It is remarkable that the founding fathers were able to rise above that and not incorporate any religious requirement of any kind into the U.S. Constitution. And because they did not, the 'state religion' mentality quickly faded and became an interesting, but now irrelevent factoid of American history. (Irrelevent as to affecting any current policy or mores.)

As those of the founding fathers who professed a religious faith of any kind were Christian, it probably didn't occur to them that this would ever be anything other than a "Christian" nation. They certainly had convictions that the Republic would not endure except via the virtues and morality inherent in their religious faith.

Nevertheless, they had foresight to ensure that the government would neither favor nor disfavor any citizen based on their religious beliefs and would neither interfere, reward, nor retaliate against any person or group because of how they expressed or practiced their religious beliefs.

In my opinion, every time the government or the courts have deviated from that principle, the country has been the worse for it.

 

[Diogenes]

By saying that your saying non-christians have no morals I take it?

Not at all. I merely point out that those who have no morals are in the forefront of the mob demanding that religion be removed from all public standing.

 

[leejosepho]

The Puritans were the first settlers in what became the USA and they were a pretty somber group who didn't allow for much fun and celebration including the celebration of Christmas ...

... few expected to afford religious freedom to anybody else. (The European churches of that time were certainly not tolerant of each other.) So we started out with a lot of little colonies, most of which had their own little 'state religion'.

Rather than "fun and celebration", I believe the Puritan's issue with Christmas was that it is pagan ... and I would wonder to what degree those folks were trying to establish/maintain their best understanding of purity (as mentioned in Scripture) when they "came into the new land".

They were soon followed by other groups, however, who didn't have such restrictions ...

It is remarkable that the founding fathers were able to rise above that and not incorporate any religious requirement of any kind into the U.S. Constitution. And because they did not, the 'state religion' mentality quickly faded and became an interesting, but now irrelevent factoid of American history. (Irrelevent as to affecting any current policy or mores.)

I am not sure "rise above that" is entirely a good thing, but at least in the sense that it is not the duty of men to make the earth pure anyway, I believe what they did is just fine.

As those of the founding fathers who professed a religious faith of any kind were Christian, it probably didn't occur to them that this would ever be anything other than a "Christian" nation. They certainly had convictions that the Republic would not endure except via the virtues and morality inherent in their religious faith.

Yes ... did not at least one of them say something about self-rule only be possible among a moral people? And of course, there we are: According to whose standard?

Nevertheless, they had foresight to ensure that the government would neither favor nor disfavor any citizen based on their religious beliefs and would neither interfere, reward, nor retaliate against any person or group because of how they expressed or practiced their religious beliefs.

In my opinion, every time the government or the courts have deviated from that principle, the country has been the worse for it.

Yes, or at least some of its citizens.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Rather than "fun and celebration", I believe the Puritan's issue with Christmas was that it is pagan ... and I would wonder to what degree those folks were trying to establish/maintain their best understanding of purity (as mentioned in Scripture) when they "came into the new land".

I think it had more to do with their stoic view of the world and it was not that Christmas was 'pagan' but that it was a form of idolatry to worship a date or event rather than the subject of the event. The "purity' they advocated was the apostolic succession taught by first the Roman Catholics and then the Anglicans and they felt even the Lutherans, Calvinists, and Reformed kept too much of the old trappings and were not nearly 'reformed' enough.

I am not sure "rise above that" is entirely a good thing, but at least in the sense that it is not the duty of men to make the earth pure anyway, I believe what they did is just fine.

What the founders 'rose above' was the inclination to force their faith/religion or anybody's faith/religion on anybody else or prevent anybody from exercizing their own religion as they chose. The Puritans had no such conviction.

Yes ... did not at least one of them say something about self-rule only be possible among a moral people? And of course, there we are: According to whose standard?

The founders didn't go by whose standards or whose values. They went by what standards/values. If we all could relearn that one principle today, I think we would all be infinitely better off.

 

[leejosepho]

I think it had more to do with their stoic view of the world and it was not that Christmas was 'pagan' but that it was a form of idolatry to worship a date or event rather than the subject of the event ...

... with that subject being (the birth of) Tammuz, I assume you know, and I have been told they knew. But yes, I also assume the winter solstace was of no worship-related interest to them.

The founders didn't go by whose standards or whose values. They went by what standards/values.

What difference do you see there? Personally, I see none, as "the" standards are "His".

 

[AlbqOwl]

... with that subject being (the birth of) Tammuz, I assume you know, and I have been told they knew. But yes, I also assume the winter solstace was of no worship-related interest to them.".

The Puritans were not particularly illiterate or poorly educated and they had a modicum of status and recognition in the old country, but I have found nothing among their writings that would suggest that had any clue as to how the date for the birth of Jesus of Nazareth was set. Most of the dates for Christian religious holidays, however, were set by councils of Bishops who were seeking to replace the pagan holidays, not emulate them.

What difference do you see there? Personally, I see none, as "the" standards are "His".

This was in response to my comment that the Constitution focused on what values/principles, and not on whose values/principles. Their wisdom in that regard is stunning and should absolutely be emulated by all of us today.

The way I see it, there is nothing, zero, zip, nada in the Constitution that can be identified as specifically a Christian concept or Jewish concept or athiest concept, etc. It was designed, edited, and finalized to be uniformly applied to all the people. The cultural teachings of the time designated black people to less than full human status, so they got left out in the beginning. As the nation matured and evolved, however, the large majority of Americans came to see the foolishness in that particular part of their culture and they invested blood and treasure to change it.

(I will modestly resist the impulse to say that it was mostly the Christian influence of that time that forced the change in the culture. Honesty requires me to say that was because the Christians were the only ones around with sufficient numbers to have the clout to do it.)

Subsequent generations, both religous and secular, would remove some additional barriers to full equality for all races.

As to the difference between what and whose, it is simple. The minute somebody says "Christian values", or Jewish custom, or Islamic law, etc., there is an immediate backlash of those disputing that Christians or Jews or Islam hold a monopoly on the value or from those condemning the 'evil' ways Christians, Jews, or Moslems who demonstrate a value, etc. etc. etc. It doesn't really matter which value is named--the end result is usually the same. Whenever it is framed as whose values, any discussion on the merit or lack thereof of the value breaks down in controversy swirling around whatever group advocates it.

But if you name a value and require that all groups that might hold it be left out of the equation, you can discuss the merits or lack there of virtues such as honesty, integrity, industriousness, etc. or what is true charity or the benefit of traditional marriage or whether a moment of silence at the beginning of the school day is a productive or nonproductive proposal. And or many of the 'controversial' groups might find they share more values than they don't share values, and we might have a lot more peaceful coexistence.

 

[leejosepho]

The Puritans were not particularly illiterate or poorly educated and they had a modicum of status and recognition in the old country, but I have found nothing among their writings that would suggest that had any clue as to how the date for the birth of Jesus of Nazareth was set.

Do you know whether the Puritans knew anything about YHWH's Feasts? If so, they might have at least had an educated guess about that ...

... but either way, I had not mentioned that. Rather, I have heard that the Puritans knew Christmas for what it actually is.

[Concerning your] response to my comment that the Constitution focused on what values/principles, and not on whose values/principles. Their wisdom in that regard is stunning and should absolutely be emulated by all of us today.

Other than the part about leaving sectarian religion completely out of the picture, I disagree completely. "The" standards that are "His" are right and best without regard for how many people might happen to commonly recognize them, and the "peace" you have mentioned (a little further along in your post) is actually but an illusion.

 

[AlbqOwl]

Do you know whether the Puritans knew anything about YHWH's Feasts? If so, they might have at least had an educated guess about that ...

... but either way, I had not mentioned that. Rather, I have heard that the Puritans knew Christmas for what it actually is.



Other than the part about leaving sectarian religion completely out of the picture, I disagree completely. "The" standards that are "His" are right and best without regard for how many people might happen to commonly recognize them, and the "peace" you have mentioned (a little further along in your post) is actually but an illusion.

Since I don't know what you think Christmas "is", I can't comment on that. I only comment on what I know of the Puritans and their beliefs based on extensive study of religion in Colonial America. I claim no particular expertise on the subject however.

I didn't say anything about leaving sectarian religion out of the picture. I said that if we discuss a value on its own merit without pigeonholing it as a product of a religion or sociopolitical group., the discussion will likely be much more productive than it will be if we discuss them as 'Christian values', or "Jewish values' or "Democrat" values or whatever.

.