The Fiction Of Church And State

aquapub · May 8, 2006

The only mention of anything like Separation of Church and State in the Constitution is in the 1st Amendment, where the newly created federal government is being denied the right to create a federal religion: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Somewhere along the line, this restriction of the federal government's power was "creatively interpreted" by anti-Christians into meaning that the federal government could remove all things Christian (and only Christian) from all levels of government, even local municipalities.

It is a perversion of what was intended.

BTW, I am not Christian, so don't go there.

Also, please, before anyone starts citing quotes from Ben Franklin preaching about the evils of government and the church (which he only warned about when it came to the federal government), consider that Ben Franklin proposed a law to have men castrated for premarital sex.

ProudAmerican · May 8, 2006

Its nice to see a non-Christian understand this topic.

As far as quotes are concerned.....I can certainly list several that proved the founders had no problem with religion being a part of government.

Seperation meant there would be no state or government run religious institutions....and as far as I know, there are none.

It was NEVER intended to remove all facits of Christianity from daily government life.

Alex · May 8, 2006

ProudAmerican said:
Its nice to see a non-Christian understand this topic.

As far as quotes are concerned.....I can certainly list several that proved the founders had no problem with religion being a part of government.

Seperation meant there would be no state or government run religious institutions....and as far as I know, there are none.

It was NEVER intended to remove all facits of Christianity from daily government life.

Why does The Constitution forbid an establishment of religion? So people can decide for themselves without government interference.

Putting (insert specific religion) symbols on goverment property is stating that our government is a (insert specific religion) state. That is establishing it as a specific religious state. That is why it is forbidden. Having the religious freedom that we do, we do not understand the problems that can arise from this. We take it for granted that the religion of our choice will prevail because we do not know anything else.

Keep in mind that Christianity is fading fast in this country. Would you be alright if Atheist, Islam, Buddist, and/or Pagan symbols were put on government land? I think not. Then all Christians would use the 1st Amendment to keep there religious freedom.

It is best to keep all religion, and all aspects of religion, out of government so everyone can easily decide for themselves. If it were not an issue, it never would have been put into our Constitution.

ProudAmerican · May 8, 2006

Why does The Constitution forbid an establishment of religion? So people can decide for themselves without government interference.

absolutely.

how does saying "under God" in the pledge prevent people from deciding for themselves? (I only bring this up because of the effort to remove that statement from the pledge)

how do Christmas scenes on government property prevent them from deciding?

how does a statue, or stone tablet of the 10 commandments prevent it?

Putting (insert specific religion) symbols on goverment property is stating that our government is a (insert specific religion) state.

I dissagree....but lets say I agreed......then why would Christian symbols be the only ones under attack?

Keep in mind that Christianity is fading fast in this country.

hardly. I wouldnt think that so many would be so concerned about a religion that is fading so fast. I submit that people are concerned because of exactly the opposite.

Would you be alright if Atheist, Islam, Buddist, and/or Pagan symbols were put on government land?

it would seem the ACLU doesnt have a problem with some religions

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48487

and I believe not allowing people to pray is what is truly against our constitution.

It is best to keep all religion, and all aspects of religion, out of government so everyone can easily decide for themselves.

I would agree, if this country had not been founded on religious freedom. The very men that constructed our founding documents thought religion was a substantial part of our foundation.

If it were not an issue, it never would have been put into our Constitution.

thats the point of this thread. IT WASNT PUT INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.

http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

do those sound like comments from men that would not want religion allowed into the government?

our founders clearly did not want the GOVERNMENT TO INSTITUE ANY ONE RELIGION AS A NATIONAL RELIGION. and I am fine with that. That is the very reason they fled England in the first place.

however, to claim they didnt think religion in general had a place in government when they would write such things as

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

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

is just crazy...

Alex · May 8, 2006

ProudAmerican said:
absolutely.

how does saying "under God" in the pledge prevent people from deciding for themselves? (I only bring this up because of the effort to remove that statement from the pledge)

how do Christmas scenes on government property prevent them from deciding?

how does a statue, or stone tablet of the 10 commandments prevent it?

Because it pressures people into believing what their government sponsors. We cannot understand this because the Supreme Court has protected us from it.

ProudAmerican said:
I dissagree....but lets say I agreed......then why would Christian symbols be the only ones under attack?

I allowed the reader to insert whatever religion they wanted. Nice dodge. I'll play along though. As I already stated, any and all religion should not be allowed to be incorporated into a government of free-society. That statement is not only towards Christians.

ProudAmerican said:
hardly. I wouldnt think that so many would be so concerned about a religion that is fading so fast. I submit that people are concerned because of exactly the opposite.

That would be a bad submission on your part. The evidence says that Christianity is fading. Read it yourself:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/2263-atheism-rise.html?highlight=atheism

ProudAmerican said:
it would seem the ACLU doesnt have a problem with some religions

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=48487

and I believe not allowing people to pray is what is truly against our constitution.

There is no law or Supreme Court ruling that bans prayer in schools. The ruling bans teacher-led and school sponsored prayer because it is coercive. The religious right want people to believe that prayer has completely been banned so they can outrage people into joining them. Read the ruling yourself:

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=370&page=421#422

ProudAmerican said:
I would agree, if this country had not been founded on religious freedom. The very men that constructed our founding documents thought religion was a substantial part of our foundation.

Religious freedom means keeping the government out of it completely. This country was not founded on religion, it was founded on The Constitution.

ProudAmerican said:
thats the point of this thread. IT WASNT PUT INTO OUR CONSTITUTION.

The establishment Clause WAS put into our Constitution.

ProudAmerican said:
http://www.eadshome.com/QuotesoftheFounders.htm

do those sound like comments from men that would not want religion allowed into the government?

Quotes from the founding fathers are used in an attempt to win people over to the appropriate side. An alleged quote from George Washington says, “It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible.” Another supposed Washington quote states, “The path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction.”

The quotes from George Washington lead the reader into opposite directions. How can we be sure which one is correct? To think that anyone living today, whether atheist or theist, could possibly know what someone believed in who live two hundred years ago, would be arrogant. Beliefs pass on with the person, and it is not known if anyone was always responsible to maintain the integrity of these quotes. Can you say for sure that these quotes are accurate?

ProudAmerican said:
our founders clearly did not want the GOVERNMENT TO INSTITUE ANY ONE RELIGION AS A NATIONAL RELIGION. and I am fine with that. That is the very reason they fled England in the first place.

however, to claim they didnt think religion in general had a place in government when they would write such things as

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/document/index.htm

is just crazy...

"Creator"? A creator does not necessarily mean a god. A creator can mean a person's mother.

Furthermore, The Declaration of Independence is just that, a declaration. It is not law. If the founders really intended for religion to be a part of the government, they would have included it in our Constitution.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 9, 2006

aquapub said:
The only mention of anything like Separation of Church and State in the Constitution is in the 1st Amendment, where the newly created federal government is being denied the right to create a federal religion: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

That, and the total absence of any other mention of religion in the Constitution, might be a clue to how the government is supposed to be run. Without official connection between government and any church. Frankly, the people that wrote the Constitution weren't so stupid as to think that excessive church influence on government would lead to eventual government influence on the church.

You guys do realize that the Establishment Clause is to protect the freedom of the people, don't you?

aquapub said:
Somewhere along the line, this restriction of the federal government's power was "creatively interpreted" by anti-Christians into meaning that the federal government could remove all things Christian (and only Christian) from all levels of government, even local municipalities.

Getting a bit sloppy in your phraseology. SOME people's view of the Establishment Clause makes them excise solely Christian mummery, the rest of us reasonable people understand that it forbids ALL mummery.

Here's the dilemma, ignored by all thinkng religion has a place in any government activity:

What message is given when a "non-denominational" opening prayer is given at some ceremony? No one can talk to the God of Jesus, the God of Abraham, Allah the Lowest, Vishnu, Buddha, The Mighty Rowan, the Coyote, and Satan all at the same time with equal sincerity to all. Not to mention the atheist, who is either bored, amused, or annoyed by the time wasted on the foolishness of it all.

aquapub said:
It is a perversion of what was intended.

True enough, I think the utterance of a simple prayer doesn't actually hurt anyone. It's only when religious icons take inappropriate prominence in secular places that it becomes worrisome. "In God We Trust" on MONEY? After all that work Jesus did in elevating abject poverty to a virtue? Shame. Besides which, it's a false statement. It's a perversion.

The Ten Commandments as a monument in a courthouse? Come on, anyone that can recite the Ten Suggestions knows also that none of them have a direct influence on American law. The secular laws against murder and perjury and theft and adultery are common to all societies regardless of their religion because that's how stable societies evolved. This is a real perversion, and definitely counter to the intent of the First Amendment.

Forcing the nonsense about "under God" in a flag poem, after that poem has been weirdly elevated by federal law into a bizarre affirmation of patriotism? The guys that wrote the Constitution never imagined a Pledge of Allegiance, let alone making it a religious statement. This goes straight to freedom of speech, and runs totally contrary the First Amendment's intent.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 9, 2006

ProudAmerican said:
how does saying "under God" in the pledge prevent people from deciding for themselves? (I only bring this up because of the effort to remove that statement from the pledge)

It states that the Government has already decided. That's a violation of the First Amendment in it's establishment of religion as real.

ProudAmerican said:
how do Christmas scenes on government property prevent them from deciding?

Because the same government sponsoring the baby-in-the-cow-feeder is also the government that's supposed to make law and judge cases on jews impartially, on muslims impartially, on wiccan's impartially, on Navajo peyote eaters impartially, and on atheists impartially.

The only rational way impartiality can be demonstrated is by refraining from any support for any religion at all.

ProudAmerican said:
how does a statue, or stone tablet of the 10 commandments prevent it?

It doesn't, but there's really no need for a government based on the equality of man to flaunt nonsense tablets ordering man to worship only one particular
God.

ProudAmerican said:
I dissagree....but lets say I agreed......then why would Christian symbols be the only ones under attack?

Well, I won't argue with this. All symbols should be verboten. That's the spirit of the FA, after all.

Spartacus FPV · May 9, 2006

ProudAmerican said:
it would seem the ACLU doesnt have a problem with some religions and I believe not allowing people to pray is what is truly against our constitution.

As far as I knew, the ACLU gets involved if tax dollars are spent "respecting an establishment of religion." Or people being made to include "under god" considering it wasnt even origionally in the pledge.

As far as the whole "war on christmas" thing, I think a proprietor of any shop should be able to display whatever he wants, be it x-mas or god knows what. But thats how I feel about smoking bans too...

FallingPianos · May 9, 2006

aquapub said:
The only mention of anything like Separation of Church and State in the Constitution is in the 1st Amendment, where the newly created federal government is being denied the right to create a federal religion: "Congress shall pass no law respecting the establishment of religion..."

Somewhere along the line, this restriction of the federal government's power was "creatively interpreted" by anti-Christians into meaning that the federal government could remove all things Christian (and only Christian) from all levels of government, even local municipalities.

It is a perversion of what was intended.

BTW, I am not Christian, so don't go there.

Also, please, before anyone starts citing quotes from Ben Franklin preaching about the evils of government and the church (which he only warned about when it came to the federal government), consider that Ben Franklin proposed a law to have men castrated for premarital sex.

agreed. though I would also like to see an amendment passed that bans any public funding going to churches and religious art etc.

ProudAmerican · May 9, 2006

Alex, I dont have time for monstrous posts so I will deal with a couple of your points.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/archives/2263-atheism-rise.html?highlight=atheism (Atheism on the Rise)

if you think a poll is enough to convince me Christianity is on the decline....well......sorry.

Religious freedom means keeping the government out of it completely.

no, it doesnt. your entire argument is based on an opinion. Mine is based on the Declaration if independance, and the beliefs of the men that founded this nation.

"Creator"? A creator does not necessarily mean a god. A creator can mean a person's mother.

talk about desperation. I would think you could do better than that. I know.....they were talking about santa clause.

To think that anyone living today, whether atheist or theist, could possibly know what someone believed in who live two hundred years ago, would be arrogant.

unfortunately for you, they put it down in black and white and signed it. unless of course, you believe they were talking about someones mom, or the tooth fairy.

ProudAmerican · May 9, 2006

It states that the Government has already decided. That's a violation of the First Amendment in it's establishment of religion as real.

no , it does not. what has the government decided for them exactly by having "God" in the pledge??
what does it decide for them that having "Creator" in the declaration didnt decide for them?

Because the same government sponsoring the baby-in-the-cow-feeder is also the government that's supposed to make law and judge cases on jews impartially, on muslims impartially, on wiccan's impartially, on Navajo peyote eaters impartially, and on atheists impartially.

take it up with the founders.

The only rational way impartiality can be demonstrated is by refraining from any support for any religion at all.

too bad the founders thought religion was an invaluable part of government.

It doesn't, but there's really no need for a government based on the equality of man to flaunt nonsense tablets ordering man to worship only one particular
God.

the need is the fact that this nation was founded on those principles. if it wasnt, I would agree.

Well, I won't argue with this. All symbols should be verboten. That's the spirit of the FA, after all.

hardly. The spirit of the FA is that the Government will not sanction any one religion.

aquapub · May 9, 2006

aquapub said:
Also, please, before anyone starts citing quotes from Ben Franklin preaching about the evils of government and the church (which he only warned about when it came to the federal government), consider that Ben Franklin proposed a law to have men castrated for premarital sex.

CORRECTION: I was thinking about Franklin from another conversation. The Founding Father who advocated castration for premarital sex was one of the icons historically illiterate people keep trying to portray as the father of getting morality out of government: Thomas Jefferson.

Andrew Lipscomb. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson Volume I. Thomas Jefferson Memorial Foundation.

aquapub · May 9, 2006

alex said:
Why does The Constitution forbid an establishment of religion? So people can decide for themselves without government interference.

It forbids interference by the federal government in the states' religious business. Idaho can tell its people to be Methodist or get out, and it would not be unconstitutional; it wouldn't even be related to the Constitution...according to the Founders.

aquapub · May 9, 2006

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
1) SOME people's view of the Establishment Clause makes them excise solely Christian mummery, the rest of us reasonable people understand that it forbids ALL mummery.

2) What message is given when a "non-denominational" opening prayer is given at some ceremony? No one can talk to the God of Jesus, the God of Abraham, Allah the Lowest, Vishnu, Buddha, The Mighty Rowan, the Coyote, and Satan all at the same time with equal sincerity to all. Not to mention the atheist, who is either bored, amused, or annoyed by the time wasted on the foolishness of it all.

3) The guys that wrote the Constitution never imagined a Pledge of Allegiance, let alone making it a religious statement. This goes straight to freedom of speech, and runs totally contrary the First Amendment's intent.

1) There's a reason I worded it that way. The blatantly unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority committed by the Supreme Court in the removal of all things religion from all things public is selectively enforced; it only applies to Christianity. In one California school they took the love affair with bloody Islam so far as to make it a requirement to pass 5th grade that students recite the 7 pillars of Islam, and that the girls wear the Muslim garb. It is not ALL religions. Those who peddle the fiction of Church and State are waging war on Christianity-and only Christianity.

2) Are you arguing that people have a constitutional right to not to have to tolerate other people having religious speech rights?

3) The Founders expressly and specifically opposed the notion of a federal government issuing religious edicts to the states or establishing a national religion.

The federal government is not forcing anyone to say the Pledge. Even the local schools don't force people (for instance, Jehova's Witnesses don't have to do it) to say it.

So where exactly is anyone's rights being violated here? How exactly does this even pertain to freedom of speech?

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 9, 2006

ProudAmerican said:
no , it does not. what has the government decided for them exactly by having "God" in the pledge??

It's decided that God is real. Which is not something the honest ones among us think at all.

ProudAmerican said:
what does it decide for them that having "Creator" in the declaration didnt decide for them?

They decided that poetry is nice, but a Constitution is law. So they accepted rambling's about a "creator" in the poetry, and left God out of the law. That's what they decided.

ProudAmerican said:
too bad the founders thought religion was an invaluable part of government.

Yeah, that's why religion isn't part of the Constitution, and only made it in through an Amendment. But wait, the Amendment on religion says that government should butt out. What a concept.

ProudAmerican said:
the need is the fact that this nation was founded on those principles. if it wasnt, I would agree.

Then again, it was amazing how fast state sponsored religions faded away after the Constitution was ratified, wasn't it?

ProudAmerican said:
hardly. The spirit of the FA is that the Government will not sanction any one religion.

The text of the First Amendment is that the government won't sponsor ANY religion.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 9, 2006

aquapub said:
1) There's a reason I worded it that way. The blatantly unconstitutional usurpation of federal authority committed by the Supreme Court in the removal of all things religion from all things public is selectively enforced; it only applies to Christianity. In one California school they took the love affair with bloody Islam so far as to make it a requirement to pass 5th grade that students recite the 7 pillars of Islam, and that the girls wear the Muslim garb. It is not ALL religions. Those who peddle the fiction of Church and State are waging war on Christianity-and only Christianity.

aquapub said:

Oh, well then your problem isn't with the government excluding christian symbols, which is it supposed to be doing, but with it including non-christian symbols, which it shouldn't be doing.

Once you have your head on straight, you'll be able to see the problem for what it really is, then and only then will you be able to solve it. Eliminating all symbols is the correct solution consistent with the Constitution.

aquapub said:

2) Are you arguing that people have a constitutional right to not to have to tolerate other people having religious speech rights?

Click to expand...

Ummmm....I don't know, maybe. I think I need a PhD to figure that sentence out.

No individual citizen is required to tolerate anything, but his actions in consequence of his lack of tolerance are limited to: speech, and non-violent demonstrations that do not materially interfere with the lives and the freedom of the people he choses to not tolerate.

aquapub said:

3) The Founders expressly and specifically opposed the notion of a federal government issuing religious edicts to the states or establishing a national religion.

The federal government is not forcing anyone to say the Pledge. Even the local schools don't force people (for instance, Jehova's Witnesses don't have to do it) to say it.

Click to expand...

The federal government had NO BUSINESS, under the First Amendment, to squeeze those words into that poem. Period. That's the issue. That's an endorsement of religion. Period.

Whether or not people are required to say it, (and they were at one time) isn't the issue.

aquapub said:

So where exactly is anyone's rights being violated here? How exactly does this even pertain to freedom of speech?

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

It pertains to the Establishment Clause. Not to mention the reality of life in the first grade, where in children are required by their membership in the mob to conform. I do love how people defend a stupid poem that has nothing to do with their religion, even though the poem's auther himself declined to put those very words in it. We're not a nation under God, unless, as some think, the sun, the moon, and the stars are God. Maybe the clouds, too.

aquapub · May 9, 2006

You have screwed up your quoting. I have fixed it for the purposes of responding...

1) Oh, well then your problem isn't with the government excluding christian symbols, which is it supposed to be doing, but with it including non-christian symbols, which it shouldn't be doing.

2) Once you have your head on straight, you'll be able to see the problem for what it really is, then and only then will you be able to solve it. Eliminating all symbols is the correct solution consistent with the Constitution.

3) The federal government had NO BUSINESS, under the First Amendment, to squeeze those words into that poem. Period. That's the issue. That's an endorsement of religion. Period.

Whether or not people are required to say it, (and they were at one time) isn't the issue.

[/QUOTE]

1) No. My problem is with the federal government in any way interfering with what the citizenry and state/local government want to do with religion...as is forbidden by the Constitution. Neither Christian nor Islamic symbols are to be removed forcibly by the federal government. I brought up Islam because nothing is ever done to suppress their religious speech-which demonstrates that this is really about anti-Christianity.

2) Once you have your head on straight, you will pick up a book on the Constitution and learn about the myths you are perpetuating. It is absolutely INCONSISTENT with the Constitution to force all religion out of all things public. Don't tell me I don't have my head on straight. I am the only one between us with something beyond surface knowledge of the issue, apparently.

3) The federal government putting words in a song that nobody has to sing is not establishing a religion to which people are answerable. No one's rights are being violated...it is a non-issue.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 9, 2006

aquapub said:
You have screwed up your quoting.

So I did. Oops.

aquapub said:
1) No. My problem is with the federal government in any way interfering with what the citizenry and state/local government want to do with religion...as is forbidden by the Constitution. Neither Christian nor Islamic symbols are to be removed forcibly by the federal government. I brought up Islam because nothing is ever done to suppress their religious speech-which demonstrates that this is really about anti-Christianity.

I'll grant that the original intent of the First Amendment was to limit federal jurisdiction. No doubt about that. The Fourteenth Amendment, however, extends the Constitution to all states. Now you can argue that the 14th was one of the sloppiest Amendments written, I certainly do, but that's what it did.

As for Islam, what do you expect to happen when a bunch of spineless politicians imbued with the glory of "Can't We All Just Get Along" face the "You Say Anything Against Allah, We'll Kill You" crowd? It's not anti-christian, it's just gutless.

aquapub said:
2) Once you have your head on straight, you will pick up a book on the Constitution and learn about the myths you are perpetuating. It is absolutely INCONSISTENT with the Constitution to force all religion out of all things public. Don't tell me I don't have my head on straight. I am the only one between us with something beyond surface knowledge of the issue, apparently.

Perhaps you should try reading the Constutition sometime. The First Amendment is pretty damn plain. "NO LAW" means what? It doesn't mean no laws you don't like, it means none, period.

aquapub said:
3) The federal government putting words in a song that nobody has to sing is not establishing a religion to which people are answerable. No one's rights are being violated...it is a non-issue.

The Federal Government putting the words "Under God" in a poem is establishing religion. I don't care about "rights" being violated, that's nonsense. The issue is the government stepping outside it's authority.

ProudAmerican · May 9, 2006

It's decided that God is real. Which is not something the honest ones among us think at all.

whether or not you think God is real is irrelevant. Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant. The men that wrote and signed the declaration of independance thought he was real. That is what counts. If you dont like the principles on which this country was founded, that is your right. It is NOT YOUR RIGHT however to change them and contend they do not exist.

They decided that poetry is nice, but a Constitution is law. So they accepted rambling's about a "creator" in the poetry, and left God out of the law. That's what they decided.

The did not leave him out of the constitution. They SPECIFICALLY WROTE AN AMMENDMENT about him.
Aquapub said it better than I ever could......

It forbids interference by the federal government in the states' religious business. Idaho can tell its people to be Methodist or get out, and it would not be unconstitutional; it wouldn't even be related to the Constitution...according to the Founders.

--

Yeah, that's why religion isn't part of the Constitution, and only made it in through an Amendment. But wait, the Amendment on religion says that government should butt out. What a concept.

absolutely. the government should butt out. it doesnt mean those in the government that believe shouldnt be able to show that belief. you are using the constitution to prove a point, and at the same time showing you dont believe in the constitution at all. you want to take away religious freedom.

I truly believe those who believe as you do are fully capable of understanding the difference between butting out of people religious lives, and being able to practice your own personal religious beliefs. You simply wont admit there is a huge difference.

Then again, it was amazing how fast state sponsored religions faded away after the Constitution was ratified, wasn't it?

forgive me if I cant understand how this response has anything whatsoever to do with the statement I made.

The text of the First Amendment is that the government won't sponsor ANY religion.

absolutely. and our government currently does not do so......even with a statue in front of a courthouse, or "God" on our money, the government does not sponsor a religion.

Funny.....you guys get awfully worked up over a bunch of Christians you claim are fading away into the darkness to begin with.

ProudAmerican · May 9, 2006

The Federal Government putting the words "Under God" in a poem is establishing religion. I don't care about "rights" being violated, that's nonsense. The issue is the government stepping outside it's authority.

using that logic, you better get on the horn and have the Declaration of Independance changed IMMEDIATELY.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 9, 2006

ProudAmerican said:
whether or not you think God is real is irrelevant. Whether or not I believe it is irrelevant. The men that wrote and signed the declaration of independance thought he was real. That is what counts. If you dont like the principles on which this country was founded, that is your right. It is NOT YOUR RIGHT however to change them and contend they do not exist.

I do like the principles this country was founded on. That's why I stand up for the First Amendment against people like you.

ProudAmerican said:
The did not leave him out of the constitution. They SPECIFICALLY WROTE AN AMMENDMENT about him.
Aquapub said it better than I ever could......

This last may be true. But what they SPECIFICALLY WROTE was an Amendment forbidding the Congress to pass any laws about HER. Why you guys think of God as a male is a mystery....

absolutely. the government should butt out. it doesnt mean those in the government that believe shouldnt be able to show that belief. you are using the constitution to prove a point, and at the same time showing you dont believe in the constitution at all. you want to take away religious freedom.[/quote]

No, any person in the employ of the government has every freedom to play their religious games anyway they like...OUTSIDE OF OFFICE HOURS, on their own time, and off government property.

ProudAmerican said:
I truly believe those who believe as you do are fully capable of understanding the difference between butting out of people religious lives, and being able to practice your own personal religious beliefs. You simply wont admit there is a huge difference.

I know there's a huge difference. That's why the government shouldn't be playing in religion like it does with the Pledge and our money, to name two examples.

ProudAmerican said:
forgive me if I cant understand how this response has anything whatsoever to do with the statement I made.

Oh, your lack of understanding is perfectly understandable.

ProudAmerican said:
absolutely. and our government currently does not do so......even with a statue in front of a courthouse, or "God" on our money, the government does not sponsor a religion.

Nonsense.

ProudAmerican said:
Funny.....you guys get awfully worked up over a bunch of Christians you claim are fading away into the darkness to begin with.

You're just feeling paranoid, since I'm only using Christian examples in this discussion. It's perfectly clear from my argument that I don't discriminate between one form of religious lunacy or another.

Scarecrow Akhbar · May 9, 2006

ProudAmerican said:
using that logic, you better get on the horn and have the Declaration of Independance changed IMMEDIATELY.

So, outside of proving your lack of awareness of the Constitution, what does your reference to the poetry of the Declaration do? Remember, one is law, the other is poetry.

ProudAmerican · May 9, 2006

I do like the principles this country was founded on. That's why I stand up for the First Amendment against people like you.

no, you stand against religious freedom and try to interpret the first ammendment to mean something that was never intended.

This last may be true

uh huh

I know there's a huge difference. That's why the government shouldn't be playing in religion like it does with the Pledge and our money, to name two examples.

and the decleration of independance.

Oh, your lack of understanding is perfectly understandable.

it sure is, since your response had absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

You're just feeling paranoid, since I'm only using Christian examples in this discussion

you want to silence religious freedom in this country and im the one thats paranoid?

So, outside of proving your lack of awareness of the Constitution, what does your reference to the poetry of the Declaration do? Remember, one is law, the other is poetry.

like the poetry on money, and in the pledge?

you claim those things should be done away with according to the first ammendment. How could the declaration possibly be any different?

heres a clue....IT ISNT DIFFERENT. It was written by men that believed in a divine creator. it was signed by them. and according to you.....it should be done away with.....because its not law.

ProudAmerican · May 9, 2006

I do like the principles this country was founded on. That's why I stand up for the First Amendment against people like you.

no, you stand against religious freedom and try to interpret the first ammendment to mean something that was never intended.

This last may be true

uh huh

Nonsense.

those things dont sponsor a religion anymore than the declaration of independance does. whats nonsense is you claiming the mention of the word God somehow sponsors a religion.

I know there's a huge difference. That's why the government shouldn't be playing in religion like it does with the Pledge and our money, to name two examples.

and the decleration of independance.

Oh, your lack of understanding is perfectly understandable.

it sure is, since your response had absolutely nothing to do with my comment.

You're just feeling paranoid, since I'm only using Christian examples in this discussion

you want to silence religious freedom in this country and im the one thats paranoid?

So, outside of proving your lack of awareness of the Constitution, what does your reference to the poetry of the Declaration do? Remember, one is law, the other is poetry.

like the poetry on money, and in the pledge?

you claim those things should be done away with according to the first ammendment. How could the declaration possibly be any different?

heres a clue....IT ISNT DIFFERENT. It was written by men that believed in a divine creator. it was signed by them. and according to you.....it should be done away with.....because its not law.

Alex · May 9, 2006

Scarecrow Akhbar said:
The Ten Commandments as a monument in a courthouse? Come on, anyone that can recite the Ten Suggestions knows also that none of them have a direct influence on American law. The secular laws against murder and perjury and theft and adultery are common to all societies regardless of their religion because that's how stable societies evolved. This is a real perversion, and definitely counter to the intent of the First Amendment.

Agreed. Our laws are based on common human desire (with some restrictions), not religion. It just so happen that religion and the Ten Commandments are based on the same thing.

The Fiction Of Church And State

Better You = Better World

FallingPianos

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency