One Nation Under God
Ray Martinez
without God and the Bible."
Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
the heart."
James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
founded."
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
prefer Christians for their rulers."
Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
to it, and exhibit relations with it.
Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
wiki trix
Can you spell "appeal to authority fallacy"?
UC
Teddy Roosevelt opposed putting the motto on coins.
Ray Martinez
"Separation" is a 20th century invent and corruption based on
egregious quote-mining of Jefferson by Judges who are Darwinists. The
fact that no act of separation occurred prior to the 20th century
corroborates the fact. Only Darwinists "see" separation of Church and
State in the Constitution. The words themselves are not in the
Constitution. The point: Darwinists have corrupted the Constitution so
that it reflects their pro-Atheism theory. Darwinists have imposed
Atheism values into a Document written under the presupposition of
Theism.
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
We agree: you have no Founding Father authorities backing your modern
20th century corruption of the Constitution.
Ray
Boikat
The "one nation under God" bit was added in the late '50's to remind
everyone that the Soviet Union was the "Godless evil enemy".
Personally, I see no difference between a "godless evil enemy", and a
"God-smacked religious evil enemy".
BTW, how's you paper coming along? Still making up your own
definitions for the glossary?
Boikat
Will in New Haven
Speaking of documents. How's that paper going, you pious fraud?
--
Will in New Haven
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
You mean the guy who placed his hand on the Bible when taking the Oath
of Office?
So?
What's the point?
How many President's supported?
Your point (as usual) is pointless.
Ray
Boikat
"Darwinism" has little to do with the separation of church and state,
and everything to do with civil liberties, specifically. freedom from
having religion -any religion- imposed on any citizen, by the
government or the state. That is the bottom line, whether you like it
or not.
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 30, 2:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> > without God and the Bible."
>
> > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> > government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> > the heart."
>
> > James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
> > Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> > founded."
>
> > John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> > given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> > well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> > prefer Christians for their rulers."
>
> > Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> > entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> > identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> > institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> > to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>
> > Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
> > the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> > of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>
> The "one nation under God" bit was added in the late '50's to remind
> everyone that the Soviet Union was the "Godless evil enemy".
>
So?
It was added with full knowledge of our Christian past, too.
> Personally, I see no difference between a "godless evil enemy", and a
> "God-smacked religious evil enemy".
>
> BTW, how's you paper coming along?
Just fine.
> Still making up your own
> definitions for the glossary?
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Such as....
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Fathers" supporting the separation of church and state. You are just
wrong yet again.
DJT
username_...@yahoo.com.au
I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a
fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a
Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how
the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out
of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His
fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
ever before—the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
ancient world some two thousand years ago—a civilization which was
driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
- Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of 12 April 1922
We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our
ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement
is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and
Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own
people.
- Adolf Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
The Government of the Reich, which regards Christianity as the
unshakable foundation of the morals and moral code of the nation,
attaches the greatest value to friendly relations with the Holy See,
and is endeavouring to develop them.
- Adolf Hitler, speech to the Reichstag, 23 March 1933
Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the common law.
- Thomas Jefferson, Vol. 1 Whether Christianity is Part of the Common
Law (1764)
Why have Christians been distinguished above all people who have ever
lived, for persecutions? Is it because it is the genius of their
religion? No, it's genius is the reverse. It is the refusing
toleration to those of a different opinion which has produced all the
bustles and wars on account of religion. It was the misfortune of
mankind that during the darker centuries the Christian priests
following their ambition and avarice combining with the magistrate to
divide the spoils of the people, could establish the notion that
schismatics might be ousted of their possessions & destroyed. This
notion we have not yet cleared ourselves from.
- Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Religion (1776)
Happy, thrice happy shall they be pronounced hereafter, who have
contributed any thing, who have performed the meanest office in
erecting this stupendous fabrick of Freedom and Empire on the broad
basis of Independency; who have assisted in protecting the rights of
humane nature and establishing an Asylum for the poor and oppressed of
all nations and religions.
George Washington, General Orders (18 April 1783)
Dana Tweedy
> George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> without God and the Bible."
Washington also wrote:
"Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which
are caused by difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the
most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be deprecated. I
was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked
the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every
denomination so far that we should never again see the religious
disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of
society." (George Washington, letter to Edward Newenham, October 20,
1792; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New
Jersey: Citadel Press, 1983, p. 726.)
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ed_buckner/quotations.html#II
>
> Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> the heart."
Jefferson of course was very concerned about the separation of Church
and State. He even coined the term.
Some of Jefferson's words on the subject
"Convinced that religious liberty must, most assuredly, be built into
the structural frame of the new [state] government, Jefferson proposed
this language [for the new Virginia constitution]: "All persons shall
have full and free liberty of religious opinion; nor shall any be
compelled to frequent or maintain any religious institution": freedom
for religion, but also freedom from religion." (Edwin S. Gaustad,
Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1987, p. 38. Jefferson proposed his language in 1776.)
"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women, and
children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt,
tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not advanced one inch towards
uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one half the
world fools and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and
error all over the earth." (Thomas Jefferson, Notes on Virginia, 1782;
from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New Jersey:
Citadel Press, 1983, p. 363.)
>
> James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
> Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> founded."
Here's Madison, in reply to Jasper Adams
"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
& 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 agst by an entire abstinence of: the Govt
from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of
preserving public order, & protecting each sect agst trespasses on its
legal rights by others."
http://candst.tripod.com/tnppage/jasper.htm
Another quote from Madison:
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprize [sic], every expanded prospect. (James Madison,
in a letter to William Bradford, April 1, 1774, as quoted by Edwin S.
Gaustad, Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San
Francisco: Harper & Row, 1987, p. 37.) "
"Who does not see that the same authority which can establish
Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with
the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all
other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to
contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one
establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in
all cases whatsoever?" (James Madison, "A Memorial and Remonstrance,"
addressed to the General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia,
1785; from George Seldes, ed., The Great Quotations, Secaucus, New
Jersey: The Citadel Press, pp. 459-460. According to Edwin S. Gaustad,
Faith of Our Fathers: Religion and the New Nation, San Francisco:
Harper & Row, 1987, pp. 39 ff., Madison's "Remonstrance" was
instrumental in blocking the multiple establishment of all
denominations of Christianity in Virginia.)
>
> John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> prefer Christians for their rulers."
Supreme Court Ruling from 1860
Christianity is not established by law, and the genius of our
institutions requires that the Church and the State should be kept
separate....The state confesses its incompetency to judge spiritual
matters between men or between man and his maker ... spiritual matters
are exclusively in the hands of teachers of religion. (U. S. Supreme
Court, Melvin v. Easley, 1860, as quoted by Samuel Rabinove, "Church
and State Must Remain Separate," in Julie S. Bach, ed., Civil
Liberties: Opposing Viewpoints, St. Paul: Greenhaven Press, 1988, p.
53.) [Editor's note: This case was actually heard in North Carolina.
See Melvin v. Easley, 52 N. C. 356 (1860).]
>
> Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> to it, and exhibit relations with it.
This was, of course, not true even in Jay's time. Another Supreme
Court ruling:
. the First Amendment of the Constitution ... was intended to allow
everyone under the jurisdiction of the United States to entertain such
notions respecting his relations to his maker, and the duties they
impose, as may be approved by his conscience, and to exhibit his
sentiments in such form of worship as he may think proper, not
injurious to the rights of others, and to prohibit legislation for the
support of any religious tenets, or the modes of worship of any sect.
(U. S. Supreme Court, 1890, Darwin v. Beason, as quoted by Samuel
Rabinove, "Religious Liberty and Church-State Separation: Why Should
We Care?," speech on April 10, 1986, Vital Speeches of the Day, June
15, 1986, p. 528.
>
> Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
> the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
the phrase "under God" was added only in 1954. The motto "in God we
Trust" was adopted as the US motto in 1956. Both of these were
around the time the "Darwinists" we supposedly removing God from the
government.
>
> http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
Sorry, Ray, but you are still wrong. Separation of Church and State
was the intent of the writers of the Constitution.
DJT
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
Non-sequitur.
And we can indeed explain why Darwinism has succeeded in their
corruptions of Christian society.
Ray
Dana Tweedy
Ray, Teddy didn't use a Bible when he took his oath of office.
http://www.neatorama.com/2008/02/06/trivia-teddy-roosevelt-not-sworn-in-on-a-bible/
>
> So?
>
> What's the point?
That there were those who opposed that phrase being put on government
coins.
>
> How many President's supported?
A few.
>
> Your point (as usual) is pointless.
As usual, Ray, you are shown ignorant of history.
DJT
Boikat
No, it was added for propaganda purposes, nothing else.
>
> > Personally, I see no difference between a "godless evil enemy", and a
> > "God-smacked religious evil enemy".
>
> > BTW, how's you paper coming along?
>
> Just fine.
In other words, "Dead in the water".
No worries, it was a flop to begin with.
Boikat
Dana Tweedy
Then why is it found in both 18th and 19th century works by many
founders, including Madison and Jefferson?
> The
> fact that no act of separation occurred prior to the 20th century
> corroborates the fact.
Except that you are wrong, and displaying your basic ignorance of
history again.
>Only Darwinists "see" separation of Church and
> State in the Constitution.
Madison, Jefferson, and many others were not "Darwinists". All
Constitutional scholars acknowledge that the intent of the 1st
amendment was to erect a wall of separation between church and
state.
> The words themselves are not in the
> Constitution.
The words that are used, however show the intent.
> The point: Darwinists have corrupted the Constitution so
> that it reflects their pro-Atheism theory.
Your statement is full of falsehoods. "Darwinists" had no influence
on the law. There is no corruption of the Constitution, and evolution
is not pro atheism. You've been shown to be wrong on all of these
points. Why keep lying?
> Darwinists have imposed
> Atheism values into a Document written under the presupposition of
> Theism.
Again, the Constitution does not "presuppose" theism. There are no
"atheism values" in the scientific theory of evolution. You are wrong
yet again, Ray.
It's time for you to slink back into your hole, in defeat once more.
DJT
Frank J
You conveniently forgot:
Benjamin Franklin: "When a religion is good, I conceive it will
support itself; and when it does not support itself, and God does not
take care to support it so that its professors are obliged to call for
help of the civil power, 'tis a sign, I apprehend, of its being a bad
one."
BTW, since TO is more about evolution than about God, do you really
think that any of the Founding Fathers would have fallen for any of
that anti-evolution nonsense?
Boikat
You should really look up the definitions of big wordy-words before
you attempt to use them.
>
> And we
Pet mouse in your pocket?
> can indeed explain why Darwinism has succeeded in their
> corruptions of Christian society.
To you, anyone who isn't a Bible thuming creationist is a
"darwinist". As far as "corruption of Christian society", corruption
pretty much been the case scince Christianity arose. Look at the
corruption of the "Christian societies" during the "dark ages" when
"Christianity" pulled the strings of governments. As far as modern
society, in general, it's no more corrupt now than any society has
been since the beginning of human "society". Actually, probably less
corrupt than it was when "The Church" ruled.
Boikat
UC
Yeah, take that!
Ray Martinez
Truth is not propaganda.
>
>
> > > Personally, I see no difference between a "godless evil enemy", and a
> > > "God-smacked religious evil enemy".
>
> > > BTW, how's you paper coming along?
>
> > Just fine.
>
> In other words, "Dead in the water".
>
"Just fine" means just the opposite.
> No worries, it was a flop to begin with.
>
> Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are simply goading me to hurry up and finish. And you have every
reason to worry.
Ray
Ray Martinez
As we can see: anyone can claim to be a Christian.
In 1922, Hitler was posturing for future power before a Christian
nation.
> We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
> conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
> whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our
> ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement
> is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and
> Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own
> people.
>
> - Adolf Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
>
And when he rose to power, Hitler desecrated Church altars with feces,
murdered any Christian who opposed him, and declared himself the
German Messiah.
Ray
[....]
Boikat
*Intent* is.
>
>
>
> > > > Personally, I see no difference between a "godless evil enemy", and a
> > > > "God-smacked religious evil enemy".
>
> > > > BTW, how's you paper coming along?
>
> > > Just fine.
>
> > In other words, "Dead in the water".
>
> "Just fine" means just the opposite.
Not likely in this case.
>
> > No worries, it was a flop to begin with.
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You are simply goading me to hurry up and finish.
Like that's ever going to happen?
> And you have every
> reason to worry.
False bravado. The only "danger" your paper would likely pose would
be dying of asphyxiation from laughing at it's inanity.
Boikat
Mike Lyle
Maybe; but it looks as though he could spell "Juden raus!" near enough
for practical purposes.
--
Mike.
wiki trix
Actually "truth" is often propaganda:
- Truths are often cherry picked to produce propaganda.
- The Russian Daily "Pravda" literally means "truth", and was indeed
propaganda.
- The Roman Catholic Church originally came up with the term
"propaganda" which literally means "propagating truth".
- Truth can also be bullshit according to Harry Frankfurt -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Bullshit
- Keep in mind that not every truth is good and not every propaganda
is evil.
wiki trix
Do you have evidence of Hitler desecrating church altars with feces? I
figure he was too busy.
He murdered anyone who opposed him, not just christians who opposed
him, right?
Do you have a published quote where he declared himself the German
messiah?
What about the belt buckles with "Gott mit Uns"?
username_...@yahoo.com.au
> On Oct 30, 12:58 pm, username_not_fo...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a
> > fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
> > only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
> > summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
> > greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a
> > Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how
> > the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out
> > of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His
> > fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
> > thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
> > ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
> > blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
> > be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
> > And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
> > suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
> > ancient world some two thousand years ago a civilization which was
> > driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
>
> > - Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of 12 April 1922
>
> As we can see: anyone can claim to be a Christian.
Including you.
> In 1922, Hitler was posturing for future power before a Christian
> nation.
Nice to hear the sound of the point whistling by over your head.
> > We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
> > conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
> > whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our
> > ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement
> > is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and
> > Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own
> > people.
>
> > - Adolf Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
>
> And when he rose to power, Hitler desecrated Church altars with feces,
> murdered any Christian who opposed him, and declared himself the
> German Messiah.
Citation, please.
chris thompson
snip
>
> Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> to it, and exhibit relations with it.
See Ray? We're all Christians! Even Dana Tweedy and Ron Okimoto and me
and John Harshman! (Since Wilkins is an Australian you can keep
railing about him.)
Chris
Klaus Hellnick
Wasn't it religious fanatics in the Eisenhower administration who put
that motto on paper money and ALTERED THE ORIGINAL pledge of allegiance
in the 50s?
Klaus
deadrat
Like you?
> In 1922, Hitler was posturing for future power before a Christian
> nation.
>
>> We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
>> conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
>> whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our
>> ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement
>> is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and
>> Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own
>> people.
>>
>> - Adolf Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
>>
>
> And when he rose to power, Hitler desecrated Church altars with feces,
> murdered any Christian who opposed him,
Bullshit. When Hitler decided to eliminate mental defectives from hospitals
in the effort to purify the race, administrators and Catholic clergy opposed
the program and got it halted.
> and declared himself the German Messiah.
And all those good Christians followed him anyway.
> Ray
>
> [....]
>
>
Mike Dworetsky
> On Oct 30, 12:42 pm, UC <uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 3:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
>>> without God and the Bible."
>>
>>> Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend
>>> of government is because Christianity is the only religion that
>>> changes the heart."
>>
>>> James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
>>> Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
>>> founded."
>>
>>> John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
>>> given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty
>>> as well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to
>>> select and prefer Christians for their rulers."
>>
>>> Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
>>> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
>>> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
>>> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often
>>> refer to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>>
>>> Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme
>>> Court; the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in
>>> the Pledge of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>>
>>> http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
"In God We Trust" was placed on American coins as a reaction to the
slaughter of the American Civil War, not because the Constitution said it
should be there.
"Under God" was added by Eisenhower in order to counter official communist
atheism and was inspired by the "reds under the bed" menace, in effect,
trying to tell the people that Americans were not commies, see? So
basically it was cold war propaganda, not a religious mandate.
As a strategy, pretty pointless.
Again, the pledge of allegiance left out the two words until the 1950s. I
can remember reciting it every day as a little kid, "one nation invisible"
or something like that. Nothing about God.
How does all this differ in any essential from the German soldiers of both
world wars having "Gott Mit Uns" on their belt buckles? And how successful
were they as a result?
>>
>> Teddy Roosevelt opposed putting the motto on coins.- Hide quoted
>> text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> You mean the guy who placed his hand on the Bible when taking the Oath
> of Office?
TR is among the few Presidents who did *not* take their Oath with a hand on
the Bible. John Quincy Adams used a law book instead of a Bible. Franklin
Pierce affirmed on a law book instead of swearing on a Bible.
> So?
>
> What's the point?
>
> How many President's supported?
>
> Your point (as usual) is pointless.
>
> Ray
--
Mike Dworetsky
(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)
Mike Dworetsky
More likely a tapeworm.
"Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right
to use the editorial "we.""
-Mark Twain
>
>> can indeed explain why Darwinism has succeeded in their
>> corruptions of Christian society.
>
> To you, anyone who isn't a Bible thuming creationist is a
> "darwinist". As far as "corruption of Christian society", corruption
> pretty much been the case scince Christianity arose. Look at the
> corruption of the "Christian societies" during the "dark ages" when
> "Christianity" pulled the strings of governments. As far as modern
> society, in general, it's no more corrupt now than any society has
> been since the beginning of human "society". Actually, probably less
> corrupt than it was when "The Church" ruled.
>
>
> Boikat
--
g...@risky-biz.com
interact with religion? Should the government be able to advocate for
one religious belief over another? Teach one variety of religion in
public schools?
Let's approach it in a few other ways.
1. I was raised Catholic in a neighborhood where most of the Catholic
families sent their kids to the local Catholic school. As a
consequence, there were exactly three Catholic kids in my public
school class. At least half of the kids were Jewish, the rest Lutheran
and other denominations. If (group, aloud) prayer had been allowed in
public schools, they'd have had to be Jewish prayers, or at the very
least, non-Catholic prayers. Do you think they should have been
allowed? Or perhaps, being a "Christian Nation", some specific variety
of Christian prayers should have been recited, even if they didn't
represent the beliefs of many (or any) in the class?
2. There are quite a few countries in the world that do, to one degree
or another, allow the government to favor one religion, and disfavor
or even prohibit others. Would you prefer to live in any of those
countries? Assuming your answer would be no, do you really think that
the reason is simply because the favored religion is the wrong one?
3. Do you believe that "freedom of religion" is a good thing? If yes,
do you believe that a country whose government can favor one religion
over another can claim to have freedom of religion?
4. You seem to take it as a point of pride that you have chosen the
narrow path. Your religious ideas are not popular. I think you even
believe that the unpopularity of "correct" beliefs is predicted in
Scripture. What happens to people who hold "unpopular" beliefs in
countries without a "separation" between Church and State?
Greg Guarino
David Hare-Scott
> George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> without God and the Bible."
>
> Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> the heart."
>
> James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
> Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> founded."
>
> John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> prefer Christians for their rulers."
>
> Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>
> Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
> the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>
> http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
Supposing for the sake of argument that the USA was established as a
strictly Christian country and that the courts saw the error of their ways
and re-interpreted the constitution so that there was no separation of
church and state.
Should leaders still be elected by popular vote? If not how would they be
chosen?
How would the chosen leaders determine which of the many Christian sects the
state should support? Which one is that in your view?
What effect would that have on the other Christians and other religions and
the non religious?
David
wiki trix
wrote:
More like "Atheisten Raus". I don't get the impression he has a big
issue with Juden. At least not yet.
raven1
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
>government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
>the heart."
Cite please? Jefferson very explicitly rejected the divinity of Jesus.
wiki trix
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> >government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> >the heart."
>
> Cite please? Jefferson very explicitly rejected the divinity of Jesus.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Christianity_is_the_best_friend_of_government
Of course, Jefferson is the greatest founder of the nation, but he did
have some politics to deal with, and was not perfect.
wiki trix
> On Oct 30, 6:57 pm, raven1 <quoththera...@nevermore.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> > <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> > >government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> > >the heart."
>
> > Cite please? Jefferson very explicitly rejected the divinity of Jesus.
>
>
> Of course, Jefferson is the greatest founder of the nation, but he did
> have some politics to deal with, and was not perfect.
Also, note that he said: "Christianity is the best friend of
government". And that is very true. He did not say that Christianity
is correct, or that it is good, or that government is inherently good
either. Just that it is "the best friend of government". And I am
sure most here would agree that is very true (give to Caesar what is
Caesar’s, etc.).
As for the bit about: "Christianity is the only religion that changes
the heart", well, it does do that, I guess, if you rig up the right
definition for "heart". Take the inquisition, the 30 years war,
crusades... lots of hearts changed... But again, he does not say if
the change is for the better or the worse.
So I guess I endorse Ol' Jeffers on that quote after all.
deadrat
Both of these happened in the 1950s, but the motto appeared on coins starting in
1864. For the pledge, it wasn't so much religious fanaticism, but commiephobia.
Burkhard
> On Oct 30, 12:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> > without God and the Bible."
>
> > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> > government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> > the heart."
>
> > James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
> > Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> > founded."
>
> > John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> > given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> > well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> > prefer Christians for their rulers."
>
> > Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> > entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> > identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> > institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> > to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>
> > Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
> > the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> > of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>
> >http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
>
> egregious quote-mining of Jefferson by Judges who are Darwinists.
repeating the nonsense does not make it more true.
Chief Justice Waite, an Episcopalian,n for the court, citing
Jefferson's dictum, in the
1878 decision Reynolds v. United States, my highlights:
""I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole
American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no
law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of SEPARATION BETWEEN CHURCH
STAE. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the
nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere
satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore
man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in
opposition to his social duties."
Wait was Episcopalian, concurring in the unanimous decision were a
member of the conservative Dutch Reformed Church,a Quaker, a
Presbyterian and a Calvinist/Congregationalist
You are, as always, flat out wrong.
Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of
the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration
of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured."
> The
> fact that no act of separation occurred prior to the 20th century
> corroborates the fact. Only Darwinists "see" separation of Church and
> State in the Constitution. The words themselves are not in the
> Constitution. The point: Darwinists have corrupted the Constitution so
> that it reflects their pro-Atheism theory. Darwinists have imposed
> Atheism values into a Document written under the presupposition of
> Theism.
>
> Ray
Burkhard
> On Oct 30, 12:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> > without God and the Bible."
>
> > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> > government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> > the heart."
>
> > James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
> > Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> > founded."
>
> > John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> > given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> > well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> > prefer Christians for their rulers."
>
> > Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> > entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> > identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> > institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> > to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>
> > Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
> > the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> > of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>
> >http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
>
> "Separation" is a 20th century invent and corruption based on
> fact that no act of separation occurred prior to the 20th century
> corroborates the fact. Only Darwinists "see" separation of Church and
> State in the Constitution. The words themselves are not in the
> Constitution. The point: Darwinists have corrupted the Constitution so
> that it reflects their pro-Atheism theory.
Several of the most important 1 Amendment decisions were written by
Justice Hugo Black, including McCollum v. Board of Education and
Engel v. Vitale. Black was a deeply devout Christian and very active
member of the First Baptist Church. He was also in his court decisions
an outspoken advocate of textualism and originalism, insisting on a
literal interpretation of the text in the way the audience would have
understood it at the time of the drafting. Yet even he had no doubt
whatsoever, based on the expressed opinion of the drafters, that the
"wall between church and state" is exactly what the first Amendment
demands.
To characterise him as an atheists who bends the text of the
constitution about as wrong as you can get.
Frank J
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> >government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> >the heart."
>
> Cite please? Jefferson very explicitly rejected the divinity of Jesus.
Even GWB dared to call Jesus a "philosopher." I think I would have
been expelled had I said that in Catholic school.
Walter Bushell
<9bfaf37f-0142-4a32...@s4g2000yql.googlegroups.com>,
Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
No "fine" here means the same as "fine" in Read the Fine Manual.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
Harry K
>
> - Show quoted text -
You have been goaded to actually _write_ it for over 10 years now and
still haven't put pencil to paper.
Harry K
Mike Lyle
I don't think he does, either. But it would be good if he could see
where the quotations lead. E.g.: "And it is the duty as well as the
privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and prefer
Christians for their rulers."
--
Mike.
Buddythunder
Even a wacky ole liar like you!
> In 1922, Hitler was posturing for future power before a Christian
> nation.
>
> > We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
> > conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
> > whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our
> > ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement
> > is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and
> > Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own
> > people.
>
> > - Adolf Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
>
> And when he rose to power, Hitler desecrated Church altars with feces,
LOL! I've never come across that one before, got a cite?
<small snip>
Buddythunder
> On Oct 30, 1:06 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > > On Oct 30, 12:52 pm, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On Oct 30, 2:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> > > > > without God and the Bible."
>
> > > > > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> > > > > government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> > > > > the heart."
>
> > > > > James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
> > > > > Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> > > > > founded."
>
> > > > > John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> > > > > given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> > > > > well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> > > > > prefer Christians for their rulers."
>
> > > > > Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> > > > > entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> > > > > identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> > > > > institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> > > > > to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>
> > > > > Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
> > > > > the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> > > > > of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>
> > > > everyone that the Soviet Union was the "Godless evil enemy".
>
> > > So?
>
> > > It was added with full knowledge of our Christian past, too.
>
> > No, it was added for propaganda purposes, nothing else.
>
> Truth is not propaganda.
>
>
>
> > > > Personally, I see no difference between a "godless evil enemy", and a
> > > > "God-smacked religious evil enemy".
>
> > > > BTW, how's you paper coming along?
>
> > > Just fine.
>
> > In other words, "Dead in the water".
>
> "Just fine" means just the opposite.
>
> > No worries, it was a flop to begin with.
>
> > Boikat- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> You are simply goading me to hurry up and finish. And you have every
> reason to worry.
Damn right, I would love to read it! Sadly, you'll always find weasel
ways to deny us the lunacy. I'll start to worry once it's out and the
Theory of Evolution is in tatters the way the faithful have been
saying it is for 150 years.
RAM
Leave it to Ray to give a literal interpretation to making up shit.
Zuca Treangeli
> On Oct 30, 12:56 pm, Boikat<boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 2:47 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Oct 30, 12:03 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
>>>> without God and the Bible."
>>
>>>> Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
>>>> government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
>>>> the heart."
>>
>>>> James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
>>>> Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
>>>> founded."
>>
>>>> John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
>>>> given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
>>>> well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
>>>> prefer Christians for their rulers."
>>
>>>> Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
>>>> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
>>>> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
>>>> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
>>>> to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>>
>>>> Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
>>>> the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
>>>> of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>>
>>>> http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
>>
>>> egregious quote-mining of Jefferson by Judges who are Darwinists. The
>>> fact that no act of separation occurred prior to the 20th century
>>> corroborates the fact. Only Darwinists "see" separation of Church and
>>> State in the Constitution. The words themselves are not in the
>>> Constitution. The point: Darwinists have corrupted the Constitution so
>>> Atheism values into a Document written under the presupposition of
>>> Theism.
>>
>> and everything to do with civil liberties, specifically. freedom from
>> having religion -any religion- imposed on any citizen, by the
>> government or the state. That is the bottom line, whether you like it
>> or not.
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>
> And we can indeed explain why Darwinism has succeeded in their
> corruptions of Christian society.
>
> Ray
>
Don't you feel "EVERYONE" that doesn't believe exactly what you do, is a
Darwinist?
And if so, doesn't that mean that your statement that "Darwinism
succeeds in their corruptions of Christian society" is simply because
your definition of a Darwinist is too broad?
It's kinda like self fulfilling conspiracy theory.
Darwinists will one day rule the world, EVERYONE is a darwinist... See,
I was right.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e8e5d0ef-2bc4-42d3...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
A whole pile of quote mining bull shit, lies andinsanity.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
> On Oct 30, 12:13 pm, wiki trix <wikit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 12:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > without God and the Bible."
>>
>> > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
>> > government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
>> > the heart."
>>
>> > James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
>> > Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
>> > founded."
>>
>> > John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
>> > given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
>> > well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
>> > prefer Christians for their rulers."
>>
>> > Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
>> > entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
>> > identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
>> > institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
>> > to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>>
>> > Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
>> > the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
>> > of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>>
>> >http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
>>
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> 20th century corruption of the Constitution.
>
> Ray
No; most of us do agree, though, that you are one ignorant, arrogant,
mentally corrupt moron.
bobsyo...@yahoo.com
> George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> without God and the Bible."
>
> Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> the heart."
>
> James Madison: "The future and success of America is not in this
> Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> founded."
>
> John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> prefer Christians for their rulers."
>
> Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>
> Today, the Ten Commandments are represented in the U.S. Supreme Court;
> the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
Yo!
Prune brain.
The pledge was createdn long after 1776.
"In god we trust" was added in the early '50's, after extensive lobbying by
the Knights of Columbus.
A small group can, and often does, get laws passsed, by lobbying, that are
NOT in agreement with the majority of Ameericans.
Many things are represented in the murals in the Supreme Court building. One
of them, alone, means very little.
Jefferson was a deist - NOT a christians.
John Marshall, if he really ever said that, is a jackass.
There are MANY different religions and types of believers in the United
States.
Anyone who passed the second grade would know that - which, obviously,
brings into question the educational achievements of you and Marshal.
Stuart
>
> >> So?
>
> >> What's the point?
>
> > That there were those who opposed that phrase being put on government
> > coins.
>
> >> How many President's supported?
>
> > A few.
>
> >> Your point (as usual) is pointless.
>
> > As usual, Ray, you are shown ignorant of history.
> > DJT
>
> Wasn't it religious fanatics in the Eisenhower administration who put
> that motto on paper money and ALTERED THE ORIGINAL pledge of allegiance
> in the 50s?
> Klaus
Spurred on by McCarthyites.
Stuart
Mark Buchanan
> On Oct 30, 12:03 pm, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> "Separation" is a 20th century invent and corruption based on
>
If this is true could you give us your interpretation of the
establishment clause?
Mark
Ray Martinez
Ray Martinez
> On Sat, 30 Oct 2010 12:03:48 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>
> >Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of
> >government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> >the heart."
>
> Cite please? Jefferson very explicitly rejected the divinity of Jesus.
The quote doesn't say that he accepted the Divinity of Jesus.
Ray
Boikat
And the comments at the bottom of the article are enough to call into
question the conclusions of the author, who BTY, is an Associate
Professor of Economics.
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> On Oct 31, 7:56 am, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Oct 30, 12:58 pm, username_not_fo...@yahoo.com.au wrote:
>
> > > I say: my feeling as a Christian points me to my Lord and Saviour as a
> > > fighter. It points me to the man who once in loneliness, surrounded
> > > only by a few followers, recognized these Jews for what they were and
> > > summoned men to the fight against them and who, God's truth! was
> > > greatest not as sufferer but as fighter. In boundless love as a
> > > Christian and as a man I read through the passage which tells us how
> > > the Lord at last rose in His might and seized the scourge to drive out
> > > of the Temple the brood of vipers and of adders. How terrific was His
> > > fight for the world against the Jewish poison. Today, after two
> > > thousand years, with deepest emotion I recognize more profoundly than
> > > ever before the fact that it was for this that He had to shed His
> > > blood upon the Cross. As a Christian I have no duty to allow myself to
> > > be cheated, but I have the duty to be a fighter for truth and justice.
> > > And as a man I have the duty to see to it that human society does not
> > > suffer the same catastrophic collapse as did the civilization of the
> > > ancient world some two thousand years ago a civilization which was
> > > driven to its ruin through this same Jewish people.
>
> > > - Adolf Hitler, Munich speech of 12 April 1922
>
> > As we can see: anyone can claim to be a Christian.
>
>
> > In 1922, Hitler was posturing for future power before a Christian
> > nation.
>
>
> > > We are a people of different faiths, but we are one. Which faith
> > > conquers the other is not the question; rather, the question is
> > > whether Christianity stands or falls... We tolerate no one in our
> > > ranks who attacks the ideas of Christianity ... in fact our movement
> > > is Christian. We are filled with a desire for Catholics and
> > > Protestants to discover one another in the deep distress of our own
> > > people.
>
> > > - Adolf Hitler, speech in Passau, 27 October 1928
>
> > And when he rose to power, Hitler desecrated Church altars with feces,
> > German Messiah.
>
> Citation, please.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
"The Third Reich In Power" (2005)
Professor of Modern History at Cambridge University, Richard J.
Evans.
"In July of 1935....a speaker told a meeting of the Nazi Students'
League in Bernau: 'One is either a Nazi or a committed Christian.'
Christianity he said, 'promotes the dissolution of racial ties and of
the national racial community....We must repudiate the Old and the New
Testaments, since for us the Nazi idea alone is decisive. For us there
is only one example, Adolf Hitler and no one else (p.250).'"
"The mother of a twelve year-old Hitler Youth found the following text
in his pocket....it was also sung in public by the Hitler Youth at the
1934 Nuremberg Party Rally.
We are the jolly Hitler Youth, We don't need any Christian truth
For Adolf Hitler, out Leader always is our interceder....
We follow not Christ but Horst Wessel....I'm not a Christian, nor a
Catholic. I go
with the SA through thin and thick
Not the cross they sang, but 'the swastika is redemption on earth
(pages 250-51).'"
[END QUOTE]
"Nazism's use of quasi-religious symbols and rituals was real enough,
but it was for the most part more a matter of style than substance.
'Hitler's studied usurpation of religious functions,' as one historian
has written, 'was perhaps a displaced hatred of the Christian
tradition: the hatred of an apostate.' The real core of Nazi beliefs
lay in the faith Hitler proclaimed in his speech of September 1938 in
science - a Nazi view of science - as the basis for action. Science
demanded the furtherance of the interests not of God but of the human
race, and above all the German race and its future in a world ruled by
the ineluctable laws of Darwinian competition between races and
between individuals (p.259)."
"The Third Reich" by Michael Burleigh (2000).
"Nazi assaults on the clergy and Christianity were so crude - up to
and including smearing excrement on altars and Chuch doors...." (p.
261)
"Hitler 1936 - 1945: Nemesis" by Ian Kershaw (2000).
"Hitler's impatience with the Churches prompted frequent outbursts of
hostility. In early 1937, he was declaring that 'Christianity was ripe
for destruction'....and that the Churches must yield to the primacy
of
the state, railing against any compromise with 'the most horrible
institution imaginable'" (pages 39, 40).
Ray
Ray Martinez
>
> - Show quoted text -
And the author of the above comment is an ordinary Darwinist writing
under a pseudonym.
Ray
Boikat
And the author of the above comment is a god-smacked egomaniac with
delusions of grandure.
Your point?
Boikat
Ray Martinez
> I'd like to ask you again then, how would YOU have the government
> interact with religion?
The same way it did prior to the 20th century.
> Should the government be able to advocate for
> one religious belief over another? Teach one variety of religion in
> public schools?
>
Since the Constitution presupposes Biblical Theism, yes. Only one
entity or view can occupy the top spot. Two things cannot occupy the
same place at the same time. Currently (since the 40s) Atheism
occupies the top spot.
John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select
and
prefer Christians for their rulers."
Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
to it, and exhibit relations with it."
The entire Church/State 20th century separation is based on something
Jefferson said in a letter, not the Constitution. So we will use the
quotes above in the exact same way. A Judge will someday quote them
and reverse the modern day quote-mining of Jefferson by Darwinists.
This will happen after Christ returns to earth. Society will progress
back to the way it was before the 1940s. The corruption of the
Constitution by Darwinists is an End Times event. The Bible predicted
a great falling away before the Great Tribulation period.
> Let's approach it in a few other ways.
>
> 1. I was raised Catholic in a neighborhood where most of the Catholic
> families sent their kids to the local Catholic school. As a
> consequence, there were exactly three Catholic kids in my public
> school class. At least half of the kids were Jewish, the rest Lutheran
> and other denominations. If (group, aloud) prayer had been allowed in
> public schools, they'd have had to be Jewish prayers, or at the very
> least, non-Catholic prayers. Do you think they should have been
> allowed? Or perhaps, being a "Christian Nation", some specific variety
> of Christian prayers should have been recited, even if they didn't
> represent the beliefs of many (or any) in the class?
>
These comments say that religious pluralism demands that the baby be
thrown out with the bathwater.
> 2. There are quite a few countries in the world that do, to one degree
> or another, allow the government to favor one religion, and disfavor
> or even prohibit others. Would you prefer to live in any of those
> countries? Assuming your answer would be no, do you really think that
> the reason is simply because the favored religion is the wrong one?
>
Already answered.
> 3. Do you believe that "freedom of religion" is a good thing? If yes,
> do you believe that a country whose government can favor one religion
> over another can claim to have freedom of religion?
>
Already answered.
> 4. You seem to take it as a point of pride that you have chosen the
> narrow path. Your religious ideas are not popular. I think you even
> believe that the unpopularity of "correct" beliefs is predicted in
> Scripture. What happens to people who hold "unpopular" beliefs in
> countries without a "separation" between Church and State?
>
> Greg Guarino
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> "Ray Martinez" <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I am relieved to be considered an "ignorant, mentally corrupt moron"
by persons who think apes morphed into men over the course of millions
of years.
Ray
Ray Martinez
If a view produced by scholarship can be dismissed based entirely on
the comments of non-scholars (including yourself), which is what you
did, then that dismissal can be dismissed using the same criteria,
which is what I did.
Ray
Ray Martinez
> On 30 Ott, 20:03, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote opinions
> of slave owners who considered Native Americans annoying pests.
20th century Darwinists base their entire case for separation on what
one particular slave owner said in one letter, not the Constitution.
Of course, what that slave owner said was taken out of context. He
never said the Constitution says that Government must be secularized.
If that were true how come it never happened until the 20th century?
Ray
Vend
Nonsense. Supporters of separation between church and state base their
position on its own merit. Appeal to authority is for religious
fanatics, not for secularists.
Burkhard
a) it happened in middle-to-late 19th century
b) It did not happen earlier because religious minorities before then
were too small, to poor or too afraid to take cases to the court, and
hence the practices by the majority did not get challenged.
you are of course free to prove me wrong on B) by citing a pre-20th
century SCOTUS decision that does _not_ separate the State and church.
As soon as the issue came before the court, it decided consistently in
favour of separation.
Dana Tweedy
Ray, humans are apes, as the evidence clearly shows. You run away
from this evidence, which indicates you know that humans are apes.
It make no more sense to say that "apes morphed into men" than to say
"birds morphed into chickens".
You are quite aware that by any reasonable and objective
classification, humans are apes. There's no reason why it would be
incredible to accept that humans are a species of ape.
If you wish to be seen as foolish and ignorant by reasonable and
educated persons, trying to deny that humans are not apes certainly
will get you that wish.
DJT
DJT
Dana Tweedy
No, what you did was use a logical fallacy. Care to try again?
DJT
>
> Ray
Dana Tweedy
Note that you are employing the fallacy of ad hominem. Even if the
author is an "ordinary Darwinist", how does that make his comment
wrong? Even if the author uses a pseudonym, how does that make his
comment wrong?
DJT
Dana Tweedy
Jefferson was quite clear on his opinion that church and state be
separate. You seem to be cherry picking your data here. Your idea
that it was "Darwinism" that caused the Supreme Court to rule against
religious belief being enforced by the state is absurd on it's face.
DJT
Burkhard
Even the most outspoken secularists tend to think that in legal
interpretation, authority and arguments from authority matter and are
potentially valid. What authorities, and to what extend, can be to
some degree debatable though.
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 1, 1:37 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Ott, 20:03, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote opinions
> > of slave owners who considered Native Americans annoying pests.
>
> 20th century Darwinists base their entire case for separation on what
> one particular slave owner said in one letter, not the Constitution.
Actually, "Darwinists" had nothing to do with Supreme Court
decisions. It's not merely Jefferson's words, but those of James
Madison, and other key writers of the Constitution that influenced the
Court's decision. Jefferson himself had little to do with writing
the Constitution, as he was out of the country when the Constitution
was written.
Separation of Church and State was clearly intended by the founders.
If not, it would have been quite easy for them to have established
Christianity as the religion of the new country. Instead, they wrote
language that prevented any religion from being supported by the
state.
>
> Of course, what that slave owner said was taken out of context.
do you have any evidence that Jefferson was taken out of context?
> He
> never said the Constitution says that Government must be secularized.
That's what the 1st amendment does. Jefferson didn't write that,
Madison did.
> If that were true how come it never happened until the 20th century?
As already shown, the government was considered secular long before
the 20th century. Why not just admit you were wrong?
DJT
Kermit
The quote is also a lie, typical of certain Christian propagandists.
From http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Christianity_is_the_best_friend_of_government
"Earliest known appearance in print: 2001
[Steve Russo, Why Celebrate Easter (Nashville, TN: B & H Publishing
Group, 2001), 83.2]
Other attributions: None known.
Status: This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of
Thomas Jefferson. "
Because you never acknowledge the possibility of error, you have never
gotten in the habit of checking your sources.
Kermit
Kermit
> On Nov 1, 1:37 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Ott, 20:03, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote opinions
> > of slave owners who considered Native Americans annoying pests.
>
> 20th century Darwinists base their entire case for separation on what
> one particular slave owner said in one letter, not the Constitution.
In this context, Jefferson is only an expert in what he, at least,
understood the first amendment to mean. Note that he was Madison's
mentor.
>
> Of course, what that slave owner said was taken out of context. He
> never said the Constitution says that Government must be secularized.
> If that were true how come it never happened until the 20th century?
Like Christians finally recognizing the moral depravity of slavery, it
sometimes takes a group of people many generations to mature. I
imagine that we have quite a ways to go yet.
>
> Ray
Kermit
deadrat
It's been going on since the beginning of the Republic.
> Ray
>
>
Dana Tweedy
> On Oct 30, 3:59 pm, "g...@risky-biz.com" <g...@risky-biz.com> wrote:
>
> > I'd like to ask you again then, how would YOU have the government
> > interact with religion?
>
> The same way it did prior to the 20th century
Before the 20th Century, the government was prohibited from
interacting with religion by the 1st amendment.
>
> > Should the government be able to advocate for
> > one religious belief over another? Teach one variety of religion in
> > public schools?
>
> Since the Constitution presupposes Biblical Theism, yes.
Where do you get the idea that Constitution "presupposes" Biblical
Theism? Do you have any evidence to support that statement?
> Only one
> entity or view can occupy the top spot.
Which is why the 1st amendment prohibits the government from
supporting any religious belief.
>Two things cannot occupy the
> same place at the same time.
Physically perhaps, but not abstract concepts.
>Currently (since the 40s) Atheism
> occupies the top spot.
Atheism does not occupy the "top spot" anywhere in US culture, or
government. Where do you get that idea?
>
> John Jay, first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court: "Providence has
> given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select
> and
> prefer Christians for their rulers."
Again a good reason why the 1st amendment exists, to stop this kind of
religious bigotry from being enforced by the government.
>
> Chief Justice John Marshall (1833): "The American population is
> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> to it, and exhibit relations with it."
Even if Marshall had said this, it was wrong even in Marshall's
time. There has always been non Christians who were US citizens.
This includes Jews, Muslims, American Indian religious traditions,
Deists, and yes, atheists too. The intent and purpose of the 1st
amendment was to prevent the majority religion from forcing other
religious believers from being persecuted.
>
> The entire Church/State 20th century separation is based on something
> Jefferson said in a letter, not the Constitution.
Actually, Ray, it comes from a clear reading of the 1st amendment. It
goes beyond Jefferson's words, even if he was the first to use such a
term.
> So we will use the
> quotes above in the exact same way. A Judge will someday quote them
> and reverse the modern day quote-mining of Jefferson by Darwinists.
"Darwinists" have nothing to do with Constitutional law, Ray. Your
paranoid fantasies have nothing to do with reality. The idea that
someone will reverse the protections in the 1st amendment should be
your worst fear, not your dream. If those protections were removed,
you, with your weird and unpopular religious views would be among the
first to be up against the wall.
> This will happen after Christ returns to earth. Society will progress
> back to the way it was before the 1940s. The corruption of the
> Constitution by Darwinists is an End Times event. The Bible predicted
> a great falling away before the Great Tribulation period.
Ray, this whole "corruption by Darwinists" is your own bizarre
fantasy. The theory of evolution is a scientific theory, not a legal
position. Judges by and large don't care about biological theories.
Your paranoia and hatred of the fact of evolution doesn't make your
weird and unsupported beliefs true.
>
> > Let's approach it in a few other ways.
>
> > 1. I was raised Catholic in a neighborhood where most of the Catholic
> > families sent their kids to the local Catholic school. As a
> > consequence, there were exactly three Catholic kids in my public
> > school class. At least half of the kids were Jewish, the rest Lutheran
> > and other denominations. If (group, aloud) prayer had been allowed in
> > public schools, they'd have had to be Jewish prayers, or at the very
> > least, non-Catholic prayers. Do you think they should have been
> > allowed? Or perhaps, being a "Christian Nation", some specific variety
> > of Christian prayers should have been recited, even if they didn't
> > represent the beliefs of many (or any) in the class?
>
> These comments say that religious pluralism demands that the baby be
> thrown out with the bathwater.
No, it simply means that religious freedom demands that government not
support any particular religious position. Freedom from the religion
of others is a necessary condition of religious freedom.
>
> > 2. There are quite a few countries in the world that do, to one degree
> > or another, allow the government to favor one religion, and disfavor
> > or even prohibit others. Would you prefer to live in any of those
> > countries? Assuming your answer would be no, do you really think that
> > the reason is simply because the favored religion is the wrong one?
>
> Already answered
No, merely avoided by running away.
>
> > 3. Do you believe that "freedom of religion" is a good thing? If yes,
> > do you believe that a country whose government can favor one religion
> > over another can claim to have freedom of religion?
>
> Already answered.
No, just avoided.
>
> > 4. You seem to take it as a point of pride that you have chosen the
> > narrow path. Your religious ideas are not popular. I think you even
> > believe that the unpopularity of "correct" beliefs is predicted in
> > Scripture. What happens to people who hold "unpopular" beliefs in
> > countries without a "separation" between Church and State?
I've been telling you the same thing, Ray. In the kind of theocracy
you seem to want, you'd be on the the victims, not one of the
rulers.
>
DJT
Boikat
For instance, like the way you dismiss scholars and scientists who
actually understand science, biology, and the theory of evolution?
Aside from being an arrogant ass, you're also a hypocrite.
Boikat
Vend
Yet separation between church and state is a philosophical principle
from the Enlightment.
Burkhard
Sure, but the question to what extend, if any, it is reflected in the
US constitution requires to some extend arguments from authority.
What the framers meant is one, though not necessarily decisive, valid
argument from authoritative source in this context, as are
authoritative court decisions, both pre- and post constitution.
That of course leaves open the possibility to argue that it is a very
good principle that ought to be observed even if it were not in the
constitution. But that is a somewhat different question.
Vend
The question was why "20th century Darwinists" (Ray's codename for
modern secularists) support separation of church and state. The
content of the US constitution is marginally relevant to the issue.
Burkhard
I think you got that thread backwards. His claim in the OP is that the
separation of state and church was not envisaged in the constitution,
but that 20th century Darwinist ( and I agree, with that he means
essentially anyone with an education) read it into it, based on (what
he thinks) is an inappropriate use of authority (Jefferson's letter).
In the post you replied to, he then offered other authorities which in
his view support a different reading of the first Amendment.
He is of course dead wrong with this, but the thread is indeed about
the first Amendment, and arguments from authority hence appropriate
in principle.
chris thompson
> On Oct 30, 11:55 am, Klaus Hellnick <khelln...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On 10/30/2010 3:07 PM, Dana Tweedy wrote:
>
> > > On Oct 30, 1:53 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> On Oct 30, 12:42 pm, UC<uraniumcommit...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>> On Oct 30, 3:03 pm, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > >>>> George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> > >>>> without God and the Bible."
>
> > >>>> government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes
> > >>>> the heart."
>
> > >>>> Constitution but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is
> > >>>> founded."
>
> > >>>> given to our people the choice of their rulers. And it is the duty as
> > >>>> well as the privilege and interest of a Christian nation to select and
> > >>>> prefer Christians for their rulers."
>
> > >>>> entirely Christian, and with us Christianity and Religion are
> > >>>> identified. It would be strange indeed, if with such a people, our
> > >>>> institutions did not presuppose Christianity, and did not often refer
> > >>>> to it, and exhibit relations with it.
>
> > >>>> the coins of America say, "In God We Trust," and we say in the Pledge
> > >>>> of Allegiance, "One nation under God."
>
> > >>>>http://www.itwillpass.com/Moses-Ten-Commandments-1-Supreme-Court.jpg
>
>
> > >>> - Show quoted text -
>
> > >> of Office?
>
> > > Ray, Teddy didn't use a Bible when he took his oath of office.
> > >http://www.neatorama.com/2008/02/06/trivia-teddy-roosevelt-not-sworn-...
>
> > >> So?
>
> > >> What's the point?
>
> > > That there were those who opposed that phrase being put on government
> > > coins.
>
> > >> How many President's supported?
>
> > > A few.
>
> > >> Your point (as usual) is pointless.
>
> > > As usual, Ray, you are shown ignorant of history.
> > > DJT
>
> > Wasn't it religious fanatics in the Eisenhower administration who put
> > that motto on paper money and ALTERED THE ORIGINAL pledge of allegiance
> > in the 50s?
> > Klaus
>
> Spurred on by McCarthyites.
>
> Stuart
Yes, it was more to distinguish the US from the USSR than for any
religious reason.
Chris
Andrew Haley
> George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> without God and the Bible."
I found it highly unlikely that Washington would so clumsily split an
infinitive, so I did a web search. It turns out that although this
"quotation" has spread far and wide, there is no record of such a
statement ever having been made by him.
> Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend
> of government is because Christianity is the only religion that
> changes the heart."
This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
Earliest known appearance in print: 2001
I didn't look at the rest.
Andrew.
http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Category:Spurious_Quotations
wiki trix
wrote:
Even if TJ never said that, the first part is still quite true.
Religion is the best friend of government... especially big
reactionary totalitarian murderous deceptive government. A good friend
of a bad thing is not a good thing.
The part about "christianity is the only religion that changes the
heart" just does not sound like any TJ writings that I have ever seen.
But even smart people say dumb things now and then. So I was not sure.
Kermit
> On Nov 1, 1:37 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> > On 30 Ott, 20:03, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote opinions
> > of slave owners who considered Native Americans annoying pests.
>
> 20th century Darwinists base their entire case for separation on what
> one particular slave owner said in one letter, not the Constitution.
I was raised in a religious denomination - the Southern Baptist
Convention - that was founded in order to *maintain slavery in the
USA.
There are no Darwinists. Do you mean scientists?
I don't see how scientists can hold opinions on the meaning of the
constitution qua scientists. Constitutional opinions would be Legal,
historical, philosophical, linguistic, or social.
>
> Of course, what that slave owner said was taken out of context. He
> never said the Constitution says that Government must be secularized.
> If that were true how come it never happened until the 20th century?
>
> Ray
For one thing, the first amendment only limits the *federal government
from establishing a religion.
However, the fourteenth amendment says that states (and by implication
all local governments) cannot limit citizens' constitutionally
protected rights. IIRC it was passed in 1870. It took a few
generations to work through a backlog of local laws limiting religious
freedom, free speech, etc. There are still a few laws on the books
requiring religious tests for political office, for example. But they
have not been enforced in quite some time, and therefore have not been
challenged in court.
If it were not for the fourteenth amendment, you could be found guilty
of heresy in some states (you do not hold to mainstream, majority
Christian doctrine in all locations (maybe not in any)).
Kermit
Erwin Moller
In that case: Ray, you are an ignorant, mentally corrupt moron.
It is my pleasure to please you.
But I wonder: Do you have any objective grounds (as in not from some
holy book) to reject the notion that humans are not apes?
>
> Ray
>
Regards,
Erwin Moller
--
"There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
-- C.A.R. Hoare
Ray Martinez
Naivete.
Not only was Jefferson quote-mined, separation is motivated and based
on implacable hatred of the Bible and Christianity.
No act of separation ever occurred until Darwinists came to power in
the 20th century. Of course the numerous denials in this thread are
never supported by any evidence showing the Bible, 10 Commandments,
Creationism or prayer experiencing separation prior to 1940.
What happened in the 1940s?
Darwinists finally accepted natural selection (biological synthesis)
while the Nazis were in the field selecting their perceived enemies
for extinction. Federal Judges, all of them Darwinists, began their
anti-Bible/Christianity campaign.
> Appeal to authority is for religious
> fanatics, not for secularists.
I do agree that these secularists, despite their credentials, are not
real scholars or authorities. They are angry Atheists who have been
rejected by God: that's why they do what they do. The atheization or
de-enlightenment of Government, Science, Law, Higher Education, Media
are End Times characteristics.
That's why the Atheism agenda succeeds (temporarily): the wrath of God
upon blasphemers.
Ray
Ray Martinez
wrote:
I wouldn't use any of the quotes in the OP in a formal paper unless I
had a scholarly source. I assume them correct here for informal
purposes. I think I could support at least 2 of the quotes in the OP
via scholarly sources (the Jay and Marshall quotes).
As for the Jefferson quote: it is not really essential, however. Are
you saying the 2001 source is not scholarly?----and that because the
quote cannot be verified on the Internet it is therefore not genuine?
Do you have any idea as to the amount of correspondence produced by
Jefferson (I certainly do)?
Ray
Dana Tweedy
> On Nov 1, 12:24 pm, Vend<ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>> On 1 Nov, 20:08, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Nov 1, 1:37 am, Vend<ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 30 Ott, 20:03, Ray Martinez<pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote opinions
>>>> of slave owners who considered Native Americans annoying pests.
>>
>>> 20th century Darwinists base their entire case for separation on what
>>> one particular slave owner said in one letter, not the Constitution.
>>
>>> Of course, what that slave owner said was taken out of context. He
>>> never said the Constitution says that Government must be secularized.
>>> If that were true how come it never happened until the 20th century?
>>
>> Nonsense. Supporters of separation between church and state base their
>> position on its own merit.
>
> Naivete.
>
> Not only was Jefferson quote-mined, separation is motivated and based
> on implacable hatred of the Bible and Christianity.
Do you have any evidence to support this absurd suggestion?
>
> No act of separation ever occurred until Darwinists came to power in
> the 20th century.
As you've been shown, that's clearly untrue.
> Of course the numerous denials in this thread are
> never supported by any evidence showing the Bible, 10 Commandments,
> Creationism or prayer experiencing separation prior to 1940.
Why would that be relevant?
>
> What happened in the 1940s?
World War II.
>
> Darwinists finally accepted natural selection (biological synthesis)
> while the Nazis were in the field selecting their perceived enemies
> for extinction. Federal Judges, all of them Darwinists, began their
> anti-Bible/Christianity campaign.
There's no evidence that suggests that Federal Judges are "Darwinists",
or that separation of church and state is "anti-Bible" or
"anti-Christianity".
"Selecting their perceived enemies for extinction" has nothing to do
with actual evolutionary theory, or how evolution actually works.
Natural selection is a description of how the environment acts on
populations, not how humans act toward other people. You are confused,
and expressing your own paranoia and hate filled fantasies.
>
>> Appeal to authority is for religious
>> fanatics, not for secularists.
>
> I do agree that these secularists, despite their credentials, are not
> real scholars or authorities.
Of course a "real scholar" must be someone you agree with. Otherwise
their work doesn't matter.
> They are angry Atheists who have been
> rejected by God:
what evidence do you have that their are either atheist, or "angry"?
> that's why they do what they do. The atheization or
> de-enlightenment of Government, Science, Law, Higher Education, Media
> are End Times characteristics.
There is no such "atheization". You again are expressing your own
paranoia.
>
> That's why the Atheism agenda succeeds (temporarily): the wrath of God
> upon blasphemers.
That makes no sense. Again, you are simply giving in to your own
paranoia, fear, and hatred. There is no "atheism agenda", and no
blasphemy in protecting religious freedom.
DJT
Burkhard
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 1, 12:24�pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> > On 1 Nov, 20:08, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Nov 1, 1:37�am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> >
> > > > On 30 Ott, 20:03, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote opinions
> > > > of slave owners who considered Native Americans annoying pests.
> >
> > > 20th century Darwinists base their entire case for separation on what
> > > one particular slave owner said in one letter, not the Constitution.
> >
> > > Of course, what that slave owner said was taken out of context. He
> > > never said the Constitution says that Government must be secularized.
> > > If that were true how come it never happened until the 20th century?
> >
> > Nonsense. Supporters of separation between church and state base their
> > position on its own merit.
>
> Naivete.
>
> Not only was Jefferson quote-mined, separation is motivated and based
> on implacable hatred of the Bible and Christianity.
>
> No act of separation ever occurred until Darwinists came to power in
> the 20th century. Of course the numerous denials in this thread are
> never supported by any evidence showing the Bible, 10 Commandments,
> Creationism or prayer experiencing separation prior to 1940.
You haven't been able to give a single SCOTUS decision prior to 1940
that said prayers in public schools are constitutional. As soon as
the court had to decide the issue, it decided it in favour of
separation.
>
> What happened in the 1940s?
Immigration of groups other than white protestants, especially Jewish,
but also Catholics, and generally rising numbers of religious
minorities - Jehova's witnesses e.g. increased massively after 1930.
With bigger, more affluent and more self- confident minorities
around, challenges to the majority through the court system became
feasible. Before that, they had been bullied into submission.
Burkhard
Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Nov 2, 4:59�am, Andrew Haley <andre...@littlepinkcloud.invalid>
> wrote:
> > Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> > > without God and the Bible."
> >
> > I found it highly unlikely that Washington would so clumsily split an
> > infinitive, so I did a web search. �It turns out that although this
> > "quotation" has spread far and wide, there is no record of such a
> > statement ever having been made by him.
> >
> > > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend
> > > of government is because Christianity is the only religion that
> > > changes the heart."
> >
> > This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
> > Earliest known appearance in print: 2001
> >
> > I didn't look at the rest.
> >
> > Andrew.
> >
> > http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Category:Spurious_Quot...
>
> I wouldn't use any of the quotes in the OP in a formal paper unless I
> had a scholarly source. I assume them correct here for informal
> purposes. I think I could support at least 2 of the quotes in the OP
> via scholarly sources (the Jay and Marshall quotes).
>
> As for the Jefferson quote: it is not really essential, however. Are
> you saying the 2001 source is not scholarly?
It does not matter if it is "scholarly" - it does not give a cite to
the original document and is therefore useless.
----and that because the
> quote cannot be verified on the Internet it is therefore not genuine?
> Do you have any idea as to the amount of correspondence produced by
> Jefferson (I certainly do)?
Then you'll also know that all, or almost all of it has been digitised
and made available in electronic format, which can easily be
searched - which is exactly what the monticello.org website did,
trawling through the comprehensive, online available texts. It is of
course possible that snippets of his work are not available in
electronic format, but the onus woudl be on the person that think it
is genuine to provide a reference to the place from where it is
supposed to come.
> Ray
Ray Martinez
> Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Nov 1, 12:24 pm, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
> > > On 1 Nov, 20:08, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 1, 1:37 am, Vend <ven...@virgilio.it> wrote:
>
> > > > > On 30 Ott, 20:03, Ray Martinez <pyramid...@yahoo.com> wrote opinions
> > > > > of slave owners who considered Native Americans annoying pests.
>
> > > > 20th century Darwinists base their entire case for separation on what
> > > > one particular slave owner said in one letter, not the Constitution.
>
> > > > Of course, what that slave owner said was taken out of context. He
> > > > never said the Constitution says that Government must be secularized.
> > > > If that were true how come it never happened until the 20th century?
>
> > > Nonsense. Supporters of separation between church and state base their
> > > position on its own merit.
>
> > Naivete.
>
> > Not only was Jefferson quote-mined, separation is motivated and based
> > on implacable hatred of the Bible and Christianity.
>
> > No act of separation ever occurred until Darwinists came to power in
> > the 20th century. Of course the numerous denials in this thread are
> > never supported by any evidence showing the Bible, 10 Commandments,
> > Creationism or prayer experiencing separation prior to 1940.
>
> You haven't been able to give a single SCOTUS decision prior to 1940
> that said prayers in public schools are constitutional.
No one can support a negative, Einstein.
Produce positive evidence to the contrary (which you do below).
> As soon as
> the court had to decide the issue, it decided it in favour of
> separation.
>
Yep, a 20th century court educated in a college or university that is
wholly pro-Darwin/Naturalism.
Ray
[....]
Ray Martinez
"Federal judges are Creationists."
"A ruling of unconstitutionality is not 'anti' but 'pro.'"
Quality evidence proving that this person is deluded. (And we know
that this person is a Darwinist.)
Ray
> "Selecting their perceived enemies for extinction" has nothing to do
> with actual evolutionary theory, or how evolution actually works.
> Natural selection is a description of how the environment acts on
> populations, not how humans act toward other people. You are confused,
> and expressing your own paranoia and hate filled fantasies.
>
>
>
> >> Appeal to authority is for religious
> >> fanatics, not for secularists.
>
> > I do agree that these secularists, despite their credentials, are not
> > real scholars or authorities.
>
> Of course a "real scholar" must be someone you agree with. Otherwise
> their work doesn't matter.
>
> > They are angry Atheists who have been
> > rejected by God:
>
> what evidence do you have that their are either atheist, or "angry"?
>
> > that's why they do what they do. The atheization or
> > de-enlightenment of Government, Science, Law, Higher Education, Media
> > are End Times characteristics.
>
> There is no such "atheization". You again are expressing your own
> paranoia.
>
>
>
> > That's why the Atheism agenda succeeds (temporarily): the wrath of God
> > upon blasphemers.
>
> That makes no sense. Again, you are simply giving in to your own
> paranoia, fear, and hatred. There is no "atheism agenda", and no
> blasphemy in protecting religious freedom.
>
> DJT- Hide quoted text -
Ray Martinez
Personal observation corroborated by science.
Ray
>
>
> > Ray
>
> Regards,
> Erwin Moller
>
> --
> "There are two ways of constructing a software design: One way is to
> make it so simple that there are obviously no deficiencies, and the
> other way is to make it so complicated that there are no obvious
> deficiencies. The first method is far more difficult."
> -- C.A.R. Hoare- Hide quoted text -
Burkhard
Nobody asked you to. You are asked to support a positive - a single
SCOTUS decision prior to 1940 that rules the use of prayer in public
schools legal.
As to "no one can't support a negative" - that is equally wrong, in
finite domains. I can very easily prove that there is no pre-1940
SCOTUS decision that rules use of prayers in public schools legal,
simply by going through the finite number of pre-1940 SCOTUS decisions
(all available online)
Simply parroting a misunderstood epistemological maxim is not a good
idea, especially when trying to be condescending.
Ray Martinez
wrote:
> > George Washington : "It is impossible to rightly govern the world
> > without God and the Bible."
>
> I found it highly unlikely that Washington would so clumsily split an
> infinitive, so I did a web search.
Are you saying something allegedly written in the 18th century is
grammatically incorrect?
Ray
> It turns out that although this
> "quotation" has spread far and wide, there is no record of such a
> statement ever having been made by him.
>
> > Thomas Jefferson: "The reason that Christianity is the best friend
> > of government is because Christianity is the only religion that
> > changes the heart."
>
> This quotation has not been found in any of the writings of Thomas Jefferson.
> Earliest known appearance in print: 2001
>
> I didn't look at the rest.
>
> Andrew.
>
> http://wiki.monticello.org/mediawiki/index.php/Category:Spurious_Quot...
Ray Martinez
<Since_humans_read_this_I_am_spammed_too_m...@spamyourself.com> wrote:
Only Darwinists, as one might expect, believe the Bible un-objective.
Everyone else knows that whatever God says is objective.
Ray
Burkhard
Nope, a 19th century court led by an Episcopalian, with the
concurring judges members of the
conservative Dutch Reformed Church, Quaker, Presbyterian and
Calvinist/Congregationalist respectively
Burkhard
Ray Martinez wrote:
<snip>
> >
> > There's no evidence that suggests that Federal Judges are "Darwinists",
> > or that separation of church and state is "anti-Bible" or
> > "anti-Christianity".
> >
>
> "Federal judges are Creationists."
>
> "A ruling of unconstitutionality is not 'anti' but 'pro.'"
Well, Martin Luther King thought so:
On Abington Township School District v. Schempp, which outlawed school-
led prayer in public schools:
“I endorse it. I think it was correct. Contrary to what many have
said, it sought to outlaw neither prayer nor belief in God. In a
pluralistic society such as ours, who is to determine what prayer
shall be spoken, and by whom? Legally, constitutionally or otherwise,
the state certainly has no such right. I am strongly opposed to the
efforts that have been made to nullify the decision. They have been
motivated, I think, by little more than the wish to embarrass the
Supreme Court. When I saw Brother Wallace going up to Washington to
testify against the decision at the congressional hearings, it only
strengthened my conviction that the decision was right.”
And here a Baptist view endorsing with sound theological and
historical arguments the separation of state and church as the best
thing that can possibly happen to religion:
http://www.abpnews.com/content/view/5307/
Note in particular;
"There is no question that most Americans cherish their religious
identity and that religion is on display, not just in our homes and
houses of worship, but in the public generally. It is a natural
consequence of the freedom our Constitution protects. However, when
religious monuments are displayed on government property in a context
that aligns the government with a religious message, our freedom is
threatened.
Shouldn’t every historic Baptist oppose those (even if it is a fellow
church member) who would act as “king” over the consciences of others
by using the state to promote a favored faith? If we stand against
religious establishments, how can we sit back and let the government
choose which Scripture or symbols to promote on behalf of its
citizens? Aren’t those decisions best left to the consciences of
individuals and faith communities?"