Deleting Christ from Christmas!
Lance Ferm
Christmas!
Demon Steve Winter <steve....@prime.org> wrote in article
<36f7e6c0....@news.chudys.com>...
> -={ PreRapture BBS 919-286-2100 33600bps / Telnet to PRIME.ORG }=-
> http://www.prime.org Home of the PRIME Christian Network
> Check the web site for info as 3 god cults embrace sub canine morals.
>
http://home.earthlink.net/~wakeupcall/
Archer
Lance Ferm wrote in message <01be2af9$ae6795c0$42f5d9cf@wakeupcall>...
>Notice in stever the deceiver's website that he has "X" out CHRIST from
>Christmas!
X is a symbol for Christ. It is the first Greek letter, the chi, in the
Greek word Christos.
Lance Ferm
concept.
http://home.earthlink.net/~wakeupcall/
Archer <rar...@nospam.mindspring.com> wrote in article
<75hgr5$fc5$1...@camel25.mindspring.com>...
Lance Ferm
non-believers who speak and write English.
Archer
Lance Ferm wrote in message <01be2bb4$3b8915e0$7af3d9cf@wakeupcall>...
>And I speak and write English. It was non-Christians who adapted "xmas"
>concept.
Really? How do you know this?
The DataRat
Atheists in Usenet -especially the more
obnoxious ones- have adopted the practice
of referencing Christians as "Xians".
The DataRat
michael burt
United States believed that the establisment clause should be intrepreted
as separation of church and state as it is currently applied, statements
by the founding fathers clearly present a vastly different picture.
John Quincy Adams said ³The highest glory of the [American] Revolution was
that it united in one indissouluble bond the principles of Christianithy
and the principles of civil government²
Although the establishment clause was clearly intended to grant freedom of
religion for everyone, there was also a clear intent for the then new
government to encourage Christianity and confirms the interrelated
concepts of Christianity and civil government in the US which successfully
produced the greatest nation in the world and a unique American, Christian
culture that people from many other cultures and religions voluntarily
want to participate in by choice. The phrase separation of church and
state, a flawed concept imputed to the Constituion and completely absent
from the text, actually separates America from God and makes
athiesim/humanism the de facto state religion. This was clearly not the
intention of John Quincy Adams and the founding fathers which every US
dollar bill bears witnesses to.
Although American culture is open to anyone who wishes to support, defend,
and uphold the Constitution, compromise or dilution of American culture
with other cultural concepts of misapplied diversity and multiculoturalism
can at times undermine the Constitution and proove unproductive for all.
A divided house will not stand. Some apply diversity in a way that can be
divisive and perilious to the generous host culture, this does not support
the indissouluble bond of the principles of Christianity and the
principles of civil government. The United States is not a multicultural
nation, but a unicultural nation open to all people irrespective of their
cultures, beliefs, and religions on the condition that they support the
concepts, principles, and Constitution of Christian American culture.
Immigrants have always cherished their anciient cultural and religions
heritage; but at the same time, subjected their future to that of their
new, chosen culture.
If we truly become multicultural, our nation will fail. If we believe in
everything, we will stand for nothing. We do whata we do because we
believe what we believe. If we believe everything, we can do nothing.
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
William Jarrell
>
> For those who try to convince people that the founding fathers of the
> United States believed that the establisment clause should be intrepreted
> as separation of church and state as it is currently applied, statements
> by the founding fathers clearly present a vastly different picture.
>
"The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
Christian religion?"
> John Quincy Adams said ³The highest glory of the [American] Revolution was
> that it united in one indissouluble bond the principles of Christianithy
> and the principles of civil government²
>
> Although the establishment clause was clearly intended to grant freedom of
> religion for everyone, there was also a clear intent for the then new
> government to encourage Christianity and confirms the interrelated
> concepts of Christianity and civil government in the US which successfully
So you're saying that taxpayer money should be used to promote your
religion?
> produced the greatest nation in the world and a unique American, Christian
> culture that people from many other cultures and religions voluntarily
> want to participate in by choice. The phrase separation of church and
> state, a flawed concept imputed to the Constituion and completely absent
> from the text, actually separates America from God and makes
> athiesim/humanism the de facto state religion.
No, it guarantees respect for religious freedom by having a
government that does not show partiality to any religion. A Jewish
school kid should not have to be subjected to New Testament readings in
public school any more than a Baptist school kid should have to put up
with Book of Mormon reading.
> This was clearly not the
> intention of John Quincy Adams and the founding fathers which every US
> dollar bill bears witnesses to.
>
You're forgetting that Jefferson and Franklin were deists.
> Although American culture is open to anyone who wishes to support, defend,
> and uphold the Constitution, compromise or dilution of American culture
> with other cultural concepts of misapplied diversity and multiculoturalism
> can at times undermine the Constitution and proove unproductive for all.
Like it or not the cultural diversity does exists. The rights of
minorities should be respected in public places such as public schools
and municipal buildings.
> A divided house will not stand. Some apply diversity in a way that can be
> divisive and perilious to the generous host culture,
> this does not support
> the indissouluble bond of the principles of Christianity and the
> principles of civil government. The United States is not a multicultural
> nation, but a unicultural nation open to all people irrespective of their
> cultures, beliefs, and religions on the condition that they support the
> concepts, principles, and Constitution of Christian American culture.
But what if an individual or a particular subculture does not
conform to this dominant culture of yours. Let's take "blue laws" for
example. I suppose this dominant Christian culture of yours would like
to re-establish "blue laws" that prohibit certian activities on Sunday.
But atheists and Seventhday Adventists do abide by this particular form
of sabbatarianism. Why should they be forced to? If an atheist wants to
open his shoe store on Sundays and sell sneakers to Seventhday
Adventists isn't that their freedom even if goes against this dominant
host culture of yours? Or do you believe that freedom is only the
freedom to conform to Christian particular Christian practices. If the
Seventhday Adventist would rather take Saturday off and shop or go to
the movies on Sundays he can't because the "host culture" won't let him.
> Immigrants have always cherished their anciient cultural and religions
> heritage; but at the same time, subjected their future to that of their
> new, chosen culture.
>
> If we truly become multicultural, our nation will fail. If we believe in
> everything, we will stand for nothing. We do whata we do because we
> believe what we believe. If we believe everything, we can do nothing.
>
But people do believe everything. I think their beliefs should be
recognized and respected.
- William Jarrell
Othmer
Christianty etc:
Johm Adams: Letter to F.A. Van Der Kamp 1809-1816
"How has ir happened that millons of myths, fables, legends and tales have
been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them
the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with sordid and
detestable purposes of superstition and fraud"
George Washington: Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
"Religious controversis are always productive of more acrimony and
irreconilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had
hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the
Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of
Society"
It would appear that our Founding Fathers had little regard for Christians
and there bickering back and forth.
Jim Carew
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
William Jarrell wrote in message <368933...@bellsouth.net>...
Hunter Int.
(In all fairness to those who are truly interested, either print this baby
out, or read it off-line...)
Man, you've got to be kidding. Do you think anybody is buying this line of
stupidity you're giving us? Especially when historical documents all point
the other way? Listen, you may be able to be played for a fool, but Mrs.
Steiger didn't raise any fools, and I'm going to repost my usual response to
guys like you as soon as I am done 'deconstructing' the SAME two 'quotes'
you offer everytime the subject comes up.
It's always the same two, as if it's the 'only' thing you need to support
the whole theory, match, set game. What nonsense!!
(What people will do to get away from the truth!!)
Let's see, last we heard, you kept giving us...
>Johm Adams: Letter to F.A. Van Der Kamp 1809-1816
>
>"How has ir happened that millons of myths, fables, legends and tales have
>been blended with Jewish and Christian fables and myths and have made them
>the most bloody religion that has ever existed? Filled with sordid and
>detestable purposes of superstition and fraud"
YES!! And he's right, too! In what way does this support your claim, Jim,
what does it prove? He's merely making a statement of fact, and one that's
every bit as true today as it was in his own time! My God, whatever do you
'see' between the lines here?
Do you even have a clue as to what he is referring to here? Can you think
of the myriad of examples history gave him to draw upon? Think about it,
and let us know... Jim, get a grip boyo, because you haven't EVEN
considered what Adams was speaking about here.
You 'think' (and I'm being rather generous here...) that he's 'dissing'
Christianity, when in fact, he's merely pointing out an obvious truth; That
if left in the hands of biased and corrupted men, their 'beliefs' will bring
destruction. It's simply a statement of fact, not one of his own 'opinions'
regarding his faith.
Now, let's look at a REAL quote or two, BY John Adams, and then you tell me
what old Jim's scholarship abilities amount to...
"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor
of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and
manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments
and who are rising in reputation and wealth, publically to DECLARE their
unsatisfactoriness by BECOMING FERVENT ADVOCATES in the cause of Christ; and
I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."
(Letter to his wife, ~1774...)
Next, we have...
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the
general principles of Christianity. Now I will avow that I THEN believed,
and NOW believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as
ETERNAL and IMMUTABLE as the existence and attributes of God. I could
therefore safely say, consistently with ALL my then and present information,
that I believed they would NEVER make discoveries in contradiction to these
general principles."
(Letter toThomas Jefferson, who had some rather unusual beliefs of the Bible
himself...)
Wow, what a statement of faith!!!!!!!
Man, I could go on, and ON!! Jim, you just haven't done your homework, pal,
so step to the rear until you're really ready to play...
Moving on, you thought you 'had us' with ol' George when you quoted...
>George Washington: Letter to Sir Edward Newenham, June 22, 1792
>
>"Religious controversis are always productive of more acrimony and
>irreconilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. I had
>hoped that liberal and enlightened thought would have reconciled the
>Christians so that their religious fights would not endanger the peace of
>Society"
Again, WHAT IS YOUR POINT!! My God, what in the world have you decided this
proves? This example is NO different in nature than the one you claimed was
so damaging by John Adams.
Washington was a MAJOR league believer, pal, not a bush league one. He's
merely making a statement of fact, not personal opinion regarding his level
of faith, or anything like that.
Now, let's see what the 'REAL' Washington had to say regarding his faith...
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and ABOVE ALL, the
religion of JESUS CHRIST. These will make you a greater and happier people
than you are. Congress will do EVERY THING they can to assist you in this
wise intention."
(Washington to the Deleware Indian Chiefs, 1779...)
Well, Jim, since that has to be a 'fluke', read this for me...
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers,
we certainly ought not to be attentative to the HIGHER duties of religion.
To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our HIGHEST GLORY to
ADD the MORE DISTINGUISHED character of Christian."
(George Washington to the Continental Army, 1778)
Before I get to the long winded stuff, Jim left us with this 'grand
finale'...
>It would appear that our Founding Fathers had little regard for Christians
>and there bickering back and forth.
HAH! Jim, it only appears to mne that you're dumber than a box of rocks!
Puh-leeze!!
Anyway, I hope someone out there gets the point. The point is this: Guys
like Jim know about 2 or 3 nebulous quotes at best, and then they're all set
to go to town. I sincerely hope you are smarter than that. I certainly
hope that you can see for yourself that the society we live in was NOT the
Original Intent of the founding fathers.
Now, I will leave you with the normal bunch of 'real' long facts and figures
I offer when Jim spouts off.
It's really, REALLY long, so print it out, or read it off-line.
Warmest reagards,
Dave Steiger...
(Begin long winded stuff...)
GEORGE WASHINGTON - 1755 FRENCH & INDIAN WAR
In the French & Indian war in 1755, George Washington commanded 1300
troops against the Indians in a woodland battle. Washington's officers (on
horseback) and most of his troops were cut down. At the end of the battle
Washington was the only officer that remained & still on horseback.
Afterwards he found 4 bullet holes in his jacket & wrote to his wife that
God had protected him.
Fifteen years later, the Indian chief that fought against Washington
traveled a good distance to meet him when he heard that he was in the area
of the
battleground. This chief stated that he had commanded his braves to
concentrate on killing Washington and had personally shot at him 17 times.
He wanted to meet the man that "God wouldn't let die".
This exciting story and Washington's letter, used to be in the American
history books. In an effort to degrade American heroes that depended on God,
American history books are being revised and this story & letter have been
removed in
this century.
PATRICK HENRY - AN AMERICAN PATRIOT
He is known for his saying "Give me liberty or give me death." He also said
"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often, that this great nation
was
founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the
gospel
of Jesus Christ."
AMERICAN TRACT SOCIETY - AMERICAN BIBLE SOCIETY (and others)
It is interesting that the Founders of the Constitution of the U.S. were
the same people that were among the Founders of the early religious
evangelical
societies that are still in existence today. In 1813 the American Tract
Society bound together their tracts from many years past into a book and the
names
of many of the Founders are included.
THE NEW ENGLAND PRIMER - 1795
The New England Primer was a reader used in what would be our 1st grade.
It was first introduced in 1690 and taught for 200 years in America, until
1900.
The Alphabet was taught with Bible verses that begin with each letter of the
alphabet. Also lessons had questions about the Bible and the Ten
Commandments.
JOHN QUINCY ADAMS
With the education that had a Godly influence, John Quincy Adams
received an appointment to Ambassador to Russia at 14 years of age. He later
wrote "The highest glory of the American Revolution was this: that it tied
together in
one indissoluble bond, the principles of civil government with the
principles of
Christianity."
JOHN JAY
Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the
three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution of the U.S.
He said
"Providence has given to our people the choice of their Rulers, and it is
the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to
select & prefer Christians for their Rulers." How long has it been since the
Supreme
Court said to make sure you elect Christians for your leaders? We have lost
this
guidance which made our country great.
GEORGE WASHINGTON - PRESIDENTIAL FAREWELL SPEECH
Washington was a public servant for 45 years. He was President of the
convention that gave us the Constitution. He called for the 1st Amendment
Bill of Rights. After 2 terms as President, he gave a farewell speech which
was
heralded as the most significant political speech ever given to the nation.
It has
since been removed from American history books and it would be rare to find
it in
any for at least the last 30 years. Why? - In it he said "Of all the habits
and
dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are
indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Apparently the
people
writing our history books want to change what our children are taught about
the
connection between political prosperity and religion and morality.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
"If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without God's notice, how can nation
rise without His assistance?"
FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
The form of government established by the Founders of the U.S. has
lasted over 200 years. Some other countries have undergone many different
forms during this same period; such as France, 7 forms & Italy 40 forms.
MEN MOST QUOTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE U.S.
Political Science professors at the University of Houston wondered if
there was something unique about the government of the U.S. They gathered
15,000
quotes from the Founders and located where all of them came from. They then
boiled that down to 3,154 quotes that had significant impact on the founding
of America. It
took them 10 years to finish the project, but they found that the three men
most
quoted by the Founding fathers were Blackstone, Montesquieu, and John Locke.
They
also found that the Bible was quoted:
4 times more often than Montesquieu,
12 times more often than Blackstone, and
16 times more often than Locke.
Additionally, 34% of all quotes were from the Bible, and another 60% of
the quotes were from men who were using the Bible to arrive at their
conclusions. Added together, 94% of all the quotes of the Founders had
their origin in
the Bible, which shows the importance of God's word in their lives and of
this
Nation's founding.
BLACKSTONE'S COMMENTARY & CHARLES FINNEY
Blackstone's Commentary on the Law, introduced in 1758, became the law
textbook for lawyers for 160 years, and the Supreme Court quoted from it to
settle
cases. It gave Bible verse references to the law. For instance the three
branches
of government are based on Isaiah 33:22, the separation of powers is based
on
Jeremiah 17, and the tax exemption for Churches on Ezra 7:24. Countries even
next to the U.S., such as Canada and Mexico, don't have tax exemption for
churches.
While Finney was studying to become a lawyer, he became a Christian and
then a well known Evangelist in the 1800's, primarily because he saw the
truth of
the Bible verse references in Blackstone's Commentary.
SUPREME COURT - 1844 - VIDAL VS GIRARD
A Philadelphia school wanted to teach morals without using the Bible.
The Court said "Why may not the Bible, and especially the New Testament, be
read and taught as a divine revelation in the schools? Where can the purest
principals of
morality be learned so clearly or perfectly as from the N.T."
Any book teaching good morality would certainly be teaching what the
N.T. teaches, so why not use the original source which doesn't change.
SUPREME COURT - 1892 - CHURCH OF THE HOLY TRINITY VS U.S.
In another challenge the court ruled "Our laws and our institutions must
necessarily be based upon and embody the teachings of the Redeemer of
mankind, and it's impossible that it should be otherwise: and in this sense
and to this
extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian."
The court
also quoted 87 different historical precedents to back up its decision, from
the
Founding Fathers, Acts of the Founding Fathers, Acts of Congress, etc, etc.
SUPREME COURT - 1811 - PEOPLE VS RUGGLES
There was a man who made attacks on Jesus in such a blasphemous way that
it made it to the Supreme Court and the court ruled: "Whatever strikes at
the
root of Christianity tends manifestly to the dissolution of civil
government." They
reasoned that if you attack Jesus, you have attacked Christianity, & if you
have attacked Christianity, you have attacked the foundation of the U.S.,
therefore an attack on Jesus or Christianity was equivalent to an attack on
the
foundation of the U.S.
"SEPARATION", "CHURCH", & "STATE" do NOT appear in the CONSTITUTION
Many people think it is part of the 1st Amendment, but it is not. The
1st Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishing
of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
What the Founders DID NOT want was any ONE DENOMINATION of the Christian
religion to run the nation. They wanted to stay away from what they had left
in England, where the King was the head of the Church. However the Founding
Fathers and the Supreme Court were quite clear that Christianity was the
established
religion, and WAS to be involved in the government. This is evident in the
Supreme Court decision of 1796, Thomas Jefferson's letter of 1802, and many
other
writings.
SUPREME COURT - 1796 - RUNKEL VS WINEMILLER
"By our form of government the Christian religion is the established
religion, and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed on the
same equal
footing."
January 1, 1802 LETTER from PRESIDENT THOMAS JEFFERSON
To the DANBARY BAPTIST, of CONNECTICUT
In 1801 the Danbary Baptist Church heard a rumor that the
Congregationalist Denomination was going to be made the National
Denomination. This disturbed them as it well should. Jefferson answered in
his letter: "The 1st Amendment has erected a wall of separation between
church and state, but that wall is a one directional wall, it keeps the
government from running the church, but it
makes sure that Christian principles will always stay in government."
Please read that very carefully, it is supposed to protect the church
from the government, not the government from the church. And it is supposed
to
guarantee that Christian principles will always stay in government. This is
where the
"wall of separation" originated, but it was another 146 years before a
non-Christian, liberal, Supreme Court distorted and reversed what the
Founders meant the Constitution to do.
The Congress went through twelve different iterations before determining
the final wording. It is evident from the other wordings that what they
wanted
was to always have God's principles in government, but not to have one
denomination
running the nation, or any interference from the government into religion.
The 1st Amendment reads: "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishing of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
RESPONSE FROM THE HOUSE AND SENATE - 1853
Minority groups from time to time did keep trying to change things to
their way of thinking and in 1853 there was a group that petitioned Congress
for the
separation of Christian principles from government. The House and Senate had
a one year investigation of the matter.
The House Judiciary Committee on March 27, 1854 reported: "Had the
people during the revolution, had any suspicion of any attempt to war
against
Christianity, that revolution would have been strangled in its cradle." The
Senate also made a similar statement.
The report continued: "At the time of the adoption of the Constitution
and the Amendments, the universal sentiment was that Christianity should be
encouraged, but not any one sect. In this age there can be no substitute for
Christianity. That was the religion of the Founders of the Republic and they
expected it
remain the religion of their descendants."
"The great, vital and conservative element in our system is the belief
of our people in the pure doctrines and the divine truth of the gospel of
Jesus
Christ."
SUPREME COURT - 1878 - REYNOLDS VS U.S.
After 1853 for the next 50 years or so there were some other cases that
worked their way through the courts and challenged Christian principles in
government. Each time precedents were cited such as Jefferson's letter and
they were
defeated. One of the cases was in 1878. Thomas Jefferson's letter was
referred to in
its entirety. It was repeated that the 1st Amendment is to protect the
Church
from the government, and Christian principles are never to be separated from
the
government.
SUPREME COURT - 1947 - EVERSON VS BOARD OF EDUCATION
For the very first time in Court history, only eight words were used
from Jefferson's letter. They were taken out of context and a brand new
meaning
applied, which reversed their original intent. The Court stated: "The 1st
Amendment erected a wall between Church and State. That wall must be kept
high and impregnable." It didn't recognize that the wall was intended to be
a one way
wall to keep government out of religion.
DR. WILLIAM JAMES - FATHER OF MODERN PSYCHOLOGY
In the 1940's the Supreme Court and many other courts were being
influenced by the philosophy of James who was a strong opponent of religion
in government. He had said: "There is nothing so absurd that if you repeat
it often enough, people will believe it."
The phrase "Separation of Church & State" began being repeated over and
over and this is born out in a court case in Bear vs Colmorgan(sp?) in 1958.
The
Judge said: "If this court doesn't stop talking about the Separation of
Church and
State, everyone's going to think that's what the Constitution says."
SUPREME COURT - JUNE 25,1962 - ENGLE VS VITALE
This is the landmark case that removed prayer from the public schools.
It was even noted in the 1963 World Book Encyclopedia that this was the
first time
that we had separation of religious principles from public education.
The amazing thing is that it was done without citing any precedent from
other cases as is the normal procedure. Instead it was an entirely new
statement
not based on any historical or legal base. There were no quotes from
previous
legal cases! Instead, it was a brand new doctrine which according to all the
previous legal decisions WAS IN VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION! Nevertheless
it took precedent over all the previous interpretations of the Constitution
which
had cited many precedents that disagreed with this new ruling.
THE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" PRAYER
The case was over a 22 word prayer which the Court said later was a "to whom
it may concern prayer", a very bland prayer that mentioned God only once,
and Jesus not at all. It read: "We acknowledge our dependence on thee, and
we beg thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers, and our country."
The Declaration of Independence was written & approved by the same
people as the Constitution and it refers to God four times. Yet it has never
been
declared unconstitutional.
The prayer deals with four areas however which have been dealt with
prior to 1963 in a way which was in agreement with the Biblical principles.
After
1963 the courts have reversed their position in these areas, which are:
us --- (students) parents --- (families)
teachers --- (schools) country --- (nation)
SUPREME COURT - JUNE 17,1963 - MURRAY VS CURLETT
This was the Madeline Murray O'Hare case against school prayer.
SUPREME COURT - JUNE 17,1963 - ABINGTON VS SCHEMPP
Previous Courts had said that you couldn't have a school that didn't
teach Christian principles based on the Bible. Early textbooks quoted the
Bible
and used it for teaching the alphabet. This case reversed previous decisions
and made
a brand new statement! It removed Bible reading and instruction from public
schools and stated: "If portions of the N.T. were read without explanation,
they
could be, and had been, psychologically harmful to the child." How could
such a
statement be made by anyone who knows that the Founders of this successful
government of America was due to their belief in the N.T. as essential to
the well being
of the nation and its' people?
At the time of the 1963 Court cases, they took a survey to determine how
many people believed in God or religion. They found that only 3% didn't
believe
in God or religion. Although the prayer was consistent with 97% of the
people, the
Court ruled with the 3%. This is the first time that 3% became a majority
under
which the 97% now had to live by.
What happened in 1962-63 in a 12 month period was a RADICAL REVERSAL of
everything that had happened up to that point. Removal of prayer, Bible
reading and religious classes in instruction was totally against the
Constitution,
but these NEW RULINGS were simply ANNOUNCED by the Supreme Court as if a
dictator had taken over.
BIBLE STUDY COURSE FOR DALLAS HIGH SCHOOLS
As late as 1946 there was a Bible Study Course that was a requirement
for graduation. After 1963, what had been standard for so many years, was
not
even an option to be taught anymore. The freedom of speech and religion had
been
censored in the public schools!
FURTHER CENSORSHIP & LOSS OF FREEDOM OF SPEECH & RELIGION
GUARANTEED BY THE CONSTITUTION
1965 The Supreme Court declared it unconstitutional for a student to
pray aloud.
1967 The Supreme Court declared a four line Nursery rhyme used by a K-5
Kindergarten class was unconstitutional, even though it didn't
contain the word "God." The Court said: "If someone heard it, it might
cause someone to think of God." (Now we have censorship of our thoughts
we might think!)
These kinds of court cases continued and in 1980 there was one
concerning what is called a "Passive Display."
SUPREME COURT - 1980 - STONE VS GRAHAM
A "passive display" would be like something hanging on a wall like a
picture, which doesn't require that you pay any attention to it unless you
want to.
There was a passive display of the Ten Commandments hanging in a school
hallway
with no requirement to read it.
The Court ruled it was unconstitutional to display it in a school. They
said: "If the posted copies of the Ten Commandments are to have any affect
at all,
it will be to induce the school children to read, meditate upon, perhaps..
to
venerate and obey the commandments; this is not a permissible objective."
Just think, if it caused children to respect their parents or to decide not
to
steal or kill... that would be unconstitutional!
What kind of mind-set is this, that is in charge of preserving our
freedom? If he Ten Commandments had come from some philosopher instead of
the Bible, would not they still be allowed in schools and held in high
regard? When the Court says it's unconstitutional, aren't they saying that
it's not what the writers of
the Constitution had in mind when they wrote it? Look at what James Madison
wrote.
JAMES MADISON - THE MAN MOST RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONSTITUTION
"We have staked the whole future of American civilization not on the
power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all of our
political
institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us to govern ourselves
according to the Ten Commandments of God."
Note that the Founders based everything, not on the Constitution, but on
the Ten Commandments, which 200 years later an out of touch Court says
should
not even be displayed because it would not be permissible for it to be
obeyed.
THE DOWNWARD SPIRAL OF NATIONAL MORALITY IN AMERICA
SINCE THE REJECTION OF GOD IN 1963, GEORGE WASHINGTON gave a warning when he
said: "Reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality
can prevail in exclusion of religious principle." In other words, you will
lose national morality when you reject the religious principles found in the
Bible.
CONSIDER THE FOUR AREAS THAT THE "UNCONSTITUTIONAL" PRAYER DEALT WITH AND
HOW THE LOSS OF NATIONAL MORALITY HAS AFFECTED THOSE AREAS
A. us - (the students)
1. Before 1963 pregnancies in girls ages 15 through 19 years had been
no more than 15 per thousand for 15 years. After 1963 pregnancies
increased 187% in the next 15 years.
2. For younger girls, ages 10 to 14 years, pregnancies since 1963 are
up 553%.
3. Before 1963 sexually transmitted diseases among students were 400
per 100,000. Since 1963, they were up 226% in the next 12 years.
B. parents - (families)
1. Before 1963 divorce had been declining for 15 years. After 1963
divorces increased 300% each year for the next 15 years.
2. Since 1963 unmarried people living together is up 353%
3. Since 1963 single parent families are up 140%.
4. Since 1963 single parent families with children are up 160%.
C. teachers - (schools)
1. The educational standard of measure has been the SAT scores. SAT
scores had been going along rather steady for many years before 1963.
Since 1963 they took a rapid decline for 18 consecutive years, even though
the same test has been used since 1941.
2. In 1974-75 the rate of decline of the SAT scores decreased, even
though they continued to decline. That was when there was an explosion of
private religious schools. There were only 1000 Christian schools
in 1965. Between 1974 to 1984 they increased to 32,000.
a. That could have an impact if the private schools had
higher SAT scores. In checking with the SAT Board it was
found that indeed the SAT scores for private schools were nearly
100 points higher than public schools.
b. In fact the scores were at the point where the public
schools had been before their decline started in 1963 when
prayer and Bible reading/ instruction was removed from the
schools.
c. The scores in the public schools were still declining.
3. Of the nation's top academic scholars, three times as many come
from private religious schools, which operate on one-third the funds as
do the public schools.D. country - (nation)
1. Since 1963 violent crime has increased 544%.
3. Illegal drugs have become an enormous & uncontrollable problem.
2. The nation has been deprived of an estimated 30 million citizens
through legal abortions just since 1973.
THOMAS JEFFERSON said: "The reason Christianity is the best friend of
government is because Christianity is the only religion in the world that
deals with
the heart." Jesus says do not hate, don't lust in your heart (Mt.5:21).
That takes care
of adultery, stealing, killing, etc.
The Founders pointed out that Christianity was the only religion that
could stop crime before it started because all crime came out of the heart.
If you
deal with the heart problem, you won't have to deal with crime.
JOHN ADAMS said: "We have no government armed with power which is capable of
contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion.
Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people, it is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other."
We have only to look at history to know that there is no government big
enough to make you do what is right if you aren't guided by morality &
religion.
JEREMIAH 6:16 "Thus says the Lord, Stand in the ways, and see, And ask for
the old paths, where is the good way, and walk in it: Then you will find
rest for
your souls. But they said, 'We will not walk in it.'"
Since saying NO to Biblical principles AMERICA HAS BECOME A WORLD LEADER IN:
DIVORCE
TEENAGE PREGNANCIES
VOLUNTARY ABORTIONS
ILLEGAL DRUGS
ILLITERACY (in the Industrial World)
What were the "old paths" which were good, that had been established by
our Founders? Each state passed a State Constitution which had requirements
they
considered most important for those who would represent them. Generally they
were along the line of the Delaware Constitution in 1776 which stated:
"Everyone appointed to public office must say: 'I do profess faith in
God the Father and in the Lord Jesus Christ his only son, and in the Holy
Ghost, one
God & blessed forevermore: and I do acknowledge the Holy Scriptures of the
Old &
New Testaments to be given by divine inspiration.'"
This was consistent with the constitution because it did not recognize one
denomination over another or require you to belong to any particular
denomination. But it did require that you understand God's principles and
God as authority. They recognized that to be governed by someone without
these principles would eventually undermine and destroy the very freedoms
that they had fought so hard to gain.
A 3rd requirement in their Constitution was a requirement that every
public official must acknowledge a belief in future rewards & punishments.
This was
the idea of accountability to God even after leaving office.
Ungodly people will not use Godly principles to run a Nation. That's why
the Founders were so emphatic about keeping Christian men in office. If you
look
at it from the standpoint that God will only bless a Nation operating under
Godly
principles, you can see how important it is to have Christian people in
office.
DOES A NATION ANSWER TO GOD?
This was a question the American Founders dealt with on the floor of the
Constitutional Convention. They concluded that a nation doesn't have a
spirit or a soul. Therefore when a nation dies, it is dead and won't be
resurrected
later to answer for it's failures, as a person will be who does have a
spirit & soul.
GEORGE MASON said: "As nations cannot be punished or rewarded in the next
world, they must be in this. By an inevitable chain of causes & effects
Providence
punished National sins by National calamities." Providence was commonly used
by the Founders to refer to God.
God's judgement on a Nation because of it's corrupt leaders is evidenced
many places in the Bible. A couple of them are:
1. Because of the corruption of King Ahab and his wife Jezebel, the nation
went without rain for three years. The righteous had to suffer too even
though they had no part in it.
2. King David was normally good King, but because of his disobedience to
God when he numbered his army, a plague came upon the nation and wiped out
70,000 people. The Nation suffered because of the leader.
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - JUNE 17,1787
"We need God as our friend not our enemy. We need him to be our ally not
our adversary. We need to make sure that we keep God's concurring aid." He
called for regular daily prayer to be sure we kept God alongside what we
were doing in
the Nation. If this was needed by our leaders, why would it not be good for
children to be able to pray in school and learn & prepare for this important
facet of
life?
THOMAS JEFFERSON MEMORIAL
Part of the inscription on Jefferson's Memorial: "Indeed, I tremble for
my country when I reflect that God is just, and that His justice can't sleep
forever."
ABRAHAM LINCOLN
When Lincoln was asked if God was on his side in the Civil War, he
replied:
"Sir, my concern is not whether God is on my side. My great concern is to be
on God's side."
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN - AS AMBASSADOR TO FRANCE
"Whoever will introduce into public affairs the principles of Christianity
will change the face of the world."
CHARLES FINNEY - The Billy Graham of the 1800's
"The Church must take right ground in regard to politics. Politics are a
part of a religion in a country and Christians must do their duty to the
country
as part of their duty to God. He will bless or curse this nation according
to
the course Christians take in politics."
If God's people don't make it into office,
God's principles won't make it into office.
WE MUST NOT BE ISOLATED, WE MUST GET INVOLVED!
PROVERBS 18:1 "A man who isolates himself seeks his own desires; he rages
against all wise judgements."
Apparently there are people that do not want us to know what the
Constitution and its' Founders really said, or that our freedom and liberty
is based on
God's principles put in place by Christians. Instead they use these freedoms
to
fight against Christians and God's principles, to take away freedoms the
Founders
sought to guarantee.
Christians used to be involved in politics, but they have been
discouraged from doing so for the last 50 years or so. Even earlier there
was a controversy among Christians about where they should be involved to do
the most good. The emphasis was on being an Evangelist, Missionary, Doctor,
or Teacher, but not a Politician.
When Christians started moving out and not running for government
office, they turned it over to people who didn't believe in many of the
Godly principles
that had been so important in it's founding.
THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A RELIGION IN THE SCHOOLS
BUT IT MAY BE HUMANISM OR ATHEISM or ???
1963 & 1986 SUPREME COURT rulings defined Secular Humanism as a legitimate
religion, lawfully equivalent to Christianity. The religion of Secular
Humanism rejects the supernatural in their philosophy and places man as
supreme,
and able to control his own destiny.
1977 SUPREME COURT ruled that Atheism is a legitimate religion, lawfully
equivalent to Christianity. Atheism says there is no God and therefor
should be no practice of religion.
The Court said that whatever you believe with all your heart that
affects the way you act, that's your religion. Satanic activity and
Witchcraft are other
religions that are recognized and receive tax-exempt status as well. However
the only time you hear the cry of "separation of Church and State" is to get
Christian materials, etc. out of schools. If all form of religion needs to
be removed
from schools, why is not the cry used against representation of witches on
Halloween?
Or when there is no prayer and practice of believing in God going on in the
school, why not cry out against the religion of Atheism or Humanism, which
is the religion of exclusion of God.
Non-recognition of God is being practiced every day in schools and it is
being forced on all, including those who desire to pray and read the Bible.
Christians are attacked for believing in the religion upon which America was
founded
while other religions are being allowed with no comment. An American should
be
able to speak of his roots in Christianity proudly and it should be taught
in the
schools.
To refer to God's principles in the Bible is to stand for what made
America a free country, with liberty for all. To reject the Scriptures is to
reject
our heritage and the foundation principles which men fought and died for to
obtain. What is called right-wing extremism today by intolerant liberals is
really a
mis-label. It is really what this country was founded upon and was the
normal
middle of the road conservatism for a long time afterward. It is the
extremists
that have put the label on, to divert attention from their own far out
position (with
respect to the Founders) of Secular Humanism & Atheism.
Separation of Church & State is not a part of our history and not a part
of our law until relatively recently. It is certainly not Biblical, and most
people
don't know that it was lifted from Jefferson's letter out of context to say
the
opposite of what the rest of his letter says.
The religion of Christianity and the Biblical principles were the very
basis for the Constitution & held in the highest regard by the writers of
the
Constitution. They so wanted it to remain a part of the government and the
schooling that it is outrageous that we are having censorship today of their
writings which are in support of Christianity and the Bible. It is
intolerable that the Supreme Court could get away with a decision that is in
total
disagreement with the Constitution. It can't be emphasized too much that the
Constitution and the Founder's intentions were to protect the exercise of
Christianity in the government. Any ruling otherwise is inconsistent with
the Constitution, and is a deliberate distortion without any basis.
The 1963 decision that was based on no precedent and is now used as a
precedent for everything since, needs to be shown for what it is. It was a
total
reversal from what was right, and another reversal is necessary to put it
back right.
We have a Godly heritage which has been robbed from us by the 3% who made a
lot
of noise about "separation of Church & State". The only way to reverse this
trend is to get informed about the truth of our heritage and start fighting
to gain
it back.
And that's just a little bit on the history of the foundations this country
was built upon. you 'can' disagree all you like, but you can't do it
honestly, as all the records will prove you false.
God is what this country was founded on, and if He's removed, the country
will eventually fall. It will cease to be America.
I encourage all the readers who read this whole essay to do some research
into the issues, and if you can find another side to all this, please let us
know about it.
Peace,
Dave Steiger
Othmer
Yawn
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Hunter Int. wrote in message <36895...@news1.starnetinc.com>...
The DataRat
"So you're saying that taxpayer money
should be used to promote your religion?"
It was until relatively recently !
Only in the last few decades has it been
otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
second thought to government funds being
used to promote Christianity.
The DataRat
Hunter Int.
Still there...?
Alright then, before you get all pissed off and 'try' to find something to
save face, read what your boy (John Adams) had to say about another one of
your boys (Thomas Paine). You like talking about this idiot (Paine), so
let's see if Adams agrees with you as well, shall we...?
"The Christian religion is, above ALL, the religions that ever prevailed or
existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of WISDOM, VIRTUE, EQUITY,
and HUMILITY, let the blackguard (scoundrel, rogue) Paine say what he will."
(Adams' diary, 7/26/1796)
Wow, good man, that Adams...
He also said...
"The German letter proposing to introduce into this country a company of
schoolmasters, painters, poets, &c., all of them disciples of Mr. Thomas
Paine, will require NO ANSWER. I had rather countenance (allow) the
introduction of Ariel and Caliban ()let's see if Jim is up on his
Shakespeare...) with troops of spirits."
(Adams to John Marshall 8/11/1800)
Oh man, that's brutal, Jim. That's about as tough a rip as Adams could have
delivered.
Now, since I pretty much figure a genius like you doesn't 'get' what Adams
is saying here, let me translate: "I'd rather have the hosts of hell around
here than Paine and his boys." That sums it up pretty good.
Jim, go to the library, do your homework, and get smart, cause right now,
you haven't a clue.
Dave...
Gyoza
Burt is:
http://www.mindspring.com/~gyoza/lp/founders.htm
Simcha Streltsov
: No, it guarantees respect for religious freedom by having a
: government that does not show partiality to any religion. A Jewish
: school kid should not have to be subjected to New Testament readings in
: public school ...
I first could not parse it how a "Jewish school" kid can be subjected
to anything in "public school - when he in fact sits in the "Jewish school".
Then I re-read it and understood that you mean a Jewish "school kid"
who sits in the "public school". And you are not only right, IMVHO, but
also hint to the source of the problem: if we put everyone together
in some "public" place - we should be careful not to force opinions
of the majority on minorities that do not harm society as a whole.
At the same time, there is no need to even "force" everyone together
to listen watered down lectures on "morality" that satisfies Christians,
Jews, Muslims, Communists, Buddhists, Libertarians, et al. Or to avoid
educating children all together pretending that arithmetic skills is
all they need to learn at school. Why not simply to let everyone to
teach the kids their way to the extent possible. Most fortunate people
do it anyway by paying both taxes for public schools and sending their
children to private schools. The only unfortunate kids are kids from poor
families - so why not support them to learn with all other kids -
whether in Christian, Jewish or any other schools?
whenever it is not possible, then the "public" policy should be
used but only as a last resort, do we agree?
--
Simcha Streltsov disclaimer, as requested by Mo-he S-rr
simc...@juno.com all punctuation marks in this article
http://cad.bu.edu/go/simon are equivalent to (-:
William Jarrell
So what if it was? Are you saying that this is right simply on the
basis that it was done in the past? This does not deal with the issues
of religious freedom and fairness.
- William Jarrell
Becky Michaelson
your post!
Thanks for good reading!
Capt. Spith
>
> "So you're saying that taxpayer money
> should be used to promote your religion?"
>
> It was until relatively recently !
>
> Only in the last few decades has it been
> otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
> first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
> second thought to government funds being
> used to promote Christianity.
Only in the last few decades have women and Blacks been given the
same full legal rights as white men. This does not mean that it was
right to deny them such. Besides, until 'recently', there have not been
enough people willing to fight for their non-christian religious
rights. Much like homosexuality and unwed mothers, most beliefs and
practices that were non-conformist were kept secret from society at
large, for fear of various levels of societal retribution (like the
McCarthy commie-hunts). Once our nation as a whole started becoming a
little more tolerant of those asserting the rights already gauranteed
them by the constitution, then those various groups began bringing to
our attention that we were falling short of our own national ideals.
Traditional thought does not necessarily equal Correct thought.
Also, I read with interest all the quotes from Jefferson, Adams,
Washongton, etc. every time they are brought to bear. It seems to me
that two facts are usually completely disregarded;
1)Most 'pro-christian' quotes are most definitely supporting
Christianity, to be sure. But nobody ever said that public officials
were banned from expressing their own beliefs. And for the most part,
that's what they were doing. Not attempting to draft official policy,
but asserting their beliefs.
2)These men are not perfect! It may very possibly be that at times
they actually stepped over the line! They usually were not called on
it, because at the time, there was NOT a significant non-Christian
population to be oppressed by said opinions. (Oops, I said 'oppressed'
my PoMo-ism is showing!)
Besides, if they all felt so strongly about it, why were they not
more specific in the Constitution? Why didn't they specify that
'freedom of worship' only extended to the Bible? They could have, but
they didn't. Why was there no reference whatsoever to God in the body
of the constitution? There could have been, but there wasn't. Even the
Presidential inauguration oath - spelled out explicitly in the
constitution - had NO REFERENCE to God in it! Why on earth would rabid
pro-Christians not make a God oath for the president unless they wanted
to be sure of Freedom of Worship?
> The DataRat
--
-Reverend Spith
"Message to myself; Do the dumb things I gotta do. Touch the puppet
head."
-TMBG
Capt. Spith
> "The Christian religion is, above ALL, the religions that ever prevailed or
> existed in ancient or modern times, the religion of WISDOM, VIRTUE, EQUITY,
> and HUMILITY, let the blackguard (scoundrel, rogue) Paine say what he will."
>
> (Adams' diary, 7/26/1796)
> "The German letter proposing to introduce into this country a company of
> schoolmasters, painters, poets, &c., all of them disciples of Mr. Thomas
> Paine, will require NO ANSWER. I had rather countenance (allow) the
> introduction of Ariel and Caliban ()let's see if Jim is up on his
> Shakespeare...) with troops of spirits."
>
> (Adams to John Marshall 8/11/1800)
> Now, since I pretty much figure a genius like you doesn't 'get' what Adams
> is saying here, let me translate: "I'd rather have the hosts of hell around
> here than Paine and his boys." That sums it up pretty good.
Fine quotes. And what this actually proves is that Mr. Adams had
very strong beliefs, and held them quite dear. However, this does NOT
prove that he was Right or unbiased.
Joseph M. Emmanuel
Jer 10:1-11
CHAPTER 10
1 Hear ye the word which the LORD speaketh unto you, O
house of Israel:
2 Thus saith the LORD, Learn not the way of the heathen,
and be not dismayed at the signs of heaven; for the heathen are
dismayed at them.
3 For the customs of the people are vain: for one cutteth a
tree out of the forest, the work of the hands of the workman, with
the axe.
4 They deck it with silver and with gold; they fasten it with
nails and with hammers, that it move not.
5 They are upright as the palm tree, but speak not: they
must needs be borne, because they cannot go. Be not afraid of
them; for they cannot do evil, neither also is it in them to do
good.
6 Forasmuch as there is none like unto thee, O LORD; thou
art great, and thy name is great in might.
7 Who would not fear thee, O King of nations? for to thee
doth it appertain: forasmuch as among all the wise men of the
nations, and in all their kingdoms, there is none like unto thee.
8 But they are altogether brutish and foolish: the stock is
a doctrine of vanities.
9 Silver spread into plates is brought from Tarshish, and
gold from Uphaz, the work of the workman, and of the hands of
the founder: blue and purple is their clothing: they are all the
work of cunning men.
10 But the LORD is the true God, he is the living God, and
an everlasting king: at his wrath the earth shall tremble, and the
nations shall not be able to abide his indignation.
11 Thus shall ye say unto them, The gods that have not
made the heavens and the earth, even they shall perish from
the earth, and from under these heavens.
(KJV)
One God, One World, One Humanity
Unity Of All Under One God
http://www.maitreya.org (In English and French)
michael burt
> michael burt wrote:
> >
> > For those who try to convince people that the founding fathers of the
> > United States believed that the establisment clause should be intrepreted
> > as separation of church and state as it is currently applied, statements
> > by the founding fathers clearly present a vastly different picture.
> >
> Then how do you explain the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli which says that
> "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
> Christian religion?"
I am not familiar with it, what does it say and in what context?
>
>
> > John Quincy Adams said ³The highest glory of the [American] Revolution was
> > that it united in one indissouluble bond the principles of Christianithy
> > and the principles of civil government²
> >
> > Although the establishment clause was clearly intended to grant freedom of
> > religion for everyone, there was also a clear intent for the then new
> > government to encourage Christianity and confirms the interrelated
> > concepts of Christianity and civil government in the US which successfully
>
> So you're saying that taxpayer money should be used to promote your
> religion?
No, not promote, but not to discourage by the encouragement of
atiestic/humanism religion exclusively in our school system.
>
> > produced the greatest nation in the world and a unique American, Christian
> > culture that people from many other cultures and religions voluntarily
> > want to participate in by choice. The phrase separation of church and
> > state, a flawed concept imputed to the Constituion and completely absent
> > from the text, actually separates America from God and makes
> > athiesim/humanism the de facto state religion.
>
> No, it guarantees respect for religious freedom by having a
> government that does not show partiality to any religion. A Jewish
> school kid should not have to be subjected to New Testament readings in
> public school any more than a Baptist school kid should have to put up
> with Book of Mormon reading.
Public school prayer was always to God, a prayer encouraging religion, not
a specfic religion. The absense of prayer encourages athiestic/humanistic
religious values. This was not theintention of the founding fathers.
>
>
> > This was clearly not the
> > intention of John Quincy Adams and the founding fathers which every US
> > dollar bill bears witnesses to.
> >
> You're forgetting that Jefferson and Franklin were deists.
And they supported the encouragement of Christianity. You forget that
Jefferson edited the Jefferson Bible. Diests believe in God, what is
forced as a de facto state religion through the flawed concept of
separation of church and state does not and is 180 degrees out of kilter
with the intent of the Constitutuion which was supported by Jefferson,
Franklin, and Jewish signers.
>
> > Although American culture is open to anyone who wishes to support, defend,
> > and uphold the Constitution, compromise or dilution of American culture
> > with other cultural concepts of misapplied diversity and multiculoturalism
> > can at times undermine the Constitution and proove unproductive for all.
>
> Like it or not the cultural diversity does exists. The rights of
> minorities should be respected in public places such as public schools
> and municipal buildings.
Respected yes, used to oppress the majority and to override the will of
the majority of the American people, no.
>
> > A divided house will not stand. Some apply diversity in a way that can be
> > divisive and perilious to the generous host culture,
>
>
>
> > this does not support
> > the indissouluble bond of the principles of Christianity and the
> > principles of civil government. The United States is not a multicultural
> > nation, but a unicultural nation open to all people irrespective of their
> > cultures, beliefs, and religions on the condition that they support the
> > concepts, principles, and Constitution of Christian American culture.
>
> But what if an individual or a particular subculture does not
> conform to this dominant culture of yours. Let's take "blue laws" for
> example. I suppose this dominant Christian culture of yours would like
> to re-establish "blue laws" that prohibit certian activities on Sunday.
> But atheists and Seventhday Adventists do abide by this particular form
> of sabbatarianism. Why should they be forced to?
The same as I would do for I celebrate the Sabbath on Friday.
If an atheist wants to
> open his shoe store on Sundays and sell sneakers to Seventhday
> Adventists isn't that their freedom even if goes against this dominant
> host culture of yours?
If he wants to sell shoes on Sunday, find. If he wants to force his
religious views as the de facto state religion, no.
Or do you believe that freedom is only the
> freedom to conform to Christian particular Christian practices.
The purpose of the establishment clause was specifically not to force
anyone to become Christian, it was not intended to discourage Christianity
as it is now being promoted..
If the
> Seventhday Adventist would rather take Saturday off and shop or go to
> the movies on Sundays he can't because the "host culture" won't let him.
Says who? Where in Scrupture does it say that one can not go to the
movies on Sunday. You are missing the point of Sabbath.
>
> > Immigrants have always cherished their anciient cultural and religions
> > heritage; but at the same time, subjected their future to that of their
> > new, chosen culture.
> >
> > If we truly become multicultural, our nation will fail. If we believe in
> > everything, we will stand for nothing. We do whata we do because we
> > believe what we believe. If we believe everything, we can do nothing.
> >
> But people do believe everything. I think their beliefs should be
> recognized and respected.
Recognized and respected, yes. Forced down the throats of a Christian
nation, no.
michael burt
<dat...@home.com> wrote:
> "So you're saying that taxpayer money
> should be used to promote your religion?"
>
>
> It was until relatively recently !
>
> Only in the last few decades has it been
> otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
> first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
> second thought to government funds being
> used to promote Christianity.
Which clearly supports the intent of the Constitution, which is based upon
the Hebrew Scripture. We now have to legislate morality and spend time
educating children on self esteem at the expense of education. The
dumbing down of American is the price of discouraging Christianity.
michael burt
> The DataRat wrote:
> >
> > "So you're saying that taxpayer money
> > should be used to promote your religion?"
> >
> > It was until relatively recently !
> >
> > Only in the last few decades has it been
> > otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
> > first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
> > second thought to government funds being
> > used to promote Christianity.
> >
>
> So what if it was? Are you saying that this is right simply on the
> basis that it was done in the past? This does not deal with the issues
> of religious freedom and fairness.
You you not believe that the founding fathers who supported the
encouragement of Christianity which includes religious freedom and
fairness did not know what they were doing?
Pioneer
mike...@ix.netcom.com (michael burt) wrote:
> In article <368933...@bellsouth.net>, bjar...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> > So you're saying that taxpayer money should be used to promote your
> > religion?
>
> No, not promote, but not to discourage by the encouragement of
> atiestic/humanism religion exclusively in our school system.
Funny - I never knew anything about atheism or humanism until long after I
left school. What is it that you think they are teaching?
<snip>
> Public school prayer was always to God, a prayer encouraging religion, not
> a specfic religion.
But of course, different religions pray in different ways. What might seem
a normal way to pray to you would be alien to others - thus, some
religions are promoted over others.
>The absense of prayer encourages athiestic/humanistic
> religious values.
How so?
<snip>
> > Like it or not the cultural diversity does exists. The rights of
> > minorities should be respected in public places such as public schools
> > and municipal buildings.
>
> Respected yes, used to oppress the majority and to override the will of
> the majority of the American people, no.
1. How are the majority repressed?
2. The will of the majority must be overriden when that will infringes
upon the rights of others.
<snip>
> The purpose of the establishment clause was specifically not to force
> anyone to become Christian, it was not intended to discourage Christianity
> as it is now being promoted..
How, exactly, is Christianity being discouraged?
--
Austin Cline: http://atheism.miningco.com
Mining Co. Guide, Agnosticism/Atheism
Secular Humanism, Eastern Ohio & Western PA:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6763/
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
Pioneer
> Which clearly supports the intent of the Constitution, which is based upon
> the Hebrew Scripture.
In which specific ways is our Constitution based on Hebrew religious texts?
Hunter Int.
Sorry, I just have to comment...
You said...
>Which clearly supports the intent of the Constitution, which is based upon
>the Hebrew Scripture. We now have to legislate morality and spend time
>educating children on self esteem at the expense of education. The
>dumbing down of American is the price of discouraging Christianity.
AMEN!!! Way to go. Sorry, I just wanted to see this posted again...!
God bless,
Dave Steiger...
Hunter Int.
Last we heard, you were saying...
>In which specific ways is our Constitution based on Hebrew religious texts?
Well, two things jump right out at me, here they are for your reference...
Isaiah 33:22
"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king;
he will save us."
Our founding fathers used this exact passage to design the 'Judicial,
Legislative, and Executive' Branches of our government.
The next one that pops into mind is this...
Ezra 7:24
"Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers,
porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be
lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them."
This was the exact passage we got our law regarding the non-taxing of
religious institutions.
Hope this helps...
Dave Steiger
michael burt
>
> Only in the last few decades have women and Blacks been given the
> same full legal rights as white men.
Where in the Constitution are the rights of blacks and women denied?
References to slavery, civil rights, and feminism are often used as
neo-racist and neo-sexist advocations to support anti-male,
anti-Christian, and anti-American hate speech. Often it is done as subtly
as satan wholly seduced Eve in the garden, nice words, deadly
consequences.
It was the principles of the Constitution solely based upon God's law that
provided for the rights that Christian American should rightfully be proud
of, the results of living up to the Constitution and to God's law.
Slavery existed for millinea, but it was eliminated in the US first, why?
Because it was a Christian nation. Slavery was eliminated in the US
because of Christianity and the Christian Constitution.
There are many definations to slavery. I suspect that you are subtly
referring to the popular neo-racist image wherein a slave is defined as a
black man chained and beaten once a day whether he needs it or not. That
is not a good defination of slavery and NEVER sanctioned in the Bible.
Slavery is also defined as one who is completely dominated by some
influence, habit, etc. Those bound to governmental dependency and certain
employment contracts today meed this defination of slavery and the
attendent limitations on civil rights.
If you believe that the Bible supports slavery as it is more commonly
thought of today, you are not well versed in the Laws of Moses or the
relationship of Onesimus and Philemon. Nor does the Bible support the
form of slavery practiced in the American colonies, although plantation
slaves were more commonly treated as family members. There were large
numbers of free blacks as well, many of whom fought against the Union, and
they were not fighting in support of slavery. Colonial slaves were most
commonly purchased in black slave markets run by black Africans, not
Christians. They were slaves in their native land before coming to
America.
Not that Americans were right in propagating the practice, but they did
not instigate it but inherited it from a non-Christian world wide
tradition and spent countelss fortunes determining how to get rid of it.
And it was the forces embodied in the American Constitution based upon
Godąs Word that set into place the events that ended the practice of that
form of slavery in this country because of the efforts of a great many
Christians ending the ancient practice of slavery here only after the
shedding of a lot of blood of a great many Christian men. Christians
finally ended the practice of slaverly in the last of its strongholds of
Africa and China only in the last century in the former and almost within
this century in China until the Christians in China became persecuted
coincident with the reserruction of slavery in China. To suggest that
Christian American in the final analysis supported slavery or intended to
abrigate civil rights is to trivilize the lost blood of a great many white
Christen men given freely to eliminate slavery and make good the promises
promised by the Christian Constitution. And it was the work of Christian
men and women that continued to provide for changes in the civil rights
era, led by Christian men and women of every church in the land. The
banners of humanists/athiests were no where to be found in any documentary
of the civil rights era that one chooses to view. So to give credit where
credit is due, one should be thankful that America did encourage
Christianity, and continue to encourage those principles into the future.
Oppression of women by Christianity? The laws of Moses give women great
rights. It is the daughter of King Zeddiakiah that inherited the throne
of David that may be in existenance still. You are probably confused
between womanąs rights and feminists rights. They are not the same thing
as a reading of such as Domestic Tranquility by Gragalia will document.
There are more men who are feminists than there are women as feminism
liberates men from responsibilities, but forces and demands a particular
stereotype on all women. In Gragaliaąs opinon, feminism takes away womanąs
rights and undermines the strength of our nation through a revisionism of
history. The basis of feminism is that women and men are equal, the same,
interchangeable, and identical to men. Feminism is sexist/and or
hypocritical, for if their basic beliefs are true, they deny men the
opportunity to bear one half of all children. They also trivialize the
importance of men in the one flesh of marriage and such as The Feminist
Mystique hatefully misrepresent history. The author later admitted that
the anti-male, anti-Christian, and anti-American statements were not true,
but the corrections for truth are not printed in the book. Underneath the
hateful speech of the feminist movement which is decidedly anti-male lies
the real hatred, a hatred of women, according to Gragalia with very
convincing proofs.
There is no persecution of those who do not share my beliefs in the
Bible. Christianity is available to anyone, it has never been exclusive
except for those who choose not to believe. In fact, it is the most
inclusive organization of people in the world transcending all cultures,
people, and continents. To propagate that Christianity is or in any way
has ever been exclusive, can be construed as a hate statement.
The majority of the American people support Christian principles over
athiests principles. If one supports the democratic approach, then the
will of the American people is being oppressed and victemized in
anti-American cultural oppression unless Christianity is encouraged, the
intent of the Constitution.
Pioneer
<cle...@starnetinc.com> wrote:
> >In which specific ways is our Constitution based on Hebrew religious texts?
>
>
> Well, two things jump right out at me, here they are for your reference...
>
> Isaiah 33:22
> "For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king;
> he will save us."
>
> Our founding fathers used this exact passage to design the 'Judicial,
> Legislative, and Executive' Branches of our government.
And what makes you think that the the division was influenced by that
passage, rather than by the division within English government?
> The next one that pops into mind is this...
>
> Ezra 7:24
> "Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers,
> porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be
> lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them."
>
> This was the exact passage we got our law regarding the non-taxing of
> religious institutions.
And how do you know this? Please provide relevant quotes from the Framers.
"BANDS"
http://www.users.uswest.net/~bandsrpt/A_PLAGUE_CALLED_ICE_STORMS.html
BANDS
The DataRat wrote:
"So you're saying that taxpayer money
should be used to promote your religion?"
It was until relatively recently !
Only in the last few decades has it been
otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
second thought to government funds being
used to promote Christianity.
The DataRat
Pioneer
mike...@ix.netcom.com (michael burt) wrote:
<snip>
> If you believe that the Bible supports slavery as it is more commonly
> thought of today, you are not well versed in the Laws of Moses or the
> relationship of Onesimus and Philemon.
http://atheism.miningco.com/library/weekly/aa112598.htm
Nor does the Bible support the
> form of slavery practiced in the American colonies, although plantation
> slaves were more commonly treated as family members. There were large
> numbers of free blacks as well, many of whom fought against the Union, and
> they were not fighting in support of slavery.
Quotes and citations, please.
< Colonial slaves were most
> commonly purchased in black slave markets run by black Africans, not
> Christians.
But readily and eagerly purchased by Christians.
<snip>
> The majority of the American people support Christian principles over
> athiests principles.
There's not such thing as "atheist principles," so your correct, but
trivially so.
Hunter Int.
Hi,
You two were asking about...
>> Then how do you explain the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli which says that
>> "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
>> Christian religion?"
Ah, great question. Hope it's a sincere one, as I have a sincere answer...
The first thing we MUST note is that whenever we 'see' this in quote, it is
NEVER finished by the person using it. We read it now, in it's entirety...
"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion AS IT HAS ITSELF no character of enmity
against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of the Musselmen (Muslims) and
is the said States (America) have never entered into any war or act of
hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that
no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
If you read it very closely, it becomes clearer. The idea being that the
government is not a Christian government POSSESSING enmity towards any
foreign nation contrary to Christianity. This only makes sense, as this is
the entire thrust of the letter.
It's saying, "Hey, we recognize that you guys have your faith, and
theoretically we could be at odds with each other, but that's NOT going to
happen from our side, as we're not wired that way." Nobody wanted a 'holy
war', and this was our way of saying there wouldn't be one!
Furthermore, the bottom line is really this: The 'Federal Government' was
not to EVER leave the issue of 'religion' to itself. It DID, however, leave
it solely up to the individual states. This makes much more sense, as there
was a predominant Christian heritage in the founding fathers, BUT, they,
like we of today, wanted to have the freedom to hold any denominational
position they liked.
Ben Franklin, for example, often attended Lutheran, Episcopalian, and
Methodists churches. (Obviously, Ben liked things a little quiet!) I think
you get the idea.
Christianity WAS the norm, to be sure, but the government was NOT to dictate
any one denominational viewpoint over another. That was up to the
individual states. I hope that made a little sense, anyway...
The fact that America WAS a Christian nation was plenty obvious. We read
that the following folks considered Christianity to be: "enlightened" (John
Jay, 1st Supreme Court Justice), "civilized" (John Quincy Adams),
"rational", (John Adams), and so on and on. Really on...
Okay, that's a little history on that situation. Hope it helps!
Dave Steiger...
William Jarrell
>
> In article <368933...@bellsouth.net>, bjar...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > michael burt wrote:
> > >
> > > For those who try to convince people that the founding fathers of the
> > > United States believed that the establisment clause should be intrepreted
> > > as separation of church and state as it is currently applied, statements
> > > by the founding fathers clearly present a vastly different picture.
> > >
> > Then how do you explain the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli which says that
> > "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
> > Christian religion?"
>
> I am not familiar with it, what does it say and in what context?
> >
As I best recall the treaty was made between the US and an Islamic
nation. The treaty said that the US had no ill intentions toward Moslem
countries because the US was not founded as a Christian state. "The
United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian
religion," is a direct quote from the treaty.
> > So you're saying that taxpayer money should be used to promote your
> > religion?
>
> No, not promote, but not to discourage by the encouragement of
> atiestic/humanism religion exclusively in our school system.
>
> > No, it guarantees respect for religious freedom by having a
> > government that does not show partiality to any religion. A Jewish
> > school kid should not have to be subjected to New Testament readings in
> > public school any more than a Baptist school kid should have to put up
> > with Book of Mormon reading.
>
> Public school prayer was always to God, a prayer encouraging religion, not
> a specfic religion.
That was not always true. A lot of public school prayers were
Christian, usually Protestant, in content. The preferred devotional book
was usually the Bible, not the Koran or Bhagavad Gita or the Book or
Mormon. It is erroneous to say that public school religious observances
were nonsectarian. They were usaully only nonsectarian in so far they
did not give preferential treat to one Christian denomination over
another. This is not to say there were not efforts made at an overtly
nonsectarian or inclusive to all religions prayer. The "Regent's prayer"
which was the center of the 1962 Engel v. Vitale case was a prayer
written by a school board after consulting with Catholic, Protestant and
Jewish clergy.
Nonsectarian prayer is a real misnomer. Even if it is a generic
prayer to the generic God of all religions, it is still exclusive to
fundamentalists and atheists. Baily Smith a former president of the
Southern Baptist Convention once said he opposed ecumenical prayer
meetings because God does listen to Jewish prayers. I suppose people of
his ilk would have a problem with a generic prayer that can be used by
Jews and Mormons.
> The absense of prayer encourages athiestic/humanistic
> religious values.
Nonsense.
> This was not theintention of the founding fathers.
The intention of some founding fathers was freedom of conscience.
Jefferson once said,"It makes no difference to me whether my neighbor
says there is no God or twenty Gods since it neither picks my pocket or
breaks my leg."
>
> And they supported the encouragement of Christianity. You forget that
> Jefferson edited the Jefferson Bible.
I have read the Jefferson Bible. Jefferson believed Jesus Christ was
simply a great moral teacher. He thought the passages dealing with
miracles and Christ's divinity were distortions added on later.
Jefferson wanted to "set the record straight" by editing out of the
Gospels all references to Christ's divinity. It is not something many
Christians would approve of.
> Diests believe in God,
But not in Christianity.
> what is
> forced as a de facto state religion through the flawed concept of
> separation of church and state does not and is 180 degrees out of kilter
> with the intent of the Constitutuion which was supported by Jefferson,
> Franklin, and Jewish signers.
How is the concept of church/state separation flawed?
> > Like it or not the cultural diversity does exists. The rights of
> > minorities should be respected in public places such as public schools
> > and municipal buildings.
>
> Respected yes, used to oppress the majority and to override the will of
> the majority of the American people, no.
But minority rights should not be contingent on the majority. Should
a Baptist school kid in Utah have to put up with Book of Mormon readings
in public schools, even if the majority is Mormon. There is also the
question of fairness. If Nativity scenes can be put up on public
property, then why not Jewish, Islamic, and Unificationist displays?
Does one religion get centered out for preferential treat or are all
religions welcomed have their displays using an equal alottment of
public money?
> The same as I would do for I celebrate the Sabbath on Friday.
>
> If an atheist wants to
> > open his shoe store on Sundays and sell sneakers to Seventhday
> > Adventists isn't that their freedom even if goes against this dominant
> > host culture of yours?
>
> If he wants to sell shoes on Sunday, find. If he wants to force his
> religious views as the de facto state religion, no.
>
Apparently, we agree that "blue laws" are not right. I agree that an
atheist should force a believer to work on that person's sabbath, be it
on Saturday or Sunday.
> Or do you believe that freedom is only the
> > freedom to conform to Christian particular Christian practices.
>
> The purpose of the establishment clause was specifically not to force
> anyone to become Christian, it was not intended to discourage Christianity
> as it is now being promoted..
>
I don't think it is discouraging Christianity. For a nation where
Christianity is being discouraged, Christianity seems to be doing quite
well.
> If the
> > Seventhday Adventist would rather take Saturday off and shop or go to
> > the movies on Sundays he can't because the "host culture" won't let him.
>
> Says who? Where in Scrupture does it say that one can not go to the
> movies on Sunday. You are missing the point of Sabbath.
My point is not whether it is scriptural to go movies on Sunday, but
whether the "Christian nation" concept being proposed means that
nonconformists will have to abide by Christian practices which can be
codified into law. I was using Sunday closing laws as an example.
> > But people do believe everything. I think their beliefs should be
> > recognized and respected.
>
> Recognized and respected, yes. Forced down the throats of a Christian
> nation, no.
>
Your perspective sort of reminds me of the Southern whites who cried
discrimination at civil rights. What you want is a form of social
domination for your religion and not having it is considered a form of
persecution.
- William Jarrell
William Jarrell
>
> In article <3689A2...@bellsouth.net>, bjar...@bellsouth.net wrote:
>
> > The DataRat wrote:
> > >
> > > should be used to promote your religion?"
> > >
> > >
> > > Only in the last few decades has it been
> > > otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
> > > first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
> > > second thought to government funds being
> > > used to promote Christianity.
> > >
> >
> > basis that it was done in the past? This does not deal with the issues
> > of religious freedom and fairness.
>
> You you not believe that the founding fathers who supported the
> encouragement of Christianity which includes religious freedom and
> fairness did not know what they were doing?
>
I think they were outstanding men. However, it does not mean I think
they were infalliable.
- William Jarrell
V O J
system of government.
We followed only the English court or Law system. We followed the Roman
form of government with the balance of powers and the concept of a
"representative form".
The Greek system of democracy was laid into it.
Hunter Int. wrote in message <368bc...@news1.starnetinc.com>...
>Hi Pioneer,
>
>Last we heard, you were saying...
>
>>In which specific ways is our Constitution based on Hebrew religious
texts?
>
>
>Well, two things jump right out at me, here they are for your reference...
>
>Isaiah 33:22
>"For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king;
>he will save us."
>
>Our founding fathers used this exact passage to design the 'Judicial,
>Legislative, and Executive' Branches of our government.
>
>The next one that pops into mind is this...
>
>Ezra 7:24
>"Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites,
singers,
>porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be
>lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them."
>
>This was the exact passage we got our law regarding the non-taxing of
>religious institutions.
>
Othmer
William Jarrell wrote in message <368BDD...@bellsouth.net>...
and Catholics, if the "Fundies" ever get there way when it comes to this
"Seperation of Church and State" thing guess who there going to put first in
line for the Camps and the Ovens ala Germany, there hatred of the Catholic
Church is kinda obvious and it know's no bounds. We are a minority in a
largly Protestant country and they let us know it. The way I look at it the
only thing protecting the Catholic Church in the US right know is
"Seperation of Church and State" if it were not for that the United States
would wind up like Northern Ireland, and will if we keep going the way we
are.
Jim Carew sfo
Hunter Int.
You never cease to amaze me!
Last we heard, you were saying...
>The way I look at it the only thing protecting the Catholic Church in the
US right know is
>"Seperation of Church and State" if it were not for that the United States
>would wind up like Northern Ireland, and will if we keep going the way we
>are.
Well, Jim, 'look' some more, because there is no such thing as 'separation
of church and state'. The Catholics are free to go about their business
unfettered.
The whole idea to begin with was, ah, forget it...
What's the matter with you, anyway? And hey, where's your same two quotes
to show us all 'how it was supposed to be'? Where are all those quotes
telling us what 'ungodly' people the founding fathers were? Now it's just
your 'opinions'..?
Get a grip, Jim, you have the freedom to be an anti-Bible dude because the
founders of this country allowed you to, and that because they believed God
let us have these kinds of choices. They were just hoping you'd be smart
enough to make the right ones.
Dave...
Walksalone
having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of life & uttered the
following:
>In article <F1di2.14780$5s5....@news.rdc1.az.home.com>, "The DataRat"
><dat...@home.com> wrote:
>> "So you're saying that taxpayer money
>> should be used to promote your religion?"
>> It was until relatively recently !
>> Only in the last few decades has it been
>> otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
>> first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
>> second thought to government funds being
>> used to promote Christianity.
>Which clearly supports the intent of the Constitution, which is based upon
>the Hebrew Scripture. We now have to legislate morality and spend time
>educating children on self esteem at the expense of education. The
>dumbing down of American is the price of discouraging Christianity.
Rather, it shows what will happen when church & state are not kept apart. As
to the dumbing down, I recommend you look in the mirror if you are not active
in the school board meetings. may well be you are & you lost the good fight
for Quality in Education, I lost it more than once, allow I'll lose it again.
Xianity is not BTW, discouraged, it is just not an item that should be taught
AS THE ONLY P{OSSIBLE VIEW, which is what had been done before people dug in
their heels & said enough, I wish no more of this. Now, should your school
board elect to teach comparative religions, world mythologies, & give xianity
a fair share in that course, there should be no problem as far as I've been
able to fathom. Should your school board exceed the fair share on any
religion in such a course, then yes, there would be a problem.
As to the deplorable ethical situation in the un-united states, ever
consider what people become when they become urbanized. Watch it some time.
Person moves in from rural area, friendly sort, for about three months. Then
they become city folk, & that is not an improvement usually. Some don't do
that, some remain good sociable folks, the majority don't. What does the xian
path do about that, any religion actually, by & large nothing. Just says come
to meetings, nothing about helping the individual become a stronger person,
the opposite actually. The fact is, no religion seems to want a person that
is strong in their sense of personal identity. I can only reference the xian
path on that, for that is what I have observed through their churches.
Take care & strive to be happy.
Do not stand by this grave & weep,
No one's here, I do not sleep.
For I am the thousand winds that blow,
& the diamond glint on the snow.
I am the sun on ripened grain,
The soft & gentle autumn rain.
When you wake in the mornings hush,
I am the swift uprising rush.
Of the quiet birds in circling flight,
The timeless stars that shines at night.
So, do not stand by this grave & cry,
No one's dead, I did not die.
walksalone overat baawa originization
Othmer
Hunter Int. wrote in message <368bf...@news1.starnetinc.com>...
>You never cease to amaze me!
>
>Last we heard, you were saying...
>
>>The way I look at it the only thing protecting the Catholic Church in the
>>US right know is "Seperation of Church and State" if it were not for that
the United >>States would wind up like Northern Ireland, and will if we keep
going the way we
>>are.
>Well, Jim, 'look' some more, because there is no such thing as 'separation
>of church and state'. The Catholics are free to go about their business
>unfettered.
For now, but with guys like you around we need the shield of "Separation of
Church and State now and in the future to make sure we can "go about our
business unfettered" ie: look what happened to the Jews in Germany a
predominatly Protestant country(65%)
>The whole idea to begin with was, ah, forget it...
OK
LOL
>What's the matter with you, anyway? And hey, where's your same two quotes
>to show us all 'how it was supposed to be'? Where are all those quotes
>telling us what 'ungodly' people the founding fathers were? Now it's just
>your 'opinions'..?
>
>Get a grip, Jim, you have the freedom to be an anti-Bible dude because the
>founders of this country allowed you to, and that because they believed God
>let us have these kinds of choices. They were just hoping you'd be smart
>enough to make the right ones.
Your opinion, look at my posts I never said I was "anti-Bible" what I did
say I did not think the Founding Fathers were all that much for Christianity
as some people might think.
Jim Carew sfo
Hunter Int.
Still giving us inspiring thoughts, you said...
(First you claimed...)
>>>The way I look at it the only thing protecting the Catholic Church in the
>>>US right know is "Seperation of Church and State"
(Then, when I pointed out that you were wrong...)
>For now, but with guys like you around we need the shield of "Separation of
>Church and State now and in the future to make sure we can "go about our
Uh, so which is it? Did you 'think' there was, or did you 'know' there was
not, and then try to put one over on us?
Honestly, I'm curious, which is it...?
Then you said...
>business unfettered" ie: look what happened to the Jews in Germany a
>predominatly Protestant country(65%)
Uh, excuse me, but that was due to a maniac, one that comes hopefully less
than once in a mortal lifetime. What was your point, Jim...? What's
bothering you deep down inside..?
When I challenged you on being so down on the Bible, the survey said...
>Your opinion, look at my posts I never said I was "anti-Bible" what I did
>say I did not think the Founding Fathers were all that much for
Christianity
>as some people might think.
Jim, you are being much less than honest, and being that's the case, I can
only conclude you are not much of a Bible believing man. You're not leaving
me with a lot of options here having made NO stand for anything positive.
You 'claimed' that the founding fathers were not so 'Christian friendly',
and I blew that one away quite easily.
Then, you came around and used the very same quotes again, so I blew tham
away again, and then some. YET, I have not seen (to date) a repentance from
you regarding your original position.
So, what can I conclude, Jim? You leave little room for good faith on your
part.
Either admit you were unprepared, that you did not know the truth, or don't
bother challenging me when I call your bluff. 'IF' you truly trust the
Bible, than it's not rocket science to know that the founding fathers did as
well. It's everywhere, ALL historical documents point that way.
So, let me know, or please, or, let's just drop it.
Dave
Hunter Int.
Me thinks you also 'thinksalone' as well.
Last we heard, you were saying about the founding fathers...
>Wrongoo. There was a predominance of deitists, definitely not xian.
There was NO SUCH THING. Period. I am sorry if this is coming across
angry, and you have my apologies in advance, but I am left wondering if
reading up on subjects is beyond people these days. I have left dozens of
posts here lately refuting this. Hasn't anybody read any of them? If so,
they remain silent. Why? If I am wrong, if these quotes will all be proved
a lie, please, show me!
Listen, I have no patience for 'thinking' like this, I'm sorry, but that's
the way I feel. You're just wrong, flat out wrong. I appreciate you ending
your letter on a kind tone, but that's not the issue. The issue is what is
'right' and what is 'wrong' regarding the roots of our country, and you need
to do further study before you make these claims.
I will leave you what I normally leave guys like you with a lot of opinions
and no facts.
Read it, print it, and come back when you're ready to play again...
John Adams, Letter to his wife, ~1774...
"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor
of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and
manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments
and who are rising in reputation and wealth, publically to DECLARE their
unsatisfactoriness by BECOMING FERVENT ADVOCATES in the cause of Christ; and
I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."
John Adams again, a letter to Thomas Jefferson, who had some rather unusual
beliefs of the Bible himself...
"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the
general principles of Christianity. Now I will avow that I THEN believed,
and NOW believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as
ETERNAL and IMMUTABLE as the existence and attributes of God. I could
therefore safely say, consistently with ALL my then and present information,
that I believed they would NEVER make discoveries in contradiction to these
general principles."
Washington to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, 1779...
"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and ABOVE ALL, the
religion of JESUS CHRIST. These will make you a greater and happier people
than you are. Congress will do EVERY THING they can to assist you in this
wise intention."
George Washington to the Continental Army, 1778
"While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers,
we certainly ought not to be attentative to the HIGHER duties of religion.
To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our HIGHEST GLORY to
ADD the MORE DISTINGUISHED character of Christian."
Walksalone
<cle...@starnetinc.com> having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
>Mike & another person,
>
>Hi,
>
>You two were asking about...
>
>>> Then how do you explain the 1796 Treaty of Tripoli which says that
>>> "The United States of America is not in any sense founded on the
>>> Christian religion?"
>
>Ah, great question. Hope it's a sincere one, as I have a sincere answer...
>
>
>The first thing we MUST note is that whenever we 'see' this in quote, it is
>NEVER finished by the person using it. We read it now, in it's entirety...
Which article is, 11?
Is it a factual entry, or was it inserted so the Bey of Algiers would sign the
document. Did it fact have congress's approval. Did congress write it, or
did the minister on site?
>"As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense
>founded on the Christian religion AS IT HAS ITSELF no character of enmity
>against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of the Musselmen (Muslims) and
>is the said States (America) have never entered into any war or act of
>hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that
>no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an
>interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries."
Worked to, all the way to the invasion of the Philippines when the Sultan of
Turkey was asked to prevent the Moslems of that island group from fighting the
US forces. That self same passage was used by the minister to the Sultan, &
gee whiz, it worked.
>If you read it very closely, it becomes clearer. The idea being that the
>government is not a Christian government POSSESSING enmity towards any
>foreign nation contrary to Christianity. This only makes sense, as this is
>the entire thrust of the letter.
Wasn't a letter, was a passage & portion of the treaty. As an oddity if you
will, it is missing from the Arabic version of the treaty, & a non-appropiate
letter inserted in it's place.
>It's saying, "Hey, we recognize that you guys have your faith, and
>theoretically we could be at odds with each other, but that's NOT going to
>happen from our side, as we're not wired that way." Nobody wanted a 'holy
>war', and this was our way of saying there wouldn't be one!
Nice to know someone who was there & understands all the reasoning & thinking,
not to mention the personalities, that were involved. Given the history of
xianity as regards the Islamic path, I can understand the concerns of the Bey
of Algeria.
>Furthermore, the bottom line is really this: The 'Federal Government' was
>not to EVER leave the issue of 'religion' to itself. It DID, however, leave
It has tried to in all but general terms, the oath for office as an example,
the 1st amendment as another.
>it solely up to the individual states. This makes much more sense, as there
>was a predominant Christian heritage in the founding fathers, BUT, they,
Wrongoo. There was a predominance of deitists, definitely not xian.
>like we of today, wanted to have the freedom to hold any denominational
>position they liked.
>Ben Franklin, for example, often attended Lutheran, Episcopalian, and
Yes he did, but he abhorred xianity & loved a good sermon. Now there is a
head scratcher for you to ponder on. In his auto he States * at an early age
he absebnted himself from the xian churches, & later on stated he was a
deitist. So, no, Gentle Ben was not a xian.
>Methodists churches. (Obviously, Ben liked things a little quiet!) I think
>you get the idea.
I se the implications of your observations, but I am fairly widely read, so I
also see the short comings of it as well.
>Christianity WAS the norm, to be sure, but the government was NOT to dictate
Not really, & if you can prove it to be so, you will need to apply for a Nobel
laureate in Literature & History. hasn't been proven yet, & the odds favor it
staying that way.
>any one denominational viewpoint over another. That was up to the
>individual states. I hope that made a little sense, anyway...
Rather, they held that any path you chose was of concern only to you. The
states for a while had a state religion [Mass, Conn & Va come to mind ion that
issue], & for a while, it wasn't safe to be practicing what the state wasn't
in favor of.
>The fact that America WAS a Christian nation was plenty obvious. We read
Not then nor now, why. That it held high hopes, yes, that it was in any way
founded on xianity, no.
>that the following folks considered Christianity to be: "enlightened" (John
>Jay, 1st Supreme Court Justice), "civilized" (John Quincy Adams),
>"rational", (John Adams), and so on and on. Really on...
Out of how many leaders, the quantity is rather dim, though many of our
presidents were religious, the minority were [& still amy be as far as I know]
not xian.
>Okay, that's a little history on that situation. Hope it helps!
Didn't hurt to get a different point of view. It appears you thought about it
before you got started, which is always a good sign.
>Dave Steiger...
take care & strive to be happy.
Othmer
Hunter Int. wrote in message <368c1...@news1.starnetinc.com>...
>Still giving us inspiring thoughts, you said...
>
>(First you claimed...)
>
>>>>The way I look at it the only thing protecting the Catholic Church in
the
>>>>US right know is "Seperation of Church and State"
>
>(Then, when I pointed out that you were wrong...)
Not really
>
>>For now, but with guys like you around we need the shield of "Separation
of
>>Church and State now and in the future to make sure we can "go about our
>
>Uh, so which is it? Did you 'think' there was, or did you 'know' there
was
>not, and then try to put one over on us?
No I just expressed an opinion
>
>Then you said...
>
>>business unfettered" ie: look what happened to the Jews in Germany a
>>predominatly Protestant country(65%)
>
>
>Uh, excuse me, but that was due to a maniac, one that comes hopefully less
>than once in a mortal lifetime.
Look in your mirror you have the makings with this "Seperation of Church and
State" thing you prattle on about
>What was your point, Jim...? What's
>bothering you deep down inside..?
Nothing
>
>When I challenged you on being so down on the Bible, the survey said...
>
>>Your opinion, look at my posts I never said I was "anti-Bible" what I did
>>say I did not think the Founding Fathers were all that much for
>>Christianity as some people might think.
>
>Jim, you are being much less than honest, and being that's the case, I can
>only conclude you are not much of a Bible believing man.
Your opinion, whats that about judge not less you be judged I read that some
were
>You're not leaving
>me with a lot of options here having made NO stand for anything positive.
>You 'claimed' that the founding fathers were not so 'Christian friendly',
So if you read some of there works Tom Paine as an example
>
>Then, you came around and used the very same quotes again, so I blew tham
>away again, and then some.
You sound like your real good at blowing people......away
What you did put out is a lot of Biblebabble
>YET, I have not seen (to date) a repentance from you regarding your
original position.
LOL
>So, what can I conclude, Jim? You leave little room for good faith on your
>part.
Opinion
>
>Either admit you were unprepared, that you did not know the truth, or don't
>bother challenging me when I call your bluff.
LOL
'IF' you truly trust the
>Bible, than it's not rocket science to know that the founding fathers did
as
>well.
Tom Pain sure did not think so
It's everywhere, ALL historical documents point that way.
Your opinion
>So, let me know, or please, or, let's just drop it.
Why? Right now your better then TV
Jim Carew sfo
Ranger57
>
> Walksalone,
>
> Me thinks you also 'thinksalone' as well.
>
> Last we heard, you were saying about the founding fathers...
>
> >Wrongoo. There was a predominance of deitists, definitely not xian.
>
> There was NO SUCH THING. Period.
Really? Then why do the Framers use so many deistic code words like
"the principles of Christianity" and "Nature's God?" Franklin was a
self-confessed deist (as was Paine, if memory serves). Jefferson almost
certainly embraced deism, and it appeared to have had varying degrees of
influence over Madison and the other key players. The prevailing view
of the deists of the day was that deism was what Christianity was
_supposed_ to be, and thus, it wasn't so much of a break with
Christianity as it was a sect. Sort of like being a Unitarian today.
:)
> I am sorry if this is coming across angry, and you have my apologies
> in advance, but I am left wondering if reading up on subjects is
> beyond people these days.
I've read your diatribe, and some of the case law you cited. So far,
I've yet to see that any of the later cases (e.g., Engel v. Vitale, 370
U.S. 421 (1962)) fairly support your contentions. When you call atheism
a "religion," you don't cite specific case law, and as I vaguely recall,
that holding was for the narrow purpose of determining whether an
atheist organization could have Sec. 501(c)(3) status. It reads as if
you're merely regurgitating some warmed-over D. James Kennedy. You do
not appear to be a lawyer from your writings, and seem to have a limited
grasp of American jurisprudence at best.
Your largely-regurgitated argument that everything went to hell in a
handbasket after the Engel and Abington decisions is post hoc ergo
propter hoc. Tricky Dick Nixon was a devout Quaker, but that didn't
stop Watergate. Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy James Hargis, W. V.
Grant, Peter Popoff, and others weren't just churchgoers but ministers
of the Gospel, but that didn't seem to prevent them from sinning. Our
society has changed since 1963, and the elimination of compulsory prayer
in public schools does not appear to be so much the watershed event as
it was the Vietnam War.
> I have left dozens of posts here lately refuting this. Hasn't
> anybody read any of them? If so, they remain silent. Why? If I
> am wrong, if these quotes will all be proved a lie, please, show me!
I can't check the bulk of your claims for either accuracy or context,
as they are not cited. The work is as a whole disjointed, and some of
the points you make are facially irrelevant. Moreover, your grasp on
separation doctrine is tenuous at best. The view that the "wall of
separation" exists as a vehicle for protecting the church against the
state is largely attributable to Roger Williams; Madison noted that
"'the tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a
corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded
against by an entire abstinance [sic] of the Government from
interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving
public order, & protecting each sect against trespass on its legal
rights by others'." IX The Writings of James Madison 487 (G. Hunt ed.
1910), cited in Tribe, American Constitional Law 1159 (2nd ed. 1988).
>
> Listen, I have no patience for 'thinking' like this, I'm sorry, but that's
> the way I feel. You're just wrong, flat out wrong. I appreciate you ending
> your letter on a kind tone, but that's not the issue. The issue is what is
> 'right' and what is 'wrong' regarding the roots of our country, and you need
> to do further study before you make these claims.
The question has nothing to do with what the Framers believed, but
rather, what the Constitution says and was intended to do. That it
would comport with, say Matt. 7:12, for the Bill of Rights to provide
zealous protection to rights reserved to individuals is not of so much
importance as it was a tacit recognition that America is (or, was) a
nation of dissenters. Justice Black noted that in Engel, and that was
the heart and soul of his decision.
It is of no legal or practical consequence that the Framers did not
have any problem with the teaching of the Bible in private schools. The
Civil Rights Amendments (13-15, for those following along at home) made
the Bill of Rights applicable to the states -- and where individual
states were arguably free to impose a religious view upon citizens, the
Civil War ended that nonsense. The genius of the Constitution is that it
is a living document, able to take into account what Professor Gilmore
described as "the obscure and complex process by which the law becomes
itsown opposite, but remains a body of rational discourse." [No, I
don't have a cite; I had to memorize it.]
As we're on the subject of Thomas Jefferson, I recall the inscription
on the Memorial: "I swear on the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility
toward all forms of tyranny over the minds of men." Whether that is
something as seemingly innocuous as the imposition of a prayer in school
or "conversion" at the business end of a .44, I will stand with him.
Just my two cents....
Regards, Ken
The DataRat
"So what if it was? Are you saying that this
is right simply on the basis that it was done
in the past?"
Only says that it's Constitutional. Either
that, or those who were closest to the
writing of the Constitution knew less
about it's intent than 1960's liberals. Funny
how nobody understood the real meaning
of the First Amendment until just lately !
As to the issue of whether it's right: Yes,
it is. Even as merely a nominally Christian
nation, America in the past became a great
country.
Post-Christian America, in contrast, is going
down the tubes. Crime has increased over
400% since the 1960s, we got children going
to school to shoot their teachers, kids as
young as 12 are being charged with First
Degree Murders, teenage girls dump their
babies in trash bins immediately upon giving
birth, serial murders have become so
commonplace that they hardly make the
national news, the President of the nation is
an admitted liar, perjurer, and obstructer of
justice, teachers are regularly charged with
having sex with teenage students, we've got
more felons than prison cells to put 'em in,
etc. etc. etc.
But we can live with all THAT. We may go
to bed at night not sure if someone will break-in
and kill us, but we sleep well -anyway- assured
by the fact that no government money goes to
Christian causes anymore !
The DataRat
Hunter Int.
I beg to differ...!
Last we heard, you were saying...
> Really?
Really.
>Then why do the Framers use so many deistic code words like
>"the principles of Christianity" and "Nature's God?"
If you understood what the word 'deist' meant in those days, well, you
wouldn't even be asking this question.
>Franklin was a self-confessed deist
I am aware of this. It's not even important. Franklin knew his Bible
better than 99% of the people on these newsgroups, and that's what is. And
if our government officials were half the 'deist's that Franklin was, well,
we'd be a whole lot better off than are today.
>(as was Paine, if memory serves).
Paine was an a baaaad dude. What's the point...?
>Jefferson almost certainly embraced deism, and it appeared to have had
varying >degrees of influence over Madison and the other key players.
No sir. You see , this is the kind of stuff that's just nerve wracking. No
sir, Jefferson was NOT a 'deist', as you'd have us believe! Jefferson was a
believer in Jesus Christ. you are again mistaken, and have been throughout
much of this reply to me.
I don't need your advice on 'what' Jefferson thought. He left it for all of
us to read for ourselves...
"The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions
only. He (Jesus) pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his
tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the
fountainhead."
Oh, and do you know where this comes from? you'll love this: "Syllabus of
an estimate of the Merits of the Doctrine of Jesus Compared with Those of
Others, 1803"
Yeah, you're right Ken, I guess Jefferson was a deist. Dopey me...
Since that has to be a 'fluke', according to you, let's look at this...
"I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
Jesus."
(Found in 'The Writings of Thomas Jefferson', 1904)
Care to change your story now? I'll bet you won't, I'll bet even should
Jefferson appear today and tell you so, that it would not be enough.
Honestly, I'd like to know.
>The prevailing view of the deists of the day was that deism was what
Christianity was
>_supposed_ to be, and thus, it wasn't so much of a break with Christianity
as it was a >sect. Sort of like being a Unitarian today.
Blah, blah, BLAH. That's not right at all. The 'deism' of their day was
merely a belief in the right to chose whichever denomination they preferred
to chose. There wasn't anything else besides Christianity in America to
begin with! There were no 'Mormons', no J.W,'s, no 'Unitarians', no other
cults for that matter. They were CHRISTIANS. Why does this desire to get
stuck in your throat so badly?
Ben Franklin told France in a visit that America was a great place to raise
your kids. It's a Christian country, and you won't find any infidels
(unbelievers) to deal with. That's not the entire quote, but it's close
enough, and I'll get it if you like. America was a CHRISTIAN country at
it's roots.
I'm not going to sit here and tell you they were 'experts' in Christianity,
that they understood the Bible 'Rightly Divided' (2 Timothy 2:15), that they
were geniuses in separating 'Law' from 'Grace', BUT, that wasn't the issue
here, was it...?
> I've read your diatribe, and some of the case law you cited.
Maybe 'some', because if you had read it all, then some of these questions
would not have been asked...
>So far, I've yet to see that any of the later cases (e.g., Engel v. Vitale,
370
>U.S. 421 (1962)) fairly support your contentions.
I don't care. What has that got to do with Jefferson being a 'deist',
anyway...? That seems to be the much bigger concern for you anyway.
>When you call atheism a "religion," you don't cite specific case law, and
as I vaguely >recall, that holding was for the narrow purpose of determining
whether an
>atheist organization could have Sec. 501(c)(3) status.
'Atheism' is a governmentally recognized religion. I don't care what I
have, or haven't, yet 'cited'. It's a fact, and if you're that much into
this whole thing, check it out. It's a FACT. This is not a 'law firm',
it's a newsgroup, and you obviously are a very resourceful person, so
please, look into it.
>It reads as if you're merely regurgitating some warmed-over D. James
Kennedy. You >do not appear to be a lawyer from your writings, and seem to
have a limited
>grasp of American jurisprudence at best.
Pfflltbbtt....! As if I need to be Mozart to know 'good' piano music from
'bad'! As if I need to be a mechanic to know I've got a flat tire! Like I
need to 'be' a lawyer to know O.J. got off. Shall I go on?
Sir, you misunderstand the FACTS. Whether or not I am a lwayer is
irrelevant, and whether or not Kennedy is up on his issues or not, I don't
know, and if so, GOOD for him!
I, AM. And I know enough to know there is a problem. We have deviated
greatly. A small stock of good people exist from which to chose from to
bring integrity back into American government. Alan Keyes, for example, is
one such man.
Anyway, I don't NEED to be anything other than a concerned person to see
what's going on and do a little research on my own.
Heck, here's a quote from your favorite 'deist' that sums up my feeling...
"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is JUST: that His justice
cannot sleep forever."
(Notes on State of Virginia, 1794)
Yeah, that 'deist' Jefferson...
>Your largely-regurgitated argument that everything went to hell in a
>handbasket after the Engel and Abington decisions is post hoc ergo
>propter hoc.
And yours when you told me that Jefferson was a 'deist'. So what...?
You're not ready to play, Ken. Go back and do your history studies.
>Tricky Dick Nixon was a devout Quaker, but that didn't
>stop Watergate.
So what. SO WHAT? As if this proves a damn thing.
>Jim Bakker, Jimmy Swaggart, Billy James Hargis, W. V.
>Grant, Peter Popoff, and others weren't just churchgoers but ministers
>of the Gospel, but that didn't seem to prevent them from sinning.
And you? Has your faith in anything EVER stopped you from sinning? Did the
Bible tell you somewhere that it would? Let me tell you something, 'oh so
holier than the rest of these guys', read this, and then tell me if this
doesn't apply to them, as well as you...
Galatians 5:17
"For the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, and the Spirit against the flesh:
and these are contrary the one to the other: so that ye CANNOT do the things
that ye would."
Also read of the 'wretched man' of Romans chapter 7. These American
Patriots were no different. You hold them up to a higher standard, rightly
so, but then expect them never to fail? Please, be real.
And you think 'my' argument went to "hell in a handbasket"? Come on.
>Our society has changed since 1963, and the elimination of compulsory
prayer
>in public schools does not appear to be so much the watershed event as
>it was the Vietnam War.
Sure, blame Vietnam. I think that's in keeping with the rest of your
'facts'....
> I can't check the bulk of your claims for either accuracy or context,
>as they are not cited.
Doesn't matter. These quotes, and thousands more just like them, are
available so readily in any Borders, Library, Amazon.com, shoot, you name
it. If you don't check, it's on you, not me. It's all there, and if I can
do it, trust me, nearly anyone can. I make no claims to having any great
intellect!!
>The work is as a whole disjointed, and some of
>the points you make are facially irrelevant.
Ken, they're only 'irrelevant' because you don't like them. Like I said
earlier, Thomas Jefferson could make an appearnace today, tell you
everything he's said is true and even more, but you'd still go the other
way. You're the guy in Galatians 5:17, so I can't blame you. I was too...
>Moreover, your grasp on separation doctrine is tenuous at best.
Get a clue. There is NO 'doctrine' in the first place. It was never there
to begin with, so of course I don't 'know' about it!
>The view that the "wall of separation" exists as a vehicle for protecting
the church >against the state is largely attributable to Roger Williams;
Madison noted that
>"'the tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a
>corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded
>against by an entire abstinance [sic] of the Government from
>interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving
>public order, & protecting each sect against trespass on its legal
>rights by others'." IX The Writings of James Madison 487 (G. Hunt ed.
>1910), cited in Tribe, American Constitional Law 1159 (2nd ed. 1988).
I am well aware of this quote! Hardly a 'separation' of anything. What was
your point, anyway...?
You know, Justice William Rehnquist had a great deal to say about this in
1984. He seemed quite able to expalin it great detail. I haven't got the
time to type out everything he said, as it is quite long, but may I suggest
you look it up for your reference. It can be found in the 1984 case of
Wallace v. Jaffree. It's worth a look, and you'll be surprised, but again,
probably not convinced, that justice Rehnquist is against your basic
assertions here. He understood what the founding fathers believed, and what
they had truly meant to desing for us.
> The question has nothing to do with what the Framers believed, but
>rather, what the Constitution says and was intended to do.
No sir, you're WRONG again. That was never the question. I was always
responding to the charges that the founding fathers were 'anti'Christian'.
THAT was the issue. Should you turn into something else, feel free, but
don't tell me what the issue at hand is.
By VIRTUE of WHAT the founding fathers believed WE have a Constitution based
upon those principles. It's not rocket science. The put into writing the
very principles upon which the based their lives, and 'called' it a
Constiutution.
Had they been 'satanists', I can assure you, the Constitution would be much
different!
Whoever inscribed the Liberty Bell with Leviticus 25:10 KNEW his Bible!
These are the kinds of things the founding fathers thought about daily. The
Bible. We've lost that, and thus, Vietnam or not, we have become a
different country than the foundation suggested we should.
>That it would comport with, say Matt. 7:12, for the Bill of Rights to
provide
>zealous protection to rights reserved to individuals is not of so much
>importance as it was a tacit recognition that America is (or, was) a
>nation of dissenters.
Okay, we agree here...
>Justice Black noted that in Engel, and that was
>the heart and soul of his decision.
Okay...
> It is of no legal or practical consequence that the Framers did not
>have any problem with the teaching of the Bible in private schools.
True, but what's your point? They wanted it inpublic schools too! We have
a problem with that now, don't we...?
My oldest daughter is studying, right now, about a fellow called
'Neanderthal Man'. She's being told he was a critical 'link' in man's
'evolution'. Remeber that? You learned that too, right?
Well, did you know that it's recently been proven that 'Neanderthal Man' is
not, nor ever was, a 'man' of any kind? True story. DNA testing on the
mitochondria of the inner bone cells of this ancient fellow show him to
absolutely, beyond a doubt, NON human. He's a primate. Possessing no human
DNA strands at all. Three separate studies, by three top flight labs, all
came to the same conclusion.
Oooops. Sorry, kids, I guess we blew all those years.
My questions are: What will they do to rectify the damage? How fast will
they do it? What would the founding fathers have thought of this, being all
creationists in the first place?
You see, I don't believe in 'evolution'. (There's a 'myth' for you if you
want something to shatter.) And if we still had a strong faith in God in
our government, we'd have a strong faith in God in the Educational system as
well. We don't, so we get garbage teaching, teaching that won't correct
itself, even when proven false.
This, is where are problems are. A society that does NOT possess the fear
of God that men like Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington, Adams, and so on, had.
(Whew... Sorry about all that...)
>The Civil Rights Amendments (13-15, for those following along at home) made
>the Bill of Rights applicable to the states -- and where individual
>states were arguably free to impose a religious view upon citizens, the
>Civil War ended that nonsense.
Okay, next...
>The genius of the Constitution is that it
>is a living document, able to take into account what Professor Gilmore
>described as "the obscure and complex process by which the law becomes
>itsown opposite, but remains a body of rational discourse." [No, I
>don't have a cite; I had to memorize it.]
The genius of the Constitution is that it was based on the virtues of the
Bible, by men who believed God lived and dealt in the affairs of men, and by
men who had a much greater vision than is currently able to be seen today.
> As we're on the subject of Thomas Jefferson, I recall the inscription
>on the Memorial: "I swear on the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility
>toward all forms of tyranny over the minds of men." Whether that is
>something as seemingly innocuous as the imposition of a prayer in school
>or "conversion" at the business end of a .44, I will stand with him.
Amen, me too. But, the prayer needs to come back, and Jefferson would be
the first to agree with that.
> Just my two cents....
Well, I guess that was at least a quarter or so from me, but hey, I get
pumped, so what can I say...?
Dave Steiger...
Walksalone
<cle...@starnetinc.com> having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
6 groups & 774 lines to say you disagree, wish I was impressed.
>Walksalone,
>Me thinks you also 'thinksalone' as well.
Aye, not one to let others say what I think. Am one to read, consider, then
speak.
>Last we heard, you were saying about the founding fathers...
>>Wrongoo. There was a predominance of deitists, definitely not xian.
Yes, I stated that.
>There was NO SUCH THING. Period. I am sorry if this is coming across
Beg your pardon, Franklin himself so stated that was his path. He believed in
a supreme being, but didn't accept the xian path. If that bothers you, DO NOT
READ HIS AUTOBIOGRAHY.
>angry, and you have my apologies in advance, but I am left wondering if
>reading up on subjects is beyond people these days. I have left dozens of
No, though very few actually do so. I noticed a heck of a lot of quotes
below, which I will trim to save space. Some folks have to pay for their
downloads you know.
>posts here lately refuting this. Hasn't anybody read any of them? If so,
>they remain silent. Why? If I am wrong, if these quotes will all be proved
>a lie, please, show me!
This is my second comment to you, I tend not to read long posts or posts that
don't catch my eye. You were in error the first time, & are still so. So
what, happens to everyone sooner or later.
>Listen, I have no patience for 'thinking' like this, I'm sorry, but that's
>the way I feel. You're just wrong, flat out wrong. I appreciate you ending
Your privilege, one I spent a long time making sure you had if you are a
un-uniterd states citizen.
>your letter on a kind tone, but that's not the issue. The issue is what is
The civil tone was in response to a civil tone in your prior missive, & is one
I prefer.
>'right' and what is 'wrong' regarding the roots of our country, and you need
>to do further study before you make these claims.
I've been to the archives, have you? My reading is not selective when time
permits, is yours. I've read both sides of the argument, have you? These
questions are not meant to say you haven't, just to find out if you have. If
you haven't, then after you do, let me know & we can go at it hammer & thong
if we both have the time. Make it a weekly event if needed, Oh, BTW, where
are you posting from. alt.religion.apolgetics, I'm replying from
alt.religion.christuian.baptist. What this has to do with the baptist faith
is beyond me.
>I will leave you what I normally leave guys like you with a lot of opinions
>and no facts.
Very little opinion, basically accepted fact, so you appear to have a lot of
reading to do to catch up.
>Read it, print it, and come back when you're ready to play again...
Read it before, along with other *selected items*. Problem being, it doesn't
stand as the total of the founding fathers, it's hand picked quotes to give a
false impression, & is rather misleading if one has no founding in US history.
>John Adams, Letter to his wife, ~1774...
>"I have sometimes thought there could not be a stronger testimony in favor
>of religion or against temporal enjoyments, even the most rational and
>manly, than for men who occupy the most honorable and gainful departments
>and who are rising in reputation and wealth, publically to DECLARE their
>unsatisfactoriness by BECOMING FERVENT ADVOCATES in the cause of Christ; and
>I wish you may give in your evidence in this way."
1st shot.
>John Adams again, a letter to Thomas Jefferson, who had some rather unusual
>beliefs of the Bible himself...
>"The general principles on which the fathers achieved independence were the
>general principles of Christianity. Now I will avow that I THEN believed,
>and NOW believe, that those general principles of Christianity are as
>ETERNAL and IMMUTABLE as the existence and attributes of God. I could
>therefore safely say, consistently with ALL my then and present information,
>that I believed they would NEVER make discoveries in contradiction to these
>general principles."
>Washington to the Delaware Indian Chiefs, 1779...
>"You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and ABOVE ALL, the
>religion of JESUS CHRIST. These will make you a greater and happier people
>than you are. Congress will do EVERY THING they can to assist you in this
>wise intention."
This from the man that wouldn't take communion. It is not know that
Washington was anything but a deitst. It is known that he removed himself
from the vestry when it was no longer a requirement in the state of Va.
1st snip of many I fear.
>This exciting story and Washington's letter, used to be in the American
>history books. In an effort to degrade American heroes that depended on God,
>American history books are being revised and this story & letter have been
>removed in
>this century.
many things are no longer in the history books, Black hawks speech isn't there
either, & had much more to say in a smaller space. Mayhap educators feel they
are no longer relevant?
>PATRICK HENRY - AN AMERICAN PATRIOT
>He is known for his saying "Give me liberty or give me death." He also said
>"It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often, that this great nation
>was
>founded not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religion, but on the
>gospel
>of Jesus Christ."
& one that fought Thomas Jefferson over a tax to be imposed on all people of
Va. to support an xian church, Seems Thomas didn't like the idea, allowed if a
person didn't want to believe if god then there should be no requirement to
support a church with that person money.
2nd snip.
>JOHN JAY
>Jay was the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court and one of the
>three men most responsible for the writing of the Constitution of the U.S.
>He said
>"Providence has given to our people the choice of their Rulers, and it is
>the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to
>select & prefer Christians for their Rulers." How long has it been since the
>Supreme
>Court said to make sure you elect Christians for your leaders? We have lost
>this
>guidance which made our country great.
& yet, was unable to get any mention of god into the constitution. Care to
keep running with that idea. Jay was a xian, doesn't mean he couldn't be a
good person.
>GEORGE WASHINGTON - PRESIDENTIAL FAREWELL SPEECH
>Washington was a public servant for 45 years. He was President of the
>convention that gave us the Constitution. He called for the 1st Amendment
>Bill of Rights. After 2 terms as President, he gave a farewell speech which
>was
>heralded as the most significant political speech ever given to the nation.
>It has
>since been removed from American history books and it would be rare to find
>it in
>any for at least the last 30 years. Why? - In it he said "Of all the habits
>and
>dispositions which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are
>indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of
>patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars." Apparently the
>people
>writing our history books want to change what our children are taught about
>the
>connection between political prosperity and religion and morality.
You forgot to include his swearing in, the oath of office that doesn't require
any mention of a deity.
>BENJAMIN FRANKLIN:
>"If a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without God's notice, how can nation
>rise without His assistance?"
The following deeply snipped, any that want the whole text, let me know.
The Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin
July, 1994
WITH INTRODUCTION AND NOTES
EDITED BY CHARLES W ELIOT LLD P F COLLIER & SON COMPANY, NEW YORK (1909)
INTRODUCTORY NOTE
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN was born in Milk Street, Boston, on January 6, 1706. His
father, Josiah Franklin, was a tallow chandler who married twice, and of
his seventeen children Benjamin was the youngest son.
I had been religiously educated as a Presbyterian; and tho' some of the
dogmas of that persuasion, such as the eternal decrees of God, election,
reprobation, etc., appeared to me unintelligible, others doubtful, and I early
absented myself from the public assemblies of the sect, Sunday being my
studying day, I never was without some religious principles. I never doubted,
for instance, the existence of the Deity; that he made the world, and govern'd
it by his Providence; that the most acceptable service of God was the doing
good to man; that our souls are immortal; and that all crime will be punished,
and virtue rewarded, either here or hereafter. These I esteem'd the essentials
of every religion; and, being to be found in all the religions we had in our
country, I respected them all, tho' with different degrees of respect,
as I found them more or less mix'd with other articles, which, without any
tendency to inspire, promote, or confirm morality, serv'd principally to
divide us, and make us unfriendly to one another. This respect to all,
with an opinion that the worst had some good effects, induc'd me to avoid
all discourse that might tend to lessen the good opinion another might have
of his own religion; and as our province increas'd in people, and new
places of worship were continually wanted, and generally erected by
voluntary contributions, my mite for such purpose, whatever might be the
sect, was never refused. Tho' I seldom attended any public worship, I had
still an opinion of its propriety, and of its utility when rightly
conducted, and I regularly paid my annual subscription for the support of
the only Presbyterian minister or meeting we had in Philadelphia. He us'd
to visit me sometimes as a friend, and admonish me to attend his
administrations, and I was now and then prevail'd on to do so, once for
five Sundays successively. Had he been in my opinion a good preacher,
perhaps I might have continued, notwithstanding the occasion I had for the
Sunday's leisure in my course of study; but his discourses were chiefly
either polemic arguments, or explications of the peculiar doctrines of our
sect, and were all to me very dry, uninteresting, and unedifying, since not
a single moral principle was inculcated or enforc'd, their aim seeming to
be rather to make us Presbyterians than good citizens. At length he took
for his text that verse of the fourth chapter of Philippians, "Finally,
brethren, whatsoever things are true, honest, just, pure, lovely, or of
good report, if there be any virtue, or any praise, think on these things."
And I imagin'd, in a sermon on such a text, we could not miss of having
some morality. But he confin'd himself to five points only, as meant by the
apostle, viz.: 1. Keeping holy the Sabbath day. 2. Being diligent in
reading the holy Scriptures. 3. Attending duly the publick worship. 4.
Partaking of the Sacrament. 5. Paying a due respect to God's ministers.
These might be all good things; but, as they were not the kind of good
things that I expected from that text, I despaired of ever meeting with
them from any other, was disgusted, and attended his preaching no more. I
had some years before compos'd a little Liturgy, or form of prayer, for my
own private use (viz., in 1728), entitled, Articles of Belief and Acts of
Religion. I return'd to the use of this, and went no more to the public
assemblies.
Course, what did gentle Ben know.
>FORMS OF GOVERNMENT
>The form of government established by the Founders of the U.S. has
>lasted over 200 years. Some other countries have undergone many different
>forms during this same period; such as France, 7 forms & Italy 40 forms.
Yes, we have a republic, if you wish to expand on that, a democratic republic.
Your point was missed.
>MEN MOST QUOTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS OF THE U.S.
>Political Science professors at the University of Houston wondered if
>there was something unique about the government of the U.S. They gathered
>15,000
>quotes from the Founders and located where all of them came from. They then
>boiled that down to 3,154 quotes that had significant impact on the founding
>of America. It
>took them 10 years to finish the project, but they found that the three men
>most
>quoted by the Founding fathers were Blackstone, Montesquieu, and John Locke.
>They
>also found that the Bible was quoted:
>4 times more often than Montesquieu,
>12 times more often than Blackstone, and
>16 times more often than Locke.
Without apologizing for the founders, there were but so many books around, &
in spite of the adherents of that path, there are good words there. That
those words came from others before them had noting to do with it, for I feel
sure the founders would have quoted the correct authors had they been known.
>Additionally, 34% of all quotes were from the Bible, and another 60% of
Majority of cut & paste snipped, hope it was enough.
>THERE WILL ALWAYS BE A RELIGION IN THE SCHOOLS
>BUT IT MAY BE HUMANISM OR ATHEISM or ???
>1963 & 1986 SUPREME COURT rulings defined Secular Humanism as a legitimate
>religion, lawfully equivalent to Christianity. The religion of Secular
>Humanism rejects the supernatural in their philosophy and places man as
>supreme,
>and able to control his own destiny.
But atheism is not a recognized religion, which you so blithely skipped over
just then. As to secular Humanism, it like any other philosophy will have
shortcomings, but myself, I prefer to control my own destiny, earn my atta
boys, my aw shits, and live a decent life. That I can & have done so without
the leggo crutch of xianity makes some just down right angry, & I care not
about that. As to religions being taught in school, as philosophy, &
comparative at that, there is no problem. As a singular group being
represented, not in my lifetime.
>1977 SUPREME COURT ruled that Atheism is a legitimate religion, lawfully
>equivalent to Christianity. Atheism says there is no God and therefor
>should be no practice of religion.
Heard that rumor, & like the rest of those that spread it, you fail to cite
court case, docket, & opinions, which where I come from is called, among other
things, lieing.
>The Court said that whatever you believe with all your heart that
>affects the way you act, that's your religion. Satanic activity and
>Witchcraft are other
>religions that are recognized and receive tax-exempt status as well. However
>the only time you hear the cry of "separation of Church and State" is to get
Personally, I haven't seen any other myth demand to be taught as an absolute,
& if I do, then I will raise a fuss. Won't try to speak for you.
>Christian materials, etc. out of schools. If all form of religion needs to
>be removed
>from schools, why is not the cry used against representation of witches on
>Halloween?
Being facetious are we. What religion do witches belong to exactly, Xianity
for one, they are the ones who first mention them by that name. Wicca, no,
not really, some Wiccans do, some don't.
>Or when there is no prayer and practice of believing in God going on in the
>school, why not cry out against the religion of Atheism or Humanism, which
>is the religion of exclusion of God.
Because atheism has no center tenet, core belief, nor does it have a regimen
of practices. It's neither taught in schools [public] nor is it a religion.
if you were honest with yourself, you would admit that.
>Non-recognition of God is being practiced every day in schools and it is
>being forced on all, including those who desire to pray and read the Bible.
Prayer is allowed in school, but must be open to all brands of mythology. It
is not al;lowed to be disruptive nor on class time for any mythology. The
students can & do bring bibles to school, but the rues for prayer are the same
for the use of the bible.
>Christians are attacked for believing in the religion upon which America was
>founded
>while other religions are being allowed with no comment. An American should
>be
You are allowed to speak as much as you want, & like other myths, you are
limited in where & how & at whose expense.
>able to speak of his roots in Christianity proudly and it should be taught
>in the schools.
You had done good until that last go. As a separate subject or practice, no.
The whole nation never was following the practice of prayers, etc. throughout
the nation. I recall that My school district didn't have the practice in the
50's.
>To refer to God's principles in the Bible is to stand for what made
>America a free country, with liberty for all. To reject the Scriptures is to
>reject
No, it is a rejection of your interpretation of what a deity is or should be.
You keep harping on these morals, & only ones I've seen were what I call flat
out evil. & I really don't care if you believe that killing in the name of
any deity is good. I still call that evil. If you want to claim the lad made
up for that, Bull SHit. Who trained the lad for those 4000years, who was it a
part of, who was the mentor. Whose ethics did it learn. Show if you can one,
just one ethic that was not from another culture that preceded the lad.
>our heritage and the foundation principles which men fought and died for to
>obtain. What is called right-wing extremism today by intolerant liberals is
>really a
>mis-label. It is really what this country was founded upon and was the
>normal
>middle of the road conservatism for a long time afterward. It is the
>extremists
>that have put the label on, to divert attention from their own far out
>position (with
>respect to the Founders) of Secular Humanism & Atheism.
You have shown no respect for the views of others, & iI find it unlikely to
anticipate you will. Seems I recall you from Apologetics, & you can't
conceive that you could possibly be in error. Just like me, you can.
>Separation of Church & State is not a part of our history and not a part
>of our law until relatively recently. It is certainly not Biblical, and most
>people
Has been since the 1st amendment, just started being vigorously enforced
recently. BTW, I appreciated your re-interpretation of the Danbury letter.
>don't know that it was lifted from Jefferson's letter out of context to say
>the
>opposite of what the rest of his letter says.
You referring to Thomas Jefferson, the deitst?
>The religion of Christianity and the Biblical principles were the very
>basis for the Constitution & held in the highest regard by the writers of
And are not mentioned in any positive way. the only mention of religion is
negative in that it will not be a requirement for office.
>the
>Constitution. They so wanted it to remain a part of the government and the
>schooling that it is outrageous that we are having censorship today of their
>writings which are in support of Christianity and the Bible. It is
>intolerable that the Supreme Court could get away with a decision that is in
>total
Show the rulings of the Supreme Court that require that sad fate for our
school children, you are ranting & it offends you that someone dares to point
it out. You & Veron will get along good, until you disagree, which you will
eventually. You can't even show where the Constitution of the United States
says that xianity belongs in the country, but you can show where religion is
tolerated within limits. Those limits are busted when any religion seeks a
favored spot, such as in the school system.
>disagreement with the Constitution. It can't be emphasized too much that the
>Constitution and the Founder's intentions were to protect the exercise of
>Christianity in the government. Any ruling otherwise is inconsistent with
Two words beyond you have failed to prove that. Horse feathers.
>the Constitution, and is a deliberate distortion without any basis.
The biases is to interpret the constitution as written within [as much as
possible] the context of the people that wrote it.
>The 1963 decision that was based on no precedent and is now used as a
>precedent for everything since, needs to be shown for what it is. It was a
Yeah, don't you just hate it when the 1st amendment gets in your way. Of
course, without that amendment, it could be possible to shut down prayer
meetings, that being an assembly of people.
>total
>reversal from what was right, and another reversal is necessary to put it
>back right.
>We have a Godly heritage which has been robbed from us by the 3% who made a
>lot
>of noise about "separation of Church & State". The only way to reverse this
>trend is to get informed about the truth of our heritage and start fighting
>to gain it back.
>And that's just a little bit on the history of the foundations this country
>was built upon. you 'can' disagree all you like, but you can't do it
>honestly, as all the records will prove you false.
I do it honestly, not by cut & paste, not by implication. I do my own
reading, my own thinking. I don't automatically accept any written word as
being final. As a side note, anything that is really true can stand on it's
own legs & doesn't need the crutch of apologetics, no matter what it is.
>God is what this country was founded on, and if He's removed, the country
>will eventually fall. It will cease to be America.
It has never been America, especially as you conceive of it. It has, since
the constitution's ratification, the United States of America.
>I encourage all the readers who read this whole essay to do some research
>into the issues, and if you can find another side to all this, please let us
>know about it.
Been reading on the subject for years, the balance says the United States was
not founded as a xian nation nor strictly on xian principles, as you expect
others to believe on your say so. What you don't like is for anyone to not
accept your POV, or say you are in error. The universe doesn't care The
United States was founded on the principles of law, personal freedom as far as
possible, & ethics. The last word being one of many absent from the xian writ
that I have.
>Peace,
Is that only if you agree with me, seen it used that way elsewhere.
>Dave Steiger
I've spent to much time on this trivial matter, so I may or may not monitor
it.
William Jarrell
>
> "So what if it was? Are you saying that this
> is right simply on the basis that it was done
> in the past?"
>
> Only says that it's Constitutional. Either
> that, or those who were closest to the
> writing of the Constitution knew less
> about it's intent than 1960's liberals. Funny
> how nobody understood the real meaning
> of the First Amendment until just lately !
>
But the understanding of the Constition has often changed. Concepts
such as due process and equality have been expanded. I think this was
done in regard to the isssues of religious freedom and no establishment.
- William Jarrell
Walksalone
<cle...@starnetinc.com> having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
>Ken,
>I beg to differ...!
>Last we heard, you were saying...
>> Really?
>
>Really.
>
>>Then why do the Framers use so many deistic code words like
>>"the principles of Christianity" and "Nature's God?"
>If you understood what the word 'deist' meant in those days, well, you
The meaning hasn't changed, beyond in those days they were considered
atheists. Deitst, one who believed in a supreme being that created the
universe with all that implies, then went on his merry way & has/had no more
interaction with said creation.
>wouldn't even be asking this question.
>>Franklin was a self-confessed deist
>I am aware of this. It's not even important. Franklin knew his Bible
But it is, for he rejected the xian concepts of any supreme being, and
followed a different path.
>better than 99% of the people on these newsgroups, and that's what is. And
>if our government officials were half the 'deist's that Franklin was, well,
No, if they were half the man, there is a difference, one can be a honorable
person & not have a religion. The religions influence seems to be negative
from the hind sight of history.
>we'd be a whole lot better off than are today.
Your guess is as fair as any one else's.
>>(as was Paine, if memory serves).
Yes, & IFAIK, when getting married Ethan Allen brought the whole shebang to a
standstill &until every one knew that when he said so help me god, it wasn't
the xian god but the deitst god he swore by.
>Paine was an a baaaad dude. What's the point...?
He didn't accept xianity, though he believed in a higher power, rather flies
in the face of your claim that the *founding fathers were all xians*, but you
know that.
>>Jefferson almost certainly embraced deism, and it appeared to have had
>varying >degrees of influence over Madison and the other key players.
>No sir. You see , this is the kind of stuff that's just nerve wracking. No
>sir, Jefferson was NOT a 'deist', as you'd have us believe! Jefferson was a
>believer in Jesus Christ. you are again mistaken, and have been throughout
>much of this reply to me.
>I don't need your advice on 'what' Jefferson thought. He left it for all of
>us to read for ourselves...
>"The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions
>only. He (Jesus) pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his
>tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the
>fountainhead."
>
>Oh, and do you know where this comes from? you'll love this: "Syllabus of
>an estimate of the Merits of the Doctrine of Jesus Compared with Those of
>Others, 1803"
>Yeah, you're right Ken, I guess Jefferson was a deist. Dopey me...
Rather he was, though he wrote the Jefferson Bible, by trying to do then what
the Jesus Seminar is doing today. He acknowledged that there was some good
the lad was claimed to have said or did.
>Since that has to be a 'fluke', according to you, let's look at this...
>"I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
>Jesus."
Read that again, the doctrines, not the teachings as claimed by others, the
doctrines as he understood that. If you read much of Jefferson you realize
real quick that a xian was what he was not.
>(Found in 'The Writings of Thomas Jefferson', 1904)
Thomas Jefferson was long gone by 1904, where are the critical references,
which speech, which essay, which letter? Just another empty claim without
that. After you've croaked I can write a book & claim you said many things,
wouldn't mean it was true without others having a way to check those claims
out.
>Care to change your story now? I'll bet you won't, I'll bet even should
>Jefferson appear today and tell you so, that it would not be enough.
>Honestly, I'd like to know.
If old Tom showed up, & convince me it was actually him, made that statement,
I would have to ask what happened to the thinking man history says was Thomas
Jefferson. After he explained where that persona went, then I would have to
accept that as his CURRENT POV. Not the one he had back then. History says
he was not a xian, he said it himself, & if you don't like that, tough, it is
in writing in more than one place.
>>The prevailing view of the deists of the day was that deism was what
>Christianity was
>>_supposed_ to be, and thus, it wasn't so much of a break with Christianity
>as it was a >sect. Sort of like being a Unitarian today.
>Blah, blah, BLAH. That's not right at all. The 'deism' of their day was
>merely a belief in the right to chose whichever denomination they preferred
Horse feathers, they were not xians, they specified in some cases a path other
than xianity. That you don't like that doesn't change the fact that your made
up definition doesn't fly unless one is looking for a loophole like that.
>to chose. There wasn't anything else besides Christianity in America to
But there was, a path older, more vibrant, & more life supportive than the
xian faith. Xianity has yet to stamp that out. I'll go so far as to state
being you didn't know every viking that got left behind, every immigrant that
came here, you have no way to make a blanket statement like you did with
honesty.
>begin with! There were no 'Mormons', no J.W,'s, no 'Unitarians', no other
>cults for that matter. They were CHRISTIANS. Why does this desire to get
>stuck in your throat so badly?
Won't try to speak for Ranger 57, but the simple fact that has you whizzing
all over the place is, history says your fact is not a fact.
>Ben Franklin told France in a visit that America was a great place to raise
>your kids. It's a Christian country, and you won't find any infidels
>(unbelievers) to deal with. That's not the entire quote, but it's close
No, it's not close enough. You need the entire quote & references if you want
to be believed, you v'e already given reason to doubt your word, so evidence
is mandatory. If you want to play stacked decks of quotes, let everyone know
in advance so they can do a line count before downloading.
>enough, and I'll get it if you like. America was a CHRISTIAN country at
>it's roots.
Nope, & it sure seems to gall you that it wasn't either by the founders or the
population at large. L:ess than 30% claimed that path as I recall, it is way
back in my studies so I could be off 5-10% & still be right.
>I'm not going to sit here and tell you they were 'experts' in Christianity,
>that they understood the Bible 'Rightly Divided' (2 Timothy 2:15), that they
>were geniuses in separating 'Law' from 'Grace', BUT, that wasn't the issue
>here, was it...?
No, & you have failed again in making your case that this is a xian nation &
it's founders were xians.
>> I've read your diatribe, and some of the case law you cited.
>Maybe 'some', because if you had read it all, then some of these questions
>would not have been asked...
>>So far, I've yet to see that any of the later cases (e.g., Engel v. Vitale,
>370
>>U.S. 421 (1962)) fairly support your contentions.
>I don't care. What has that got to do with Jefferson being a 'deist',
Then why did you mention Jefferson as a xian when he self professedly wasn't?
>anyway...? That seems to be the much bigger concern for you anyway.
>>When you call atheism a "religion," you don't cite specific case law, and
>as I vaguely >recall, that holding was for the narrow purpose of determining
>whether an
>>atheist organization could have Sec. 501(c)(3) status.
>'Atheism' is a governmentally recognized religion. I don't care what I
>have, or haven't, yet 'cited'. It's a fact, and if you're that much into
But others do, you v'e been in your own back yard to long if you believe that
when you utter falsehoods they must be believed by all others. Doesn't work
that way for anyone, including you.
>this whole thing, check it out. It's a FACT. This is not a 'law firm',
Your claim, & I have checked & never found it. Atheists are allowed to come
under the 503[c] clause of a non-profit organization, the same one the xian &
other churches come under. The key is on-profit organization, like the SOKAL
Park group for the Hungarians.
>it's a newsgroup, and you obviously are a very resourceful person, so
>please, look into it.
Problem is, your claim, your burden of proof. Of course you shouldn't be
bothered by such a minor detail.
>>It reads as if you're merely regurgitating some warmed-over D. James
>Kennedy. You >do not appear to be a lawyer from your writings, and seem to
>have a limited
>>grasp of American jurisprudence at best.
>Pfflltbbtt....! As if I need to be Mozart to know 'good' piano music from
>'bad'! As if I need to be a mechanic to know I've got a flat tire! Like I
>need to 'be' a lawyer to know O.J. got off. Shall I go on?
Please do, when speaking of the correctness of legal decisions one is expected
to know the basics of jurisprudence & where to find the details. You have
shown none of the knowledge one expects when the law gets involved, let alone
about the court cases that set the direction of the law.
>Sir, you misunderstand the FACTS. Whether or not I am a lwayer is
>irrelevant, and whether or not Kennedy is up on his issues or not, I don't
>know, and if so, GOOD for him!
>I, AM. And I know enough to know there is a problem. We have deviated
>greatly. A small stock of good people exist from which to chose from to
>bring integrity back into American government. Alan Keyes, for example, is
>one such man.
Credentials? If he really is a good man, might vote for him. Though to be
honest, I've learned by experience to not trust anyone pimped for by any xian
group. Suspect the same for the others as well.
>Anyway, I don't NEED to be anything other than a concerned person to see
>what's going on and do a little research on my own.
Try doing that research & get back to us. Don't cut & paste the things that
make you happy, read all the data available & then make up your own mind if
you can.
>Heck, here's a quote from your favorite 'deist' that sums up my feeling...
>"I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is JUST: that His justice
>cannot sleep forever."
>(Notes on State of Virginia, 1794)
Note that you didn't continue the quote with the entire thing, yes, you are
less than honest in your presentations & need not be considered a person
worthy of discussion with. Monitoring, like any other abscessed wound,
treatment when needed, but not really worth a lot of consideration.
>Yeah, that 'deist' Jefferson...
>>Your largely-regurgitated argument that everything went to hell in a
>>handbasket after the Engel and Abington decisions is post hoc ergo
>>propter hoc.
>And yours when you told me that Jefferson was a 'deist'. So what...?
But Jefferson was a deitst, & why that upsets you is beyond any thinking
person.
>You're not ready to play, Ken. Go back and do your history studies.
Hum, I'm not wasting any more time just now on this piece of dishonesty.
David, you haven't brought anything to the table in a straightforward manner
yet, so should you ever think you do that, please return & maybe you will be
found to be a worthy player, as of now, you've not even been on the court, let
alone played.
Remanent of to many lines snipped.
>Dave Steiger...
Hunter Int.
Listen, you must be one heavy duty dense due.
Last we heard, you were saying...
>Then why did you mention Jefferson as a xian when he self professedly
wasn't?
You said this, amazingly, EVEN after having just read this...
>"I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
>Jesus." (Quote made BY Thomas Jefferson)
Then you had the brilliant idea to tell me all about 'doctrines' NOT being
teachings! The man claims to be a Disciple for crying out loud. He could
have only said this if he was a believer, as this is a direct concept from
the Gospel accounts.
Yeah, lets all sit back and take you seriously.
This is all I need to know about you in order to establish that you're
pretty much living in a world of denial. The man (Jefferson) states his
faith for all time
and eternity to hear, but you say otherwise. The Bible has some words for
you, pal...
Mark 4:12
"That seeing they may see, and NOT perceive; and hearing they may hear, and
NOT understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins
should be forgiven them."
Now, I NEVER said any of these men, Jefferson included, were 'perfect' Bible
believing men. It was not even my point. You show me one who is, and then
we'll talk. BUT, a believer he was, and that's all I need to know.
How can you possibly be taken seriously after so obvious a bias? The facts
are in, Walksalone, and you are, indeed, on your own.
Dave
Ranger57
> Ken,
>
> I beg to differ...!
>
> Last we heard, you were saying...
>
> > Really?
>
> Really.
>
> >Then why do the Framers use so many deistic code words like
> >"the principles of Christianity" and "Nature's God?"
>
> If you understood what the word 'deist' meant in those days, well, you
> wouldn't even be asking this question.
You have yet to show me that you have even a clue as towhat "deist"
means -- or meant.
> >Franklin was a self-confessed deist
>
> I am aware of this. It's not even important. Franklin knew his Bible
> better than 99% of the people on these newsgroups, and that's what is. And
> if our government officials were half the 'deist's that Franklin was, well,
> we'd be a whole lot better off than are today.
Bill only got a few blowjobs in the Oval Office. Ben reputedly had
two illegitimate children. :)
> >(as was Paine, if memory serves).
>
> Paine was an a baaaad dude. What's the point...?
>
> >Jefferson almost certainly embraced deism, and it appeared to have had
> varying >degrees of influence over Madison and the other key players.
>
> No sir. You see , this is the kind of stuff that's just nerve wracking. No
> sir, Jefferson was NOT a 'deist', as you'd have us believe! Jefferson was a
> believer in Jesus Christ. you are again mistaken, and have been throughout
> much of this reply to me.
>
> I don't need your advice on 'what' Jefferson thought. He left it for all of
> us to read for ourselves...
>
> "The precepts of philosophy, and of the Hebrew code, laid hold of actions
> only. He (Jesus) pushed his scrutinies into the heart of man; erected his
> tribunal in the region of his thoughts, and purified the waters at the
> fountainhead."
>
> Oh, and do you know where this comes from? you'll love this: "Syllabus of
> an estimate of the Merits of the Doctrine of Jesus Compared with Those of
> Others, 1803"
>
> Yeah, you're right Ken, I guess Jefferson was a deist. Dopey me...
There is nothing in that statement that would suggest that he wasn't.
The Dissenters (as Benjamin Franklin referred to them in his
Autobiography) dissented with respect to claims of the supernatural.
Deism doesn't differ too markedly from Christianity in its philosophy,
and indeed, judging from Jefferson's redaction of the NT, it appears as
if he was trying to make the case that Jesus was a misinterpreted
deist. Sort of like what Gautama Siddhartha might ask if he came back
to life: "What have they done in my name?"
> Since that has to be a 'fluke', according to you, let's look at this...
>
> "I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
> Jesus."
Notice the phrasing: "a disciple of the DOCTRINES of Jesus." Nothing
about his being on all fours with the Apostles' Creed. He considered
the Revelation to be "the ravings of a madman." Everything to do with
deism.
> (Found in 'The Writings of Thomas Jefferson', 1904)
>
> Care to change your story now? I'll bet you won't, I'll bet even should
> Jefferson appear today and tell you so, that it would not be enough.
"The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the
Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin will be classed
with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."
[Letter to John Adams, 11 Apr. 1823.]
> Honestly, I'd like to know.
Sounds to me like Jefferson fit the deist profile rather well. At the
very least, he was in philosophical agreement.
Care to change your story now, Dave? I'll bet you won't. I'll bet
even should Jefferson appear today and tell you so, that it would not be
enough. Honestly, I'd like to know.
> >The prevailing view of the deists of the day was that deism was what Christianity was
> >_supposed_ to be, and thus, it wasn't so much of a break with Christianity as it was a >sect. Sort of like being a Unitarian today.
>
> Blah, blah, BLAH. That's not right at all. The 'deism' of their day was
> merely a belief in the right to chose whichever denomination they preferred
> to chose.
Blah, blah, blah, BLAH! It is is readily apparent that like most of
the intellectuals of his day, Jefferson rejected Biblical tales of the
supernatural as myth, superstition, and fable. If you want to redefine
deism, I don't care. Still, it is clear that he did not agree on what
constitutes the essentials of the Faith.
> There wasn't anything else besides Christianity in America to
> begin with! There were no 'Mormons', no J.W,'s, no 'Unitarians', no other
> cults for that matter. They were CHRISTIANS. Why does this desire to get
> stuck in your throat so badly?
It shouldn't stick in my craw. Hell, by your definition, I AM a
Christian.... :)
Ranger57
>
> Ken,
>
> I beg to differ...!
<snipped to this point>
> Okay, we agree here...
>
> >Justice Black noted that in Engel, and that was
> >the heart and soul of his decision.
>
> Okay...
>
> > It is of no legal or practical consequence that the Framers did not
> >have any problem with the teaching of the Bible in private schools.
>
> True, but what's your point? They wanted it in public schools too!
Whether they did or did not is not something we would know, as the
concept of a public school was still a century away. But what it
appears that they did not want -- and this is brought out in Engel --
was the State getting into the business of composing prayers. Hence, it
seems absurd to assert that they would have ruled as you suggest.
> We have a problem with that now, don't we...?
Legally speaking, I do. Ask yourself this question: How would you
feel if the court ruled as you suggested, saying that the State can and
should compose prayers. If that is the case, then a future Court could
rule that the State could compose Satanic prayers -- I'm using an
extreme, but the 'parade of horribles' is the stuff of law (see, e.g.,
Marbury v. Madison). Or perhaps, if you will, to mandate a pledge of
allegiance to the Anti-Christ. The rule of stare decisis would require
it. Do you really want that?
> My oldest daughter is studying, right now, about a fellow called
> 'Neanderthal Man'. She's being told he was a critical 'link' in man's
> 'evolution'. Remeber that? You learned that too, right?
>
> Well, did you know that it's recently been proven that 'Neanderthal Man' is
> not, nor ever was, a 'man' of any kind? True story. DNA testing on the
> mitochondria of the inner bone cells of this ancient fellow show him to
> absolutely, beyond a doubt, NON human. He's a primate. Possessing no human
> DNA strands at all. Three separate studies, by three top flight labs, all
> came to the same conclusion.
>
> Oooops. Sorry, kids, I guess we blew all those years.
Guess what? That's what science is all about: Replacing an obviously
flawed theory with a more subtly-flawed one. I'm glad your daughter is
actually learning science -- the way it was meant to be learned. When
the weight of scientific evidence requires the abandonment of a theory,
you abandon it. If the scientific community decides that that finding
is conclusive, it will die out when that consensus is reached, based on
a track record extending back nearly 400 years.
> My questions are: What will they do to rectify the damage? How fast will
> they do it? What would the founding fathers have thought of this, being all
> creationists in the first place?
Classical Biblical (six days, 6,000 years) creationism has long since
been debunked in the eyes of the scientific community. The proof is not
in the bones but rather, in more objective sciences such as astronomy
and physics. Simply put, if the Universe were only 6,000 years old, we
could not see the Andromeda Galaxy.
Christian pseudo-scholars such as Henry Morris have tried to rescue
the Biblical view, bending, folding, spindling and mutilating the
Genesis account to fit science. But they haven't been particularly
successful in this endeavor. I remember discussing this with A.E.
Wilder-Smith. He asserted that rock samples from a volcano in Surtsey
showed that radioactive dating was faulty, because newly-formed rock
samples tested at 4.5 billion years of age. I pointed out that everyone
knew that the dating process doesn't work in volcanic rock -- all he did
was hand the lab the equivalent of a dirty test tube. Go figure.
> You see, I don't believe in 'evolution'. (There's a 'myth' for you if you
> want something to shatter.)
I will accept that scientifically speaking, it is the best explanation
we have. That doesn't mean it is necessarily the correct one, but it is
certainly better than the Adam and Eve nonsense. Even Newton was
overruled.
> And if we still had a strong faith in God in our government, we'd
> have a strong faith in God in the Educational system as well. We
> don't, so we get garbage teaching, teaching that won't correct
> itself, even when proven false.
>
> This, is where are problems are. A society that does NOT possess the fear
> of God that men like Jefferson, Lincoln, Washington, Adams, and so on, had.
>
> (Whew... Sorry about all that...)
I can't keep up with you, and since Walksalone has handled most of the
rest of your response, I won't bother with at least part of it.
> >The Civil Rights Amendments (13-15, for those following along at home) made
> >the Bill of Rights applicable to the states -- and where individual
> >states were arguably free to impose a religious view upon citizens, the
> >Civil War ended that nonsense.
>
> Okay, next...
>
> >The genius of the Constitution is that it
> >is a living document, able to take into account what Professor Gilmore
> >described as "the obscure and complex process by which the law becomes
> >itsown opposite, but remains a body of rational discourse." [No, I
> >don't have a cite; I had to memorize it.]
>
> The genius of the Constitution is that it was based on the virtues of the
> Bible, by men who believed God lived and dealt in the affairs of men, and by
> men who had a much greater vision than is currently able to be seen today.
>
> > As we're on the subject of Thomas Jefferson, I recall the inscription
> >on the Memorial: "I swear on the altar of Almighty God eternal hostility
> >toward all forms of tyranny over the minds of men." Whether that is
> >something as seemingly innocuous as the imposition of a prayer in school
> >or "conversion" at the business end of a .44, I will stand with him.
>
> Amen, me too. But, the prayer needs to come back, and Jefferson would be
> the first to agree with that.
I doubt it; Jefferson even urged that the clergy be barred from public
office. He was no friend of organized religion in general, and most of
the Framers would likely recoil in horror at the notion of
state-sponsored prayer. For that matter, many of the clergy-
in-training I had the pleasure of meeting at the Americans United
convention in DC a few years ago agreed vociferously. The notion of the
State composing a prayer was described as anathema, an abomination, and
worse.
No one is claiming that prayer is a bad thing but rather, that it is
an inappropriate thing in the PUBLIC schools. See Matt. 6:5-7. If, as
you assert, Thomas Jefferson was a Christian, he would be rightly
appalled by the notion of public school prayer.
The difference here is between public and sectarian schools. No one
would even think of removing prayer from a Catholic school, or otherwise
requiring such schools to use a State-sponsored prayer. Catholics
believe what they believe, and they ought to be left alone to believe it
without State interference. By the same token, no Catholic child should
be forced to recite a Satanic prayer, or no Satanist child be required
to recite a Christian one. Matt. 7:12. Now, how would T.J. rule?
Ranger57
>
> Ken,
>
> I beg to differ...!
> You know, Justice William Rehnquist had a great deal to say about this in
> 1984. He seemed quite able to expalin it great detail. I haven't got the
> time to type out everything he said, as it is quite long, but may I suggest
> you look it up for your reference. It can be found in the 1984 case of
> Wallace v. Jaffree. It's worth a look, and you'll be surprised, but again,
> probably not convinced, that justice Rehnquist is against your basic
> assertions here. He understood what the founding fathers believed, and what
> they had truly meant to desing for us.
Whether they had something in mind is jurisprudentially irrelevant, as
the Fourteenth Amendment restrained the states in thesame substantive
way as the First Amendment did to the federal government. But that
having been said, read the decision in West Virginia Board of Education
v. Barnette, 319 U.S. 642 (1943). And honestly ask yourself whether the
Framers would have embraced that decision, if the religious beliefs of
Americans had been less homogenous. IMHO, they would have.
Hunter Int.
Man, this is incredible. There's another guy on our newsgroup just like
you. Wouldn't matter if God Almighty came down and told him the Bible was
His Word, he'd still disbelieve.
And you seem so amazed that I am stunned by your obvious lack of ability to
simply accept facts!
Let's see, last we heard, you were saying...
>Claimed quote by Thomas Jefferson. Provide references to the site where
this
>can be verified oh spinner of tall tales.
What a loon. Okay smart guy, okay. I can see where you're coming from.
Well, here's the 'quote' in question, for the third time...
"I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
Jesus." (Quote made BY Thomas Jefferson)
Now, here's the 'question' asked by the imminently intelligent Mr.
Walksalone regarding this quote...
>& if you do that, expect to have the entire document read to figure out the
context of >the statement.
??? Okay, I guess I should be all scared and everything. Gee, a guy might
actually try to 'call my bluff'. Okay, sure, I'll give you your answer.
For what it's worth, I already did reference it, (although admittedly not as
complete as I will now because you're the 'serious' scholar and all...), you
just didn't read it the first time I guess.
The quote came from 'Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas Jefferson,
Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas Jefferson Memorial
Association, 1904), Volume 14, page 385, to Charles Thompson on January 9,
1816.
That good enough for you...? Go get 'em, chief...!!
>A thing it is doubtful you have done.
Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah...
>You see, I suspect that when it comes to
>arguing your point of view, you may be less than straightforward, so out of
>you I demand proof.
Well, here's my retort to you, pal:
"You see, I suspect you have no desire whatsoever to think for a second that
your thinking could be wrong, and that everything some idiot you thought had
some working brain cells told you is now turning out to be false."
That pretty much sums it up...
It's always the case with guys like you. You spent a great deal of time
listening to one side of an argument, adopt that position because of the
length of time you put into it, and then when someone comes and makes
mincemeat of your position, whoa, it just HAS to be wrong! It has to,
because if any other way was true, YOU would have found it first. Same
thing, every time.
Learn to love it: The founding fathers came from a CHRISTIAN perspective,
and a great percentage of them said so, some so vocally that there isn't a
thing you can do to change the history surrounding it.
>Others have told me the believed that a passage was
>located at such a place & I've followed it through, you haven't earned that
>privilege.
Oh puh-leeze. You think I give a squat what 'priviledges' I earn from you?
Man, you have some ego, dude...
>I'd be more inclined to thake the word of VOJ than you, & I never
>thought I would say that.
Great, thanks. Whatever that means...
>Having read more than one passage that he wrote, yes, I can & did do that.
>Unlike you, I don't rely on quotes to tide me over.
Hey pal, did you ever hear what Felix Unger had to say about 'assuming'?
Oh, I suppose you need a reference for that, too...
I don't need 'quotes' to 'tide me over'. Whatever that's supposed to mean.
See, I guess you 'must' be right, and I 'must' be wrong. And why? Because
you heard one or two things from some idiot, they sounded good, and now you
know it all. It's always the same..!
>Not really, I could be a disciple of Confucius & not a believer in his
path.
Yeah, that makes a ton of sense...
>Not your pal happy to say. I don't twist passages & hand pick unfounded
>quotes [like who was TJ talking to when that amazing staement was said] to
>establish anything, I don't have to.
What an ego. Hey pal, get a grip. I haven't 'twisted' anything. You just
don't like having to 'unlearn' your goofy position.
I guess the fact that I could give you thousands and thousands of 'quotes',
dozens of books, and hundreds of sources, to support my position is
meaningless to you. All because you have decided I'm wrong. Get a clue.
HISTORY says you are wrong, not me. What I say is meaningless in the end.
Now, you can continue to believe you are 'right', but it's a facade, and it
only makes you look a bit dim in the process.
>Your claim was rthey were xian, & they weren't.
Listen, I guess you just can't see how idiotic this position of yours is,
but most here can. You are wrong, plain and simply wrong. You're saying
the equivalent of the Earth having 70% land surface, 30% water. You're just
wrong.
>No, you wish him to be a believer, & that is all you can see.
What a head case. He said so, not me... Here, let's look at some 'twists'
and stuff...
"The practice of morality being necessary for the well-being of society, He
(God) has taken care to impress its precepts so indelibly on our hearts that
they shall not be effaced by the subtleties of our brain. We ALL agree in
the OBLIGATION of the moral precepts of JESUS and NOWHERE will they be found
delivered in greater purity than in his discourses."
(Same as first source, this time turn to page 315 of volume 12. Letter to
James Fishback, 9/27/1809)
Or, how about this major statement of faith...
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have lost the
ONLY firm basis, a CONVICTION in the minds of the people that these
liberties are THE GIFT of God? That they are NOT to be violated but WITH
HIS WRATH?"
(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18 page 237.)
Of course, ol' Thomas was just casually interested in Jesus, he couldn't
have taken it too seriously according to you. It's only a 'hobby' being
concerned about God's wrath, follwing Jesus, yep, I can see your point. No
way could Thomas have taken seriously...
Get a grip, it's everywhere. And we could go on and on. People don't say
things like the above UNLESS they are genuinely convicted the sources EXIST
for their conviction!
>But unlike you, I can accept that the founding fathers were not xian, they
were deitst, & it doesn't bother me a whit.
Listen, I don't care if it bothers you, or not. Big deal! That's not the
point. The point is that you're wrong. That, my friend, is the point at
the moment.
>You on the other hand, go ballistic.
Yeah, stupidity from folks that seem bright enough to know better does that
to me. I wonder why...
>Your problem, not mine.
Ignorance is a problem. It's what lead this country to our present
condition, that is, a downward spiral. Are you part of the problem, or the
solution...?
>Why don't you just return to apologetics where you are safe from
>other points of view, less I decide to monitor them again.
My goodness, you think far too much of your 'scholarly' abilities. I don't
care if you choke on these issues. The fact remains that you are wrong.
Might I add, that you have done absolutely NOTHING to support your poition
yet?
>Did you ever figure out the moral dilema, as to who was right in an essay
on ethics?
Yeah, God is right...
>Doubt it with the way you try to bulldoze your way around others.
Yeah, okay. I'm all hurt and stuff. Geez, what an ego...
Do some homework, Mr. Walksalone. Please don't play anymore until you have
more than just your own opinions to add. At least, if nothing else, I am
making the effort to support my beliefs here.
Dave Steiger..
The DataRat
"But the understanding of the Constitution
has often changed."
Exactly THAT is the problem. If we
reinterpret the Constitution every time
the philosophical or political winds
change, WHY HAVE A CONSTITUTION ?
There ~is~ a legal mechanism prescribed
IN WRITING for changing the Constitution.
And it is ~not~ having the Supremes decide
to change it's "meaning" ! THAT'S judicial
tyranny, putting the Supreme Court in
violation of their oath and making them our
unelected rulers.
Surely even a liberal can see how dangerous
this is ? You've had pretty good luck
reinventing the Constitution, so far. But, be
warned, that expedient can just as easily be
employed against you !
The DataRat
William Jarrell
I do not wish to make a tu quoque argument, but the Supreme Court
has reversed itself. In 1896 it ruled in the Plessy case that
segregation was Constitutional, but it reversed the 1954 Brown decision.
Do you think the Constitution was arbitrarily reinvented in the Brown
Decision? Or were the understandings of justice expanded within their
concepts? If that was done with legal segregation then is it possible
that the same might be said for church/state decisions?
- William Jarrell
Walksalone
<cle...@starnetinc.com> having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
>Walksalone,
>Listen, you must be one heavy duty dense due.
Rather about 150lbs, 5'10" & neither dense nor due.
>Last we heard, you were saying...
>>Then why did you mention Jefferson as a xian when he self professedly
>wasn't?
>You said this, amazingly, EVEN after having just read this...
>>"I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
>>Jesus." (Quote made BY Thomas Jefferson)
Claimed quote by Thomas Jefferson. Provide references to the site where this
can be verified oh spinner of tall tales. & if you do that, expect to have
the entire document read to figure out the context of the statement. A thing
it is doubtful you have done. You see, I suspect that when it comes to
arguing your point of view, you may be less than straightforward, so out of
you I demand proof. Others have told me the believed that a passage was
located at such a place & I've followed it through, you haven't earned that
privilege. I'd be more inclined to thake the word of VOJ than you, & I never
thought I would say that.
>Then you had the brilliant idea to tell me all about 'doctrines' NOT being
>teachings! The man claims to be a Disciple for crying out loud. He could
Having read more than one passage that he wrote, yes, I can & did do that.
Unlike you, I don't rely on quotes to tide me over.
>have only said this if he was a believer, as this is a direct concept from
>the Gospel accounts.
Not really, I could be a disciple of Confucius & not a believer in his path.
>Yeah, lets all sit back and take you seriously.
Please don't, I would'nt wish to add to the apolexy you are working on. BTW,
why don't you trim your headers or state where you are posting from so the
good folks at arcb don't have to have their band width wasted.
>This is all I need to know about you in order to establish that you're
>pretty much living in a world of denial. The man (Jefferson) states his
>faith for all time
>and eternity to hear, but you say otherwise. The Bible has some words for
>you, pal...
Not your pal happy to say. I don't twist passages & hand pick unfounded
quotes [like who was TJ talking to when that amazing staement was said] to
establish anything, I don't have to. I've read some of his work, some I don't
agree with, but it is good thinking for all that.
>Mark 4:12
>"That seeing they may see, and NOT perceive; and hearing they may hear, and
>NOT understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins
>should be forgiven them."
>
>Now, I NEVER said any of these men, Jefferson included, were 'perfect' Bible
>believing men. It was not even my point. You show me one who is, and then
Your claim was rthey were xian, & they weren't.
>we'll talk. BUT, a believer he was, and that's all I need to know.
No, you wish him to be a believer, & that is all you can see.
>How can you possibly be taken seriously after so obvious a bias? The facts
>are in, Walksalone, and you are, indeed, on your own.
Always been on my own lessen I was at home with the families. But unlike you,
I can accept that the founding fathers were not xian, they were deitst, & it
doesn't bother me a whit. You on the other hand, go ballistic. Your problem,
not mine. Why don't you just return to apologetics where you are safe from
other points of view, less I decide to monitor them again. Did you ever
figure out the moral dilema, as to who was right in an essay on ethics? Doubt
it with the way you try to bulldoze your way around others.
>Dave
May your days let you live in interesting times.
William Jarrell
>
>
> "I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
> Jesus." (Quote made BY Thomas Jefferson)
>
ethical teachings of Jesus, not a belief in the divinity of Jesus.
Jefferson edited the four Gospels by omitting all references to Christ's
divinity and only leaving the ethical teachings. Jefferson believed
Jesus was only a prophet.
- William Jarrell
The DataRat
"Do you think the Constitution was arbitrarily
reinvented in the Brown Decision?"
Let's stick to the topic, and discuss
revision of the Constitution in regards to
the Establishment Clause.
DataRat
Ranger57
> Hunter Int. wrote:
> >
> > "I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the doctrines of
> > Jesus." (Quote made BY Thomas Jefferson)
> >
> ethical teachings of Jesus, not a belief in the divinity of Jesus.
> Jefferson edited the four Gospels by omitting all references to Christ's
> divinity and only leaving the ethical teachings. Jefferson believed
> Jesus was only a prophet.
>
> - William Jarrell
Uh, that doesn't comport with Dave Steiger's immaculate
misconceptions; therefore it must be wrong. You simply must learn how
to play the game.... ;)
Walksalone
<cle...@starnetinc.com> having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
>Walksalone,
>Man, this is incredible. There's another guy on our newsgroup just like
>you. Wouldn't matter if God Almighty came down and told him the Bible was
>His Word, he'd still disbelieve.
Don't go away, as a courtesy to the Baptist news group, I will rejoin you on
the apologetic group shortly. Remanent snipped until I get there.
Do not stand by this grave & weep,
William Jarrell
That is part of the topic since the discussion of the Establishment
Clause is a discussion of the Constitution. Your assumption is that
Supreme rulings made in the 19th Century are based on a corrected
understanding of the Establishment Clause, where as later rulings like
Engel were made arbitrarily and are not true to the Constitution. My
view is that religious freedom and no establishment is a Constitutional
concept, which was not being fully realized until now. I brought the
Brown and Plessy decision because they fit into this same pattern of the
Court setting new precedents.
- William Jarrell
Walksalone
<cle...@starnetinc.com> having stopped their contemplations on the mystery of
life & uttered the following:
Walksalone,
>Man, this is incredible. There's another guy on our newsgroup
>just like
>you. Wouldn't matter if God Almighty came down and told him the
>Bible was
>His Word, he'd still disbelieve.
Likely, in as much as everything I've read, including the xian
writ says he doesn't exist, or should he exist he would be to
evil for me to accept as a deity I could worship, why?
>And you seem so amazed that I am stunned by your obvious lack of
ability to
>simply accept facts!
Facts have to be presented in total to be accepted, that
involves context & such. A thing to seem to avoid with
diligence.
>Let's see, last we heard, you were saying...
>>Claimed quote by Thomas Jefferson. Provide references to the
site where
>this can be verified oh spinner of tall tales.
>What a loon. Okay smart guy, okay. I can see where you're
coming from.
>Well, here's the 'quote' in question, for the third time...
>"I AM a REAL Christian, that is to say, a DISCIPLE of the
doctrines of
>Jesus." (Quote made BY Thomas Jefferson)
Same quote taken out of context, yes by golly it looks
familiar king of cut & pasters.
No surprise that you have ignored those that have pointed out
that TJ was a follower of the principles of xianity, & granted no
deityship to the lad. You have heard of the Jefferson Bible
haven't you. Read it sometime & it is possible that you will
understand the context of the above quote.
>Now, here's the 'question' asked by the imminently intelligent
Mr.
>Walksalone regarding this quote...
>>& if you do that, expect to have the entire document read to
figure out the
>>context of the statement.
>??? Okay, I guess I should be all scared and everything. Gee, a
>guy might
No, not scared, just have it pointed out that one of the
following is likely if it doesn't pan out the way you have been
claiming.
A: A honest misinterpretation.
B: A twisted source [happens if you read enough apologetics].
C: An out & out misrepresentation of the information, which at
this time I am leaning towards.
>actually try to 'call my bluff'. Okay, sure, I'll give you your
>answer.
>For what it's worth, I already did reference it, (although
>admittedly not as
>complete as I will now because you're the 'serious' scholar and
>all...), you
>just didn't read it the first time I guess.
Not a serious scholar but some cautious about those that know
everything in spite of the history of the subject, in this case
Mr. Jefferson. Rather like your claim that the letter to the
Dansbury Baptist was for protection of the church as a guiding
principle of the constitution, rather than an extension of it.
Check this source oh follower of polliwogs.
Jefferson's Danbury letter has been cited favorably by the
Supreme
Court many times. In its 1879 Reynolds vs. U.S. decision the
high court said Jefferson's observations 'may be accepted almost
as an
authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the [First]
Amendment.' In the court's 1947 Everson v. Board of Education
decision, Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'In the words of Thomas
Jefferson,
the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended
to
erect a wall of separation between church and state.' It is only
in
recent times that separation has come under attack by judges in
the
federal court system who oppose separation of church and state."
Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About
Separation
of Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), p. 221
The statement that Thomas Jefferson meant his "wall of
separation" to be
"one-directional," only to protect the church from incursions by
the
state "is an example of one of the Religious Right's more blatant
lies.
It is impossible to determine where this myth originated, but we
do know
that it began appearing with increasing frequency in the early
1990s.
The phrase 'one directional' often appears in quotation marks to
make it
appear as if it were lifted from a letter or personal writing of
Jefferson's.
"Of course, Jefferson said no such thing about his 'wall,' as
any of his
biographers or church-state historians will readily testify.
Jefferson's writings indicate beyond a doubt that he believed
separation would protect both church and state."
Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About
Separation
of Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), p. 222.
"Since Jefferson coined the phrase 'wall of separation between
church
and state' in 1802, a full 145 years before the Soviet provision
was written, it is obviously incorrect to suggest that the
Soviets
pioneered the separation principle. If anything, the Soviets
stole the
concept from the United States. In any case, what the Soviet
constitution said about religious freedom has no bearing on U.S.
constitutional provisions. The Soviet document also guaranteed
free
speech (at least on paper), but no one has labeled freedom of
expression
a Communist idea."
Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About
Separation
of Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), pp. 222-23.
"The Framers wrote the Constitution as a secular document not
because
they were hostile to Christianity but because they did not want
to imply
that the new federal government would have any authority to
meddle in
religion."
Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About
Separation
of Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), pp. 223-24.
"Although Murray O-Hair did play an important role in this
controversy
[government-led prayer in public schools], she did not
'single-handedly'
remove state-sponsored religious exercises from public schools.
Other
people were involved. Today the controversial Texas atheist
serves as a
convenient villain for Religious Right propagandists who hate
religious
liberty and church-state separation."
Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About
Separation
of Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), p. 227.
"In a footnote to the Supreme Court's 1961 Torcaso v. Watkins
decisions, Justice Hugo Black wrote, 'Among religions in this
country
which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in
the
existence of God is Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular
Humanism,
and others.' The Torcaso case dealt with religious tests for
public office; it has nothing to do with public schools. The
justice's
comment is far from a finding that humanism is being taught in
the
schools."
Robert Boston, Why The Religious Right is Wrong About
Separation
of Church & State (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1993), pp. 229-30.
>The quote came from 'Thomas Jefferson, The Writings of Thomas
>Jefferson,
>Albert Ellery Bergh, editor (Washington D.C.: The Thomas
>Jefferson Memorial
>Association, 1904), Volume 14, page 385, to Charles Thompson on
>January 9, 1816.
>That good enough for you...? Go get 'em, chief...!!
Not really, but it is a start.
>>A thing it is doubtful you have done.
>Yeah, yeah. Blah, blah, blah...
>>You see, I suspect that when it comes to
>>arguing your point of view, you may be less than
>>straightforward, so out of
>>you I demand proof.
>Well, here's my retort to you, pal:
Retort, where?
>"You see, I suspect you have no desire whatsoever to think for a
>second that
>your thinking could be wrong, and that everything some idiot you
>thought had
>some working brain cells told you is now turning out to be
>false."
>That pretty much sums it up...
Yes, you had no retort so limped out of the way with an attempt to denigrate
the opinion of another. No surprise there.
Nice guess, I've been wrong in my thinking many a time, seems to
come with thinking for oneself.
As to everything you said being false, why no, not really. But
you should work on your self image if you conceive of yourself as
an idiot. At least you can Spell Thomas Jefferson, or was that
cut & paste as well.
>It's always the case with guys like you. You spent a great deal
of time
>listening to one side of an argument, adopt that position
because of the
>length of time you put into it, and then when someone comes and
makes
>mincemeat of your position, whoa, it just HAS to be wrong! It
has to,
>because if any other way was true, YOU would have found it
>first. Same thing, every time.
Rather, I've spent some time reading the entire documents & as
such I have a notion as to what the author normally meant, not
what some weaver of falsehoods or twisted of words says it
means..
That you haven't done so is your loss, not mine. That you
attempt to foist it off as the way it is , well that's to your
shame, not mine.
>Learn to love it: The founding fathers came from a CHRISTIAN
perspective,
>and a great percentage of them said so, some so vocally that
there isn't a
>thing you can do to change the history surrounding it.
Rather they did allow all religions, in spite of the xians that
attempted to insert the xian DIC into the Constitution & Bill of
Rights. So you can whistle your little songs of make believe
all you, the facts of the matter are the USA was not founded on
xian principles exclusively nor were the founding fathers
exclusively xian as you have indicated & implied with boring
regularity.
>>Others have told me the believed that a passage was
>>located at such a place & I've followed it through, you haven't
>earned that privilege.
>Oh puh-leeze. You think I give a squat what 'priviledges' I
earn from you?
>Man, you have some ego, dude...
Yes, I do, but compared to yours it is but a dust mote in the
universe, why?
>>I'd be more inclined to thake the word of VOJ than you, & I
never
>>thought I would say that.
>Great, thanks. Whatever that means...
It really wasn't a compliment.
>>Having read more than one passage that he wrote, yes, I can &
did do that.
>>Unlike you, I don't rely on quotes to tide me over.
>Hey pal, did you ever hear what Felix Unger had to say about
'assuming'?
>Oh, I suppose you need a reference for that, too...
Not really, that's why I don't use the word. In your case it is
based on observation.
What was the basis for the letter you quoted, what was it in
response to, why was it written? These are questions I ask
before I read history of the nature you are claiming to be only
one way, so yes, you indicate you haven't read the whole thing.
>I don't need 'quotes' to 'tide me over'. Whatever that's
supposed to mean.
>See, I guess you 'must' be right, and I 'must' be wrong. And
why? Because
>you heard one or two things from some idiot, they sounded good,
and now you
>know it all. It's always the same..!
I've heard your quote before, & it never has been established as
being what you claim, this doesn't surprise me however.
>>Not really, I could be a disciple of Confucius & not a believer
>in his path.
>Yeah, that makes a ton of sense...
To anyone that can think for them self, yes it does. Being you
have claimed to lack that ability, I'll do a loose translation.
Basically I can accept the teachings of Confucius, & be of another
path, say Shamen or Wiccan, Pagan etc. So as usual, you verify
your ability to miss the obvious.
By the way, a bit odd to snip out the question/statement the
above was really addressed to, but not surprising from you I'm
sad to state.
And his statement that he is a follower of the lad? Not there
is it. It's is accepted that Thomas Jefferson was religious &
had a god concept, & deitst was what he was called. It is also
accepted that some of the precepts that were attributed to the
lad were worthy of following from TJ's POV.
That fails the test of xianity right there. He never states that
he was a follower of the lad.
>(Same as first source, this time turn to page 315 of volume 12.
Letter to
>James Fishback, 9/27/1809)
>Or, how about this major statement of faith...
"And can the liberties of a nation be thought secure if we have
lost the
ONLY firm basis, a CONVICTION in the minds of the people that
these
liberties are THE GIFT of God? That they are NOT to be violated
but WITH
HIS WRATH?"
(Thomas Jefferson, Notes on the State of Virginia, Query 18 page
237.)
And the xian god is still not mentioned.
>Of course, ol' Thomas was just casually interested in Jesus, he
couldn't
>have taken it too seriously according to you. It's only a
'hobby' being
>concerned about God's wrath, follwing Jesus, yep, I can see your
point. No
>way could Thomas have taken seriously...
No, Thomas took his faith very seriously I suspect.
Being you like quotes, My turn.
"Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every
fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a
God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of
reason, than that of blindfolded fear."
Thomas Jefferson
"And the day will come, when the mystical generation of Jesus, by
the Supreme Being as His Father, in the womb of a virgin, will be
classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva, in the brain of
Jupiter."
Thomas Jefferson
"He who knows nothing is closer to the truth than he whose mind
is filled with falsehoods and errors."
Thomas Jefferson
"They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to
me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe
rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility
against every form of tyranny over the mind of man."
Thomas Jefferson
"truth is great and will prevail if left to herself; that she
is the proper and sufficient antagonist to error, and has nothing to
fear from the conflict unless by human interposition disarmed of
her natural weapons, free argument and debate, errors ceasing to
be dangerous when it is permitted freely to contradict them."
Thomas Jefferson
"Reason and free inquiry are the only effective agents against
error. Give a loose to them, they will support the true religion
by bringing every false one to their tribunal, to the test of their
investigation. They are the natural enemies of error and error
only. Had not the Roman government permitted free inquiry,
Christianity could never have been introduced. Had not free
inquiry been indulged at the era of the Reformation, the corruption of
Christianity could not have been purged away."
Thomas Jefferson
"It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth
can stand by itself."
Thomas Jefferson
"Difference of opinion leads to enquiry, and enquiry to truth."
Thomas Jefferson
As you can see, Thomas had a low opinion of xianity, so as to your claim that
he was one in fact is but a fart in the wind.
>Get a grip, it's everywhere. And we could go on and on. People
don't say
So is sal minlla, your point.?
>things like the above UNLESS they are genuinely convicted the
sources EXIST
>for their conviction!
Read & weep passwynd, as you said, people don't say what they
don't mean, & the quotes I gave from Thomas Jefferson lay to
rest the lie you have been trying to spread
>But unlike you, I can accept that the founding fathers were not
xian, they
>were deitst, & it doesn't bother me a whit.
>Listen, I don't care if it bothers you, or not. Big deal!
That's not the
>point. The point is that you're wrong. That, my friend, is the
point at
>the moment.
A thing you have yet to establish, & you know that as well as I
do.
>>You on the other hand, go ballistic.
>Yeah, stupidity from folks that seem bright enough to know
>better does that
>to me. I wonder why...
Your self professed stupidity doesn't bother me, if you don't
wish to correct it, then I am absolved of any requirement to help
you in those fields where I can.
>>Your problem, not mine.
>Ignorance is a problem. It's what lead this country to our
>present
>condition, that is, a downward spiral. Are you part of the
>problem, or the
>solution...?
The solution as a matter of fact, I do what I can to point out
false information such as yours.
>>Why don't you just return to apologetics where you are safe from
>>other points of view, less I decide to monitor them again.
>My goodness, you think far too much of your 'scholarly'
>abilities. I don't
>care if you choke on these issues. The fact remains that you
>are wrong.
Rather I have no scholarly abilities, I have to read for myself
to find the information I need. Comes from having been a farm &
ranch hand as a youth I guess.
>Might I add, that you have done absolutely NOTHING to support
>your poition
>yet?
Rather I've done more, but you don't wish to admit that, fine by
me.
>>Did you ever figure out the moral dilema, as to who was right in
>>an essay on ethics?
>Yeah, God is right...
Think that you just prevaricated. OK, which essay was it, which author & the
title if you don't
mind. & by the way, in that essay god was not a participant.
>>Doubt it with the way you try to bulldoze your way around
>>others.
>Yeah, okay. I'm all hurt and stuff. Geez, what an ego...
Just a minute, I'll mix you up some pabulum, but I won't burp
you.
>Do some homework, Mr. Walksalone. Please don't play anymore
>until you have
>more than just your own opinions to add. At least, if nothing
>else, I am
>making the effort to support my beliefs here.
Unlike you, I've done quite a bit of homework, & also unlike you,
my claims have foundations beyond what I want to hear. That your
standards fall short of that is not a problem.
>Dave Steiger..
Talk doesn't cook rice.
Chinese proverb
the politically incorrect walksalone at bawaa org
The DataRat
"That is part of the topic since the
discussion of the Establishment
Clause is a discussion of the
Constitution."
Then choose your examples of case
law from Establishment Clause
decisions !
Know you'd like to turn this into a
discussion of Christianity v. Racial
Equality, but Bro. Rat ain't falling for
~that~ !
The DataRat
William Jarrell
answering the question. Why? Are you willing to concede that the Supreme
Court decision could be legitimately overturned in one area, but not in
another?
- William Jarrell
> The DataRat
The DataRat
"Who said Christianity and racial equality
are exclusive? You not answering the
question. Why?"
Already told you: The Genevan Rodent
is NOT going to be maneuvered into a
position where he is defending his Christian
viewpoint from charges of racism.
You want to discuss the Establishment
Clause ? Then, cite case law specific to
the Establishment Clause !
"Are you willing to concede that the Supreme
Court decision could be legitimately overturned
in one area, but not in another?"
Bro. Rat is willing to admit that a philosophy
regarding the U.S. Constitution maintained
for the first 150 years of our nation's history
is probably closer to the original intent of that
document than any new Constitutional philosophy
"discovered" in the last few decades.
So, no, am not going to buy into the premise
that one -or a few- bad early decisions being
overturned establishes any principles here.
A few exceptions do not constitute a rule !
The DataRat
William Jarrell
>
> "Who said Christianity and racial equality
> are exclusive? You not answering the
> question. Why?"
>
> Already told you: The Genevan Rodent
> is NOT going to be maneuvered into a
> position where he is defending his Christian
> viewpoint from charges of racism.
>
the Supreme Court reversing itself. I just happened to cite Plessy and
Brown because they are well known cases, but I could have just as well
cited the Gobits and Barnette decisions. In those rulings the Court
reversed itself within a few years, not decades.
(By the way, what is a Genevan Rodent? Are you Swiss?)
> You want to discuss the Establishment
> Clause ? Then, cite case law specific to
> the Establishment Clause !
>
> "Are you willing to concede that the Supreme
> Court decision could be legitimately overturned
> in one area, but not in another?"
>
> Bro. Rat is willing to admit that a philosophy
> regarding the U.S. Constitution maintained
> for the first 150 years of our nation's history
> is probably closer to the original intent of that
> document than any new Constitutional philosophy
> "discovered" in the last few decades.
>
So does that include the Plessy decision, or do you make an
exception?
> So, no, am not going to buy into the premise
> that one -or a few- bad early decisions being
> overturned establishes any principles here.
> A few exceptions do not constitute a rule !
>
Where we disagree is that I think the later rulings which
strengthened religious freedom and the wall of separation were carrying
out the fullness of the ideas set forth in the First Ammendment. In
other words, if 19th century jurists had understood the Constitutional
Concepts they were dealing with, their rulings might have been closer to
20th century rulings.
- William Jarrell
The DataRat
"By the way, what is a Genevan Rodent?
Are you Swiss?"
No, Calvinist.
( Geneva, Switzerland was a Calvinist
administer city in the 16th. Century.
DataRat greatly admires that government.
"Genevan Rodent", "Calvinist Rodent",
and "Reformed Rodent" were all nics he
picked-up over the years. )
"I am not accusing you of racism. I was
simply citing an example of the Supreme
Court reversing itself."
You'll appreciate the Reformed Rodent's
reluctance to put himself in a position where
THAT (race) can become the issue.
"So does that include the Plessy decision,
or do you make an exception?"
It's your case law example. Provide a
synopsis, and explain your point regarding
it.
( Hope you're not trying to dazzle the
natives with legalisms. The Calvinist Rodent
is a police officer, and he knows how to
research case law -albeit it he's not going
to research ~your~ examples for you ! )
"I think the later rulings which strengthened
religious freedom and the wall of separation
were carrying out the fullness of the ideas
set forth in the First Ammendment."
Yes. That is YOUR position.
This represents an evolutionary approach to
constitutional law which is little more than
re-inventing the Constitution every few years.
In essence, it says: "The Constitution has
no objective meaning or original intent. It
means whatever the Supremes say it means."
Maybe in a practical sense, the U.S. Supreme
Court can ( and has ) re-interpreted the
Constitution. But that is a travesty regardless
of whether they had the power to do it. This
nation is in big trouble when Power replaces
Principle as our guiding ideology.
Bro. Rat's position is that there is no point
in having a Constitution if it has no integrity.
Get rid of it, be honest, and just legislate
~whatever~ statutes you want. At least
...that way... elected representatives are making
the law -and NOT appointed judges !
The Genevan Rodent WON'T buy into the
idea that one bad court decision later reversed
establishes any constitutional precedent. He's
discussing philosophies of constitutional law
here, and not exceptions becoming the guide
for rules.
The DataRat
William Jarrell
>
> "By the way, what is a Genevan Rodent?
> Are you Swiss?"
>
> No, Calvinist.
>
> ( Geneva, Switzerland was a Calvinist
> administer city in the 16th. Century.
> DataRat greatly admires that government.
I am familiar with the Calvinist regime in 16th century Geneva. Tell
me, do you have great admiration for that government inspite of the fact
it killed Micheal Servetus or because it did this? Servetus was burned
at the stake for not believing in the trinity.
> "I am not accusing you of racism. I was
> simply citing an example of the Supreme
> Court reversing itself."
>
> You'll appreciate the Reformed Rodent's
> reluctance to put himself in a position where
> THAT (race) can become the issue.
Then use the Gobits and Barnette cases. In 1940 the Court rules that
Jehovah's Witness school kids did not have the right to refuse saluting
the American flag. In 1943 they reversed themselved.
> Maybe in a practical sense, the U.S. Supreme
> Court can ( and has ) re-interpreted the
> Constitution. But that is a travesty regardless
> of whether they had the power to do it. This
> nation is in big trouble when Power replaces
> Principle as our guiding ideology.
>
I agree that principle should be the guide. The Constitution
establishes religious freedom and the nonsestablishment of religion as
principles. Despite your claims to the contrary, later decision like
Engle were not made in some capricious ideological vacuum.
> Bro. Rat's position is that there is no point
> in having a Constitution if it has no integrity.
> Get rid of it, be honest, and just legislate
> ~whatever~ statutes you want. At least
> ...that way... elected representatives are making
> the law -and NOT appointed judges !
>
It is not a question of making the law. It is a question of
upholding and fulfilling the law. This is a rightwing canard.
> The Genevan Rodent WON'T buy into the
> idea that one bad court decision later reversed
> establishes any constitutional precedent. He's
> discussing philosophies of constitutional law
> here, and not exceptions becoming the guide
> for rules.
>
I am not saying that it necessarily does. I think we can agree that
the Supreme Court is not infalliable. It is a question of what is meant
by religious freedom and no establishment?
- William Jarrell
Frank Schierenberg
>
>Funny - I never knew anything about atheism or humanism until long after I
>left school. What is it that you think they are teaching?
>
Stupid they ain't. Atheistic secular humanists don't want to be known as
a belief system in competition with Christianity, for they fear the same
rules reg. religion might be applied to them. But eventually ALL belief
systems however will be treated equally and excluded from the public domain
and purse. Pacifists will even force government to stop spending tax money
on anything designed to kill. Won't that be the day! I'm sure it heralds the
beginning of the Biblical "thousand years of peace".
>
Frank A.S.
Tolerance is the virtue of those who
don't care about anything or anyone.
-anon-
Frank Schierenberg
> Only in the last few decades has it been
> otherwise. For at least 150 of this nation's
> first two-hundred years, nobody gave a
> second thought to government funds being
> used to promote Christianity.
>
If the government were restricted to use their funds ONLY for those
purposes without opposition, government would grind to a halt. Why not make
Government exclude ALL belief systems from the public purse, not just
Christianity. I'm sure, many don't wish to finance capitalist wars, secular
humanist abortions, the commercialism of selling weapons to third world
dictators etc. etc. Let's make Government listen to all interest groups
equally or stop discriminating solely against Christianity.
michael burt
>
> Only in the last few decades have women and Blacks been given the
> same full legal rights as white men.
Where in the Constitution are the rights of blacks and women denied?
References to slavery, civil rights, and feminism are often used as
neo-racist and neo-sexist advocations to support anti-male,
anti-Christian, and anti-American hate speech. It was the principles of
the Constitution solely based upon God's law that provided for the rights
that Christian American should rightfully be proud of, the results of
living up to the Constitution.
Slavery existed for millinea, but it was eliminated in the US first, why?
Because it was a Christian nation. Slavery was eliminated in the US
because of Christianity and the Christian Constitution.
There are many definations to slavery. I suspect that you are using the
popular neo-racist image wherein a slave is defined as a black man chained
and beaten once a day whether he needs it or not. That is not a good
defination of slavery and NEVER sanctioned in the Bible.
Slavery is also defined as one who is completely dominated by some
influence, habit, etc. Those bound to governmental dependency and certain
employment contracts today meed this defination of slavery and the
attendent limitations on civil rights.
If you believe that the Bible supports slavery as it is more commonly
thought of today, you are not well versed in the Laws of Moses or the
relationship of Onesimus and Philemon. Nor does the Bible support the
form of slavery practiced in the American colonies, although plantation
slaves were more commonly treated as family members. There were large
numbers of free blacks as well, many of whom fought against the Union, and
they were not fighting in support of slavery. Colonial slaves were most
commonly purchased in black slave markets run by black Africans, not
Christians. They were slaves in their native land before coming to
America.
Not that Americans were right in propagating the practice, but they did
not instigate it but inherited it from a non-Christian world tradition and
spent countelss fortunes determining how to get rid of it. And it was
the forces embodied in the American Constitution based upon Godąs Word
that set into place the events that ended the practice of that form of
slavery in this country because of the efforts of a great many Christians
ending the ancient practice of slavery here only after the shedding of a
lot of blood of a great many Christian men. Christians finally ended the
practice of slaverly in the last of its strongholds of Africa and China
only in the last century in the former and almost within this century in
China until the Christians in China became persecuted coincident with the
reserruction of slavery in China. To suggest that Christian American in
the final analysis supported slavery or intended to abrigate civil rights
is to trivilize the lost blood of a great many white Christen men given
freely to eliminate slavery and make good the promises promised by the
Christian Constitution. And it was the work of Christian men and women
that continued to provide for changes in the civil rights era, led by
Christian men and women of every church in the land. The banners of
humanists/athiests were no where to be found in any documentary of the
civil rights era that one chooses to view. So to give credit where credit
is due, one should be thankful that America did encourage Christianity,
and continue to encourage those principles into the future.
Oppression of women by Christianity? The laws of Moses give women great
rights. It is the daughter of King Zeddiakiah that inherited the throne
of David that may be in existenance still. You are probably confused
between womanąs rights and feminists rights. They are not the same thing
as a reading of such as Domestic Tranquility by Gragalia will document.
There are more men who are feminists than there are women as feminism
liberates men from responsibilities, but forces and demands a particular
stereotype on all women. In Gragaliaąs opinon, feminism takes away womanąs
rights and undermines the strength of our nation through a revisionism of
history and a deterioration of family values. The basis of feminism is
that women and men are equal, the same, interchangeable, and identical to
men. Feminism is sexist/and or hypocritical, for if their basic beliefs
are true, they deny men the opportunity to bear one half of all children.
They also trivialize the importance of men in the one flesh of marriage
and such as The Feminist Mystique hatefully misrepresent history. The
author later admitted that the anti-male, anti-Christian, and
anti-American statements were not true, but the corrections for truth are
not printed in the book. Underneath the hateful speech of the feminist
movement which is decidedly anti-male lies the real hatred of feminism, a
hatred of women, according to Gragalia with very convincing proofs.
There is no persecution of those who do not share my beliefs in the
Bible. Christianity is available to anyone, it has never been exclusive
except for those who choose not to believe. In fact, it is the most
inclusive organization of people in the world transcending all cultures,
people, and continents. To propagate that Christianity is or in any way
has ever been exclusive, can be construed as a hate statement.
The majority of the American people support Christian principles over
athiest/humanistic principles. If one supports the democratic approach,
then the will of the American people is being oppressed and victemized in
anti-American cultural oppression unless Christianity is encouraged, the
intent of the Constitution.
--
May God Bless You,
Michael
Character Counts. It is not hypocritical to set a high goal and occasionally fail. It is hypocritical to set a low goal and occasionally succeed.
Ranger57
> > Only in the last few decades have women and Blacks been given the
> > same full legal rights as white men.
>
> Where in the Constitution are the rights of blacks and women denied?
Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they are not protected,
although Art. 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 distinguishes between "Free" and
other Persons. That is why the 13th-15th and 19th Amendments were added
to the Bill of Rights.
> References to slavery, civil rights, and feminism are often used as
> neo-racist and neo-sexist advocations to support anti-male,
> anti-Christian, and anti-American hate speech. It was the principles of
> the Constitution solely based upon God's law that provided for the rights
> that Christian American should rightfully be proud of, the results of
> living up to the Constitution.
>
> Slavery existed for millinea, but it was eliminated in the US first, why?
Was it? I thought that a number of European countries (including
England) beat us to it, but I will defer to those more up-to-speed on
the topic.
> Because it was a Christian nation. Slavery was eliminated in the US
> because of Christianity and the Christian Constitution.
The "Christian Constitution" codified slavery. See Dred Scott v.
Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
> The majority of the American people support Christian principles over
> athiest/humanistic principles. If one supports the democratic approach,
> then the will of the American people is being oppressed and victemized in
> anti-American cultural oppression unless Christianity is encouraged, the
> intent of the Constitution.
But then, there's that pesky Bill of Rights. Because we were a nation
of dissenters, we took great pains to preserve the rights of
dissenters. We have said, in effect, that there are certain things that
the majority cannot do. Why? Because ultimately, we are all a minority
of one.
Pioneer
<NOSPA...@mozcom.com> wrote:
> Stupid they ain't. Atheistic secular humanists don't want to be known as
> a belief system in competition with Christianity, for they fear the same
> rules reg. religion might be applied to them.
On the contrary - secular humanism is quite openly described as an
alternative - but an alternative to religion in general, not just one
religion.
But it would no more be under the rules regulating religion than is
conservatism or liberalism, as none of them are religions.
--
Austin Cline: http://atheism.miningco.com
Mining Co. Guide, Agnosticism/Atheism
Secular Humanism, Eastern Ohio & Western PA:
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Academy/6763/
--- "A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence." David Hume
--- "Thinking men cannot be ruled." Ayn Rand
The DataRat
"Tell me, do you have great admiration
for that government inspite of the fact
it killed Micheal Servetus or because it
did this?"
Servetus escaped jail in France where
he was awaiting execution by the Romanist
authorities for ~exactly~ the same crime !
Servetus came to Geneva knowing full-well
that the Protestant authorities would arrest
and execute him.
Servetus wanted to be martyred. Once in
Geneva, he went straight to the church where
John Calvin was preaching. He was -according
to his wishes- recognized, arrested, and
eventually executed.
No problem at all with executing public
blasphemers and those teaching major heresies.
A lot of people would be alive today if Jim Jones
had been burned at the stake. Tens of thousands
would have avoided harm if L. Ron Hubbard was
similarly removed as soon as he started
Scientology. Ditto for David Koresh, et. al. !
Yesterday, police in Israel arrested a heretic who
took his American followers to that country to
commit terrorist acts hoped to usher in their cult's
version of the Last Day. The Genevans were
correct in disposing of heretics before they could
cause more harm !
"In 1943 they reversed themselved."
Your point, and how it relates to the Establishment
Clause ?
The Genevan Rodent isn't arguing any one court
decision. He's arguing a change in philosophy
about the Constitution.
"The Constitution establishes religious freedom
and the nonsestablishment of religion as principles."
The understanding for the first 150 years of the
Constitution was non-establishment of sects, churches,
and denominations ...NOT of "religion", at least of
the Christian religion.
"It is not a question of making the law. It is a
question of upholding and fulfilling the law. This
is a rightwing canard."
The canard is on the left. When the Constitution
is interpreted radically different from it's first
150 years, you are re-inventing it rather than
"upholding and fulfilling" it !
The DataRat
William Jarrell
>
> "Tell me, do you have great admiration
> for that government inspite of the fact
> it killed Micheal Servetus or because it
> did this?"
>
> Servetus escaped jail in France where
> he was awaiting execution by the Romanist
> authorities for ~exactly~ the same crime !
>
> Servetus came to Geneva knowing full-well
> that the Protestant authorities would arrest
> and execute him.
>
> Servetus wanted to be martyred.
>
> blasphemers and those teaching major heresies.
Then you are a theocratic fascist. You can rationalize your murderous
inclinations with examples like Jones and Koresh, but your policies
would also kill alot of innocent people whose only crime is to disagree
with your theology.
> The Genevans were
> correct in disposing of heretics before they could
> cause more harm !
>
The Genevans were a bunch of murders. Even though their body count
may have been as high, there was no difference in principle between them
and the Taliban.
> "In 1943 they reversed themselved."
>
> Your point, and how it relates to the Establishment
> Clause ?
>
> The Genevan Rodent isn't arguing any one court
> decision. He's arguing a change in philosophy
> about the Constitution.
>
What do you know about the Constitution? Or a better question would
be, why should you care about the Constition? You don't believe in
religious freedom. You advocate executing people for theological
differences. Your views have nothing at all in common with those of
James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. When this discussion began I assume
you just another Christian conservative accomadationist. But your
professed admiration for Calvin's Geneva has revealed your true colors
as a reconstructionist or theonomist. The First Amendment is only
something you want to repeal.
- William Jarrell
The DataRat
"Then you are a theocratic fascist."
No, just not a communist like you !
DR
vinc...@my-dejanews.com
Ah, my boy, how strange you must feel! Are you a bit light-headed?
A trifle disoriented? You see, you have fallen through the looking
glass and you are now in a strange new world that you cannot
comprehend. A world where up is down and down is up. Right is wrong
and wrong is right. Life means nothing and dogma is worth killing
for. Sometimes it's a lot like professional wrestling. DR's buddies
will say he never really said the things he said about executing
heretics. They'll tell you it didn't happen, and you may start
wondering yourself. Let me clear it up for you: He said it. He's
serious. He would light the flame himself. Oh, by the way... Did
you know he's a police officer? Or so he says... You might also
check out his comments about being perfectly willing to kill his
own son. There are those here who admire him for such comments.
My advice: Go find Alice and ask her how to get the heck out of
here as quickly as possible. Don't worry, though. You're making him
look like an even bigger fool than usual, so he'll killfile you
pretty soon...
-v33
-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own
vinc...@my-dejanews.com
>
> DR
>
he doesn't believe in burning heretics at the stake? <cough,
cough!> STOP! STOP! You're cracking me up! <schliccck!
schliccck!> Hey! What was that??? <fwoompf> Hey! Put that
out! Hey!
William Jarrell
>
> "Then you are a theocratic fascist."
>
> No, just not a communist like you !
>
> DR
Ha! Ha! Ha! I thought such an over simplified use of the word
communist went out in the 1950s though Archie Bunker was heard using it
in the 1970s. Why do you consider me a communist? Is it because I
believe in religious freedom without a death penalty? Then most people I
know including a number of Conservative Christians would also qualify as
"communists." You can't qualify your use of that term, and it only
shows your ignorance.
On the other hand I can qualify my description of you as a
"theocratic fascist." A theocrat is someone who believes in a
government based on a religion. A fascist, as I use the term, is someone
who is politically inclined toward authoritarianism and the supression
of civil liberties. Given your views regarding the killing of people who
disagree with your religion this discription seems rather apt.
- William Jarrell
michael burt
>michael burt wrote:
>
>
>> > Only in the last few decades have women and Blacks been given the
>> > same full legal rights as white men.
>>
>> Where in the Constitution are the rights of blacks and women denied?
>
> Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that they are not protected,
>although Art. 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3 distinguishes between "Free" and
>other Persons. That is why the 13th-15th and 19th Amendments were added
>to the Bill of Rights.
The Bill of Rights and all amendments, as you rightly point out, is also
the Constitution. Regarding woman's suffrage, the founders expected men
and women to lead godly marriages. The opinion of the woman should always
be balanced, considered, and represented by the husband, and the opinion
of the husband should also be considered by the wife--they are one flesh.
The flawed feminist concept of marriage requires suffrage as both partners
must be free to express divergent opinion without coming to a common
opinion. This is a marriage of two fleshes, and as the divorce rates
attest to, doesn't work.
>
>> References to slavery, civil rights, and feminism are often used as
>> neo-racist and neo-sexist advocations to support anti-male,
>> anti-Christian, and anti-American hate speech. It was the principles of
>> the Constitution solely based upon God's law that provided for the rights
>> that Christian American should rightfully be proud of, the results of
>> living up to the Constitution.
>>
>> Slavery existed for millennia, but it was eliminated in the US first, why?
>
> Was it? I thought that a number of European countries (including
>England) beat us to it, but I will defer to those more up-to-speed on
>the topic.
You are probably right, perhaps I was overgeneralizing. Both England and
the US however both struggled as Christian nations with the elimination of
slavery. Both governments are rooted in a common belief system,
Christianity religiously and the Magna Carta governmentally by the
extension of God's law.
>
>> Because it was a Christian nation. Slavery was eliminated in the US
>> because of Christianity and the Christian Constitution.
>
> The "Christian Constitution" codified slavery. See Dred Scott v.
>Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
The problem is not so much with the Constitution as it is with the flawed
decision of the Supreme Court. Similar flawed decisions are adversly
affecting America such as but not limited to Wade v Roe and Everson v
BOE.
Slavery was a major compromise with the truth of God's Word in the
Constitution and was subsequently rightfully eliminated. Like all sin, it
was paid for by the shedding of blood by a great many Christian men.
Without the compromise, American perhaps would never have existed, a
compromise with a sinful world, and the principles of freedom based upon
God's Word may never have been brought forth, that which we take for
granted today. The Christians who founded our nation agonized over
slavery, most freed their slaves and provided for their well being in a
sinful world in which slavery was condoned knowing full well that the
spirit of the Constitution based upon God's Word would eventually
eliminate it, if it were given the change to live.
As always, we must be careful in what compromises we make, as Christians
and as a Christian nation. Nevil Chamberlain sought peace, compromised
Truth, and found death. Winston Churchill sought victory over evil, as
did our founders. He did not compromise Truth, and brought blessings to
all people.
>
>
>> The majority of the American people support Christian principles over
>> athiest/humanistic principles. If one supports the democratic approach,
>> then the will of the American people is being oppressed and victemized in
>> anti-American cultural oppression unless Christianity is encouraged, the
>> intent of the Constitution.
>
> But then, there's that pesky Bill of Rights. Because we were a nation
>of dissenters, we took great pains to preserve the rights of
>dissenters. We have said, in effect, that there are certain things that
>the majority cannot do. Why? Because ultimately, we are all a minority
>of one.
Well said. The eventual conclusion of multiculturalism and diversity as
it is being defined and implemented is the complete destruction of unity
for we are all a minority of one. We need to return to the principle of
individual worth, merit, and responsibility, Christian and Constitutional
concepts and reject further adherence to the principles of opportunity
based upon class identity and class warfare.
As it is being defined and implemented, multiculturalism and diversity are
spin words for officially sanctioned discrimination and promote
mediocrity. They seem to be designed to trivialize the accomplishes,
sacrifices, and responsibility of those who built our nation and the
principles upon which it was built.
May God Bless You
Michael
Cowboy
>The DataRat wrote:
>>
>> "Tell me, do you have great admiration
>> for that government inspite of the fact
>> it killed Micheal Servetus or because it
>> did this?"
>>
>> Servetus escaped jail in France where
>> he was awaiting execution by the Romanist
>> authorities for ~exactly~ the same crime !
>>
>> Servetus came to Geneva knowing full-well
>> that the Protestant authorities would arrest
>> and execute him.
>>
>> Servetus wanted to be martyred.
>>
>> No problem at all with executing public
>> blasphemers and those teaching major heresies.
>
> Then you are a theocratic fascist. You can rationalize your murderous
>inclinations with examples like Jones and Koresh, but your policies
>would also kill alot of innocent people whose only crime is to disagree
>with your theology.
Typical of an Armenian. You are more concerned with emotion than you are
with the Bible. Instead of using words such as "theocratic fascist" to
debunk your opponent, you should try a more calm approach. Instead of
yelling insults, you might be better off providing us with facts. Use the
Bible (in context, please) to support your thesis.
John Calvin shouldn't have been put in charge of Geneva. His leadership
skills were flawed. The brutal execution of Micheal Servetus is one example.
But there was nothing wrong with his theology. His doctrine of Election
is not only a good idea, it's Biblically correct. Arminians (who I do not
believe are "headed for hell"—they believe in the same Jesus Christ we
Calvinists do, they're just sadly mistaken about a myriad of things) have
taken many parts of the Bible out of context, and in doing so, have
misrepresented God.
Each Bible verse must be compared and applied to other Bible verses.
Without knowing what other parts of the Bible have to say, a single verse's
message can easily be mistaken for something else. They can, in fact, be
warped into lies.
I don't believe that Armenians intentionally twist scripture, I believe
they are misled. Some don't feel comfortable with Armenian theology, but
won't do anything about it because they don't know of any good alternatives
(My family used to fit into that category). Others are completely happy
being Armenians. They cannot imagine ever leaving the emotion-guided
environment of their churches.
> The Genevans were
>> correct in disposing of heretics before they could
>> cause more harm !
>>
> The Genevans were a bunch of murders. Even though their body count
>may have been as high, there was no difference in principle between them
>and the Taliban.
I was not aware that more than one execution took place in Geneva. Please
enlighten me.
>> "In 1943 they reversed themselved."
>>
>> Your point, and how it relates to the Establishment
>> Clause ?
>>
>> The Genevan Rodent isn't arguing any one court
>> decision. He's arguing a change in philosophy
>> about the Constitution.
>>
> What do you know about the Constitution? Or a better question would
>be, why should you care about the Constition? You don't believe in
>religious freedom. You advocate executing people for theological
>differences. Your views have nothing at all in common with those of
>James Madison and Thomas Jefferson. When this discussion began I assume
>you just another Christian conservative accomadationist. But your
>professed admiration for Calvin's Geneva has revealed your true colors
>as a reconstructionist or theonomist. The First Amendment is only
>something you want to repeal.
>
> - William Jarrell
The Constitution is in err. So is democracy. Democracy is a horrible form of
government. It just so happens that "horrible" is the best we have right
now. Why do I say such grievous things? Because God didn't write the
Constitution. He didn't breath inspiration into our founding fathers.
Although the Constitution was based on Christianity, it wasn't perfect. Only
God can achieve perfection.
Cowboy
Cowboy
vinc...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
<76tlaq$hhs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>You might also
>check out his comments about being perfectly willing to kill his
>own son. There are those here who admire him for such comments.
>
>-v33
You wouldn't kill your children for God? Have you even heard of the story of
Abraham and his son Isaac? You should love your family, but you should be
willing to give them up in a heartbeat for God's sake.
Thankfully, though, I don't believe God would ever ask any of us to kill our
loved ones. Ever. He did that once. Now we've got the story. We should get
the message.
Cowboy
William Jarrell
>
> William Jarrell wrote in message <36916F...@bellsouth.net>...
> >The DataRat wrote:
> >>
> >> "Tell me, do you have great admiration
> >> for that government inspite of the fact
> >> it killed Micheal Servetus or because it
> >> did this?"
> >>
> >> Servetus escaped jail in France where
> >> he was awaiting execution by the Romanist
> >> authorities for ~exactly~ the same crime !
> >>
> >> Servetus came to Geneva knowing full-well
> >> that the Protestant authorities would arrest
> >> and execute him.
> >>
> >> Servetus wanted to be martyred.
> >>
> >> No problem at all with executing public
> >> blasphemers and those teaching major heresies.
> >
> > Then you are a theocratic fascist. You can rationalize your murderous
> >inclinations with examples like Jones and Koresh, but your policies
> >would also kill alot of innocent people whose only crime is to disagree
> >with your theology.
>
> Typical of an Armenian. You are more concerned with emotion than you are
> with the Bible.
Who said anything about Arminianism?
> Instead of using words such as "theocratic fascist" to
> debunk your opponent, you should try a more calm approach. Instead of
> yelling insults, you might be better off providing us with facts.
I am not yelling insults. I was simply being discriptive of Data
Rat's beliefs. Theocracy is a government based on religion. Fascism is
authoritarian government based on oppression and the denial of human
rights. Those terms are quite appropiate for someone who believes in a
government that executes people for differences of theology.
> Use the
> Bible (in context, please) to support your thesis.
>
The one Biblical principle I would use in this case is the golden
rule.
> John Calvin shouldn't have been put in charge of Geneva. His leadership
> skills were flawed. The brutal execution of Micheal Servetus is one example.
>
If it is of any credit to Calvin, he wanted to hang Servetus.
> But there was nothing wrong with his theology. His doctrine of Election
> is not only a good idea, it's Biblically correct.
His theology may or may not have Biblical merit, but that is not the
issue here. I do think it is possible to separate a man's ideas from
other aspects of his life.
>
> I was not aware that more than one execution took place in Geneva. Please
> enlighten me.
>
I am not sure of their body count. My point is that killing people
for differences of viewpoint is wrong.
- William Jarrell
vinc...@my-dejanews.com
"Cowboy" <cow...@badsector.com> wrote:
>
> vinc...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
> <76tlaq$hhs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >You might also
> >check out his comments about being perfectly willing to kill his
> >own son. There are those here who admire him for such comments.
> >
> >-v33
>
> You wouldn't kill your children for God? Have you even heard of the story of
> Abraham and his son Isaac? You should love your family, but you should be
> willing to give them up in a heartbeat for God's sake.
>
you to kill your children? How do you feel about the couple who recently
had their infant son taken away because they sincerely believed God was
telling them he was Jesus and they should keep him pure by feeding him
only lettuce and watermelon juice?
> Thankfully, though, I don't believe God would ever ask any of us to kill our
> loved ones. Ever. He did that once. Now we've got the story. We should get
> the message.
Then why sit around and fantasize about situations in which we might
be willing to kill our children. Is that Godly? Is it Christian? Or is
it being a little too full of ourselves?
Here is the quote. You tell me how you justify it. While we're at it,
since Ratty won't (can't) answer my question about the scriptural basis
of his views on executing heretics, maybe you can tell me exactly
where in the Bible Jesus exhorts us to kill those who disagree with
our theological beliefs. Is it there, or not? Put up or shut up, as
your favorite rat would say...
-v33
====================================
If the Genevan Rodent's son committed treason,
Bro. Rat would be willing to sentence him to
death, and pull the switch.
====================================
No problem at all with executing public
blasphemers and those teaching major heresies.
A lot of people would be alive today if Jim Jones
had been burned at the stake. Tens of thousands
would have avoided harm if L. Ron Hubbard was
similarly removed as soon as he started
Scientology. Ditto for David Koresh, et. al. !
Yesterday, police in Israel arrested a heretic who
took his American followers to that country to
commit terrorist acts hoped to usher in their cult's
version of the Last Day. The Genevans were
correct in disposing of heretics before they could
cause more harm !
===================================
"If the individual expounds on his or
her own theological/religious/social/
spiritual ideas or lifestyle with hate
and condemnation..." - Shirley
In Shirley's New Age brand of "Christianity", tolerance is the Gospel. Not
the Gospel of Christ, rather the Gospel of Post-Modernism. -DR
=================================== ===================================
Matthew 5:43-48 43Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy
neighbour, and hate thine enemy. 44But I say unto you, Love your enemies,
bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them
which despitefully use you, and persecute you; 45That ye may be the children
of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil
and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust. 46For if ye
love them which love you, what reward have ye? do not even the publicans the
same? 47And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do
not even the publicans so?
(Sounds to me like Jesus was a Post-Modernist...) -v33
vinc...@my-dejanews.com
bjar...@bellsouth.net wrote:
> Cowboy wrote:
> >
<snip>
> > I was not aware that more than one execution took place in Geneva. Please
> > enlighten me.
> >
> I am not sure of their body count. My point is that killing people
> for differences of viewpoint is wrong.
>
*In Geneva, under Calvin, 34 women were burned or quartered for the crime or
witchcraft in the year 1545.
*In January, 1547 in Calvin's Geneva, James Gruet, a kind of free-thinker of
dubious morals, was alleged to have posted a note which implied that Calvin
should leave the city:
"He was at once arrested and a house to house search made for his
accomplices. This method failed to reveal anything except that Gruet
had written on one of Calvin's tracts the words 'all rubbish.' The
judges put him to the rack twice a day, morning and evening, for a
whole month . . . He was sentenced to death for blasphemy and beheaded
on July 26, 1547 . . . Evangelical freedom had now arrived at the point
where its champions took a man's life . . . merely for writing a lampoon!"
"Half dead, he was tied to a stake, his feet were nailed to it, and his
head was cut off."
*During Calvin's reign in Geneva, between 1542 and 1546, "58 persons were
put to death for heresy."
*"Calvin is a true mad dog. The man is wicked, and he judges of people
according as he loves or hates them." -Martin Bucer
William Jarrell
Thanks for the post. I was only aware of the Servetus case, though I
assumed there had to be others. I doubt if it makes any difference to
these theocrats.
- William Jarrell
Cowboy
<774ep8$g1g$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>In article <773lkv$sjg$1...@server.cntfl.com>,
> "Cowboy" <cow...@badsector.com> wrote:
>>
>> vinc...@my-dejanews.com wrote in message
>> <76tlaq$hhs$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>>
>> >You might also
>> >check out his comments about being perfectly willing to kill his
>> >own son. There are those here who admire him for such comments.
>> >
>> >-v33
>>
>> You wouldn't kill your children for God? Have you even heard of the story
of
>> Abraham and his son Isaac? You should love your family, but you should be
>> willing to give them up in a heartbeat for God's sake.
>>
>And how would you go about determining if it were God's voice instructing
>you to kill your children?
Before the destruction of the temple in 70AD, God spoke to men through
prophecy, and sometimes even directly. The only way God speaks to us now is
through his Word, the Bible.
How do you feel about the couple who recently
>had their infant son taken away because they sincerely believed God was
>telling them he was Jesus and they should keep him pure by feeding him
>only lettuce and watermelon juice?
Crazy couple.
>
>> Thankfully, though, I don't believe God would ever ask any of us to kill
our
>> loved ones. Ever. He did that once. Now we've got the story. We should
get
>> the message.
>Then why sit around and fantasize about situations in which we might
>be willing to kill our children. Is that Godly? Is it Christian? Or is
>it being a little too full of ourselves?
I don't fantasize about "situations in which we might be willing to kill our
children." If I had kids, I'd be willing to give them up if God told me to.
God won't tell me to, but it's the mindset that matters.
>Here is the quote. You tell me how you justify it. While we're at it,
>since Ratty won't (can't) answer my question about the scriptural basis
>of his views on executing heretics, maybe you can tell me exactly
>where in the Bible Jesus exhorts us to kill those who disagree with
>our theological beliefs. Is it there, or not? Put up or shut up, as
>your favorite rat would say...
I've already made myself clear on this subject. Calvin was wrong in
executing Servetes, and DataRat is wrong in believing he was right.
Let DR defend himself, if he so wishes.
Cowboy
Rev. Frank
William Jarrell wrote:
> Thanks for the post. I was only aware of the Servetus case, though I
> assumed there had to be others. I doubt if it makes any difference to
> these theocrats.
Setting: July 26th, 1547. Geneva, Switzerland.
Sentencing of Jacques Gruet.
"We Syndics and Judges of criminal matters of this city of Geneva,
having heard the case against you, Jacques Gruet, son of Humbert Gruet
of Geneva... find and hold that you have greatly offended and blasphemed
God, transgressed against the Sacred Scripture and also undertaken
matters against the authorities, insulted, threatened and slandered the
servants of God and committed the crime of 'lese-majeste' requiring
bodily punishment. For this reason we have held court in the place of
our superiors. With God and his Sacred Scriptures before our eyes we
say, in the name of the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, Amen:... We
condemn you, Jacques Gruet, to be taken to Champel and there have your
body attached to a stake and burned to ashes and so you shall finish
your days to give an example to others who would commit the like."
What was Jacques Gruet crime{lese-majeste}? Posting handbills in the
city of Geneva on June 27th, 1547 one month before his trail and
sentencing. The handbill spoke out against John Calvin.
Jacques Gruet handbill read:
"You puffed-up hypocrite! You and your colleague would do well to be
quiet. Once you made us furious, nothing will keep you from being
silenced. It seems to me that you will soon curse the hour in which you
threw off your cowl. Long enough I reprimanded that the devil and all
his cursed godless priest have come to damn us. Patience is now over;
vengeance is near. Watch out that you won't share the fate of Master
Werly of Fribourg. We do not want so many masters. Let this be said to
you."
*******************************
Above information from:
Dr. Hans J. Hillerbrand a researcher of European Christianity and
professor at Duke University Divinity school{mid 1970s}, author/editor
of 'The Reformation' a book which includes personal letters, government
decrees, polemic pamphlets, diary excerpts, and public records exploring
the 16th century reform movement.
--
Peace Be With You
Rev. Frank
Visit:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/i/n/t/intmismin/index1.html
Rev. Frank
Cowboy wrote:
> The only way God speaks to us now is
> through his Word, the Bible.
Hello Cowboy,
"my heroes has always been cowboys...I guess they still are it seems..."
W&W
Cowboy, what is your proof text for this statement "The only way God
speaks to us now is through his Word, the Bible?" I have asked this of
2-3 people who claim this as gospel, but todate I have received NO
reply. Why?
I have a few verses you may want to ponder while you do your study.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
Gal 1:12 For I neither received it of man, neither was I taught it, but
by the revelation of Jesus Christ.
Jer 31:33 But this shall be the covenant that I will make with the house
of Israel; After those days, saith the LORD, I will put my law in their
inward parts, and write it in their hearts; and will be their God, and
they shall be my people.
Rom 2:29 No, a man is a Jew if he is one inwardly; and
circumcision is circumcision of the heart, by the Spirit, not by the
written code. Such a man's praise is not from men, but from God.
2Cor 3:3 You show that you are a letter from Christ, the result of our
ministry, written not with ink but with the Spirit of the living God,
not on tablets of stone but on tablets of human hearts.
Heb 10:16 This is the covenant that I will make with them after those
days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their
minds will I write them
Cowboy
>> > Then you are a theocratic fascist. You can rationalize your murderous
>> >inclinations with examples like Jones and Koresh, but your policies
>> >would also kill alot of innocent people whose only crime is to disagree
>> >with your theology.
>>
>> Typical of an Armenian. You are more concerned with emotion than you are
>> with the Bible.
>
> Who said anything about Arminianism?
I'm assuming you are one. Forgive me if I'm wrong.
>> Instead of using words such as "theocratic fascist" to
>> debunk your opponent, you should try a more calm approach. Instead of
>> yelling insults, you might be better off providing us with facts.
>
> I am not yelling insults. I was simply being discriptive of Data
>Rat's beliefs. Theocracy is a government based on religion. Fascism is
>authoritarian government based on oppression and the denial of human
>rights. Those terms are quite appropiate for someone who believes in a
>government that executes people for differences of theology.
This is one point of DR's that I disagree with. *Differences of theology*
are acceptable. Execution should be reserved for murderers.
>> Use the
>> Bible (in context, please) to support your thesis.
>>
> The one Biblical principle I would use in this case is the golden
>rule.
You want others to insult you?
>> John Calvin shouldn't have been put in charge of Geneva. His
leadership
>> skills were flawed. The brutal execution of Micheal Servetus is one
example.
>>
> If it is of any credit to Calvin, he wanted to hang Servetus.
Execution is execution. I didn't think it was the level of brutality of the
murders you were concerned with.
>> But there was nothing wrong with his theology. His doctrine of
Election
>> is not only a good idea, it's Biblically correct.
>
> His theology may or may not have Biblical merit, but that is not the
>issue here. I do think it is possible to separate a man's ideas from
>other aspects of his life.
I'll assume you meant to include the word "not" in that last sentence.
Everyone has God-given talent. Some people are born with good leadership
skills, Calvin wasn't. When it came to making important leadership
decisions, John Calvin made some mistakes.
>> I was not aware that more than one execution took place in Geneva. Please
>> enlighten me.
>>
> I am not sure of their body count. My point is that killing people
>for differences of viewpoint is wrong.
Than I agree with your point.
Cowboy
William Jarrell
>
> William Jarrell wrote in message <36955F...@bellsouth.net>...
> >>
> > The one Biblical principle I would use in this case is the golden
> >rule.
>
> You want others to insult you?
>
> >> John Calvin shouldn't have been put in charge of Geneva. His
> leadership
> >> skills were flawed. The brutal execution of Micheal Servetus is one
> example.
> >>
> > If it is of any credit to Calvin, he wanted to hang Servetus.
>
> Execution is execution. I didn't think it was the level of brutality of the
> murders you were concerned with.
>
You're right. Execution is execution. Keep in mind Robespeirre
thought he was being kind for using the guillotine.
> >> But there was nothing wrong with his theology. His doctrine of
> Election
> >> is not only a good idea, it's Biblically correct.
> >
> > His theology may or may not have Biblical merit, but that is not the
> >issue here. I do think it is possible to separate a man's ideas from
> >other aspects of his life.
>
> I'll assume you meant to include the word "not" in that last sentence.
No, the sentence is as I meant to write it.
> Everyone has God-given talent. Some people are born with good leadership
> skills, Calvin wasn't. When it came to making important leadership
> decisions, John Calvin made some mistakes.
>
Calvin was also a product of his era. Remember that was a time when
religious differences were often dealt with harshly.
- William Jarrell
John F.
>*In Geneva, under Calvin...>major snip<
OK. Only four words into your post and already a glaring error. Geneva was
never under Calvin. Geneva was under God's law. It was a Christian theocracy
ordered according to Old Testament civil law. It is God--the God who
predestinates I might add--that you have a quarrel with.
John
Rev. Frank
"John F." wrote:
> OK. Only four words into your post and already a glaring error. Geneva was
> never under Calvin. Geneva was under God's law. It was a Christian theocracy
> ordered according to Old Testament civil law. It is God--the God who
> predestinates I might add--that you have a quarrel with.
This skewed thinking, in defense of John Calvin, is what gives all
Calvinist a 'black eye!'
Folks, this is Antinomianism or fatalism, neither one is Christian or
Calvinistic!
Rev. Frank
"Rev. Frank" wrote:
********************************************
I am posting Cowboy's email in total per request
********************************************
Hello there. The following is my reply to your message. I attempted to
post it to the groups, but received an error message. If you don't
mind, could you post it for me? I have no idea why it won't work.
Anyway, God bless, and have a great day!
Cowboy
Rev. Frank wrote in message
<3696C805...@san.rr.com>...
>
>
>Cowboy wrote:
>
>> The only way God speaks to us now is
>> through his Word, the Bible.
>
>
>Hello Cowboy,
>
>"my heroes has always been cowboys...I guess they still are
it seems..."
>W&W
>
>
>Cowboy, what is your proof text for this statement "The only
way God
>speaks to us now is through his Word, the Bible?"
My proof text for that statement are the well known verses of
Revelation
22:18 & 19:
"[18] For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the
prophecy of
this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add
unto him
the plagues that are written in this book: [19] And if any man
shall take
away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take
away his
part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from
the
things
which are written in this book."
No one can rightfully take from, or add to the Bible. God has
completed it.
It is perfect. These verses show that God's Word is sufficient.
That's it.
To say that God himself adds to the Bible (via speaking in
tongues, dreams,
etc...) is to say that the Bible *is not* sufficient. God doesn't
look at
John Doe and say, "Well, it looks like my Word just didn't do
the trick. I
guess I'll have to give John a dream—give him some new
revelation."
>I have asked this of
>2-3 people who claim this as gospel, but todate I have received
NO
>reply. Why?
I'm afraid I can't answer that question. Perhaps they didn't read
your
posts. Perhaps they didn't really know *how* to answer your
question. Who
knows?
>I have a few verses you may want to ponder while you do
your study.
I suggest you do some thinking about my words. If you do,
and you re-read
those verses in a different light, they will make perfect sense.
>Peace Be With You
>
>Rev. Frank
And to you.
I appreciate the discussion on these groups. "Iron sharpening
iron" is a good thing, and something that should be practiced
routinely.
Cowboy
Rev. Frank
> >Cowboy wrote:
> >
> >> The only way God speaks to us now is
> >> through his Word, the Bible.
> Frank wrote:
>
> > Cowboy, what is your proof text for this statement "The only
> > way God speaks to us now is through his Word, the Bible?"
Cowboy wrote:
> My proof text for that statement are the well known verses of
> Revelation 22:18 & 19:
Revelation or Apocalypse was composed 75-95ce and only considered as
Scripture in 397ce by the western Christian churches and in 680ce by the
eastern Christian churches.
My question. When was it, you say, that God stop speaking to His
children directly, 75-95ce, 397ce or 680ce?
OK, I admit. That is a silly question! But no more sillier then thinking
mere men can change God because of their man-made doctrine.
Hebrews 13:8 Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and today, and forever.
--
Peace Be With You
Rev. Frank
Visit:
http://members.wbs.net/homepages/i/n/t/intmismin/index1.html
William Jarrell
>
> Vincent33,
>
> >*In Geneva, under Calvin...>major snip<
>
> never under Calvin. Geneva was under God's law. It was a Christian theocracy
> ordered according to Old Testament civil law. It is God--the God who
> predestinates I might add--that you have a quarrel with.
>
So to question John Calvin is to question God. All tru
vinc...@my-dejanews.com
"Cowboy" <cow...@badsector.com> wrote:
> I don't fantasize about "situations in which we might be willing to kill our
> children." If I had kids, I'd be willing to give them up if God told me to.
> God won't tell me to, but it's the mindset that matters.
>
type of thing than most, but I won't apologize for feeling the way I
do. You probably don't know anybody who's had sex with a horse - in
front of his kids - but I do. I know a kid who was beaten by his dad
with barbed wire. I know a kid who killed an old man - butchered him
actually - because he was afraid the old man would "tell on" him.
I know a teen-age boy who has been repeatedly raped by his own mother;
and I know way too many kids who have been molested by older men. I
work with kids every day who have been knocked down, knocked up,
torn down, or thrown away. So when I see a guy who professes to be a
Christian say in effect that sure, he could kill his own kid - no
problem - it gets my hackles up. It looks to me like if people like
us can't agree on anything else, we could surely agree that children
are gifts from God, and that we should nuture, protect, and cherish
them - whatever the cost. I don't understand people who don't believe
that, and I don't try to.
> >Here is the quote. You tell me how you justify it. While we're at it,
> >since Ratty won't (can't) answer my question about the scriptural basis
> >of his views on executing heretics, maybe you can tell me exactly
> >where in the Bible Jesus exhorts us to kill those who disagree with
> >our theological beliefs. Is it there, or not? Put up or shut up, as
> >your favorite rat would say...
>
> I've already made myself clear on this subject. Calvin was wrong in
> executing Servetes, and DataRat is wrong in believing he was right.
>
Sorry about that. I must have missed your earlier post to that effect.
Thanks for clearing it up for me.
michael burt
>>
>> The Bill of Rights and all amendments, as you rightly point out, is also
>> the Constitution.
>
>the essential genius of the document.
But not as a living document, as a fixed document with amendments. You
also must remember that the first 10 amendments were adopted with the
original document.
>
>> Regarding woman's suffrage, the founders expected men and women to
>> lead godly marriages.
Tocqueville wrote regarding women in Chrisitan Americaq ł...nowhere does
she enjoy a higher station.˛
>
> Franklin had two children out of wedlock; Jefferson only had one. To
>suggest that the Framers held that view is without foundation.
You are confusing goals with failures. The purpose of reaching for high
goals is to improve life for all. No one will succeed all of the time,
that does not qualify them as hypocritical if they are truly repentant and
rededicate themselves to the goal again. It is when on mocks the goal
that they are hypocritical. And when one advocates that the high goals be
eliminated in order to look better, this is not a person to be trusted.
I have heard the allegations regarding Franklin and Jefferson before.
Since they can not be corss examined, such unproven allegations would be
best left silent.
>
>> The opinion of the woman should always
>> be balanced, considered, and represented by the husband, and the opinion
>> of the husband should also be considered by the wife--they are one flesh.
>> The flawed feminist concept of marriage requires suffrage as both partners
>> must be free to express divergent opinion without coming to a common
>> opinion. This is a marriage of two fleshes, and as the divorce rates
>> attest to, doesn't work.
>
> According to Charisma's Stephen Strang, Christian divorce rates are
>roughly that of secular ones. If the Christian worldview was uniquely
>conducive to happy marriages, you'd expect to see a marked difference.
>
> Divorce rates went up when we made them easier to get.
Sadly that is true. Current advocations of politically correct theology
within the Christian church is reforming the church toward the world.
This is not the purpose of Christianity which needs to rededicate itself
towred reforming to Godąs Word as it was written, not how it has been
re-Imaged to satifsy the world.
Christian doctrine was changed in 1930 Germany to be politically correct
rather than Scripturally correct. The consequences were the persecution
and death of all who belive in Godąs Word, whether Jew or the Christians
who helped them in a struggle against the godless given power through
politically correctness.
Godąs Word as written, like the Constitution is a fixed document, it is
not a *living document* that should be re-Imaged by each generation. If
they are re-Imaged too much, their meaning becomes lost, and tragedy will
follow.
Godąs Word has never been popular in the world, that is why it cruicified
Christ. There is only one who is afraid of the Word as written, and that
is satan. Satan and Eve re-Imaged Godąs Word so very subtly in the garden
3 times, with disasterous results. Satan attempted to re-Image Godąs Word
with Christ 3 times with very subtile changes as well, Christ stood firm.
It is the example of Christ, not Eve that we are to follow. And in
standing with Christ, many changes within many churches should be stood
firm against.
>
>> >> References to slavery, civil rights, and feminism are often used as
>> >> neo-racist and neo-sexist advocations to support anti-male,
>> >> anti-Christian, and anti-American hate speech. It was the principles of
>> >> the Constitution solely based upon God's law that provided for the rights
>> >> that Christian American should rightfully be proud of, the results of
>> >> living up to the Constitution.
>> >>
>> >> Slavery existed for millennia, but it was eliminated in the US first, why?
>> >
>> > Was it? I thought that a number of European countries (including
>> >England) beat us to it, but I will defer to those more up-to-speed on
>> >the topic.
>>
>> You are probably right, perhaps I was overgeneralizing. Both England and
>> the US however both struggled as Christian nations with the elimination of
>> slavery. Both governments are rooted in a common belief system,
>> Christianity religiously and the Magna Carta governmentally by the
>> extension of God's law.
>
> Slavery was part and parcel of that law. Back in the 19th century,
>when judges openly asserted that the common law was derived from
>Christian principles, slavery was the norm -- not the exception. And
>more to the point, the Bible never denounces slavery; it even
>promulgates rules for proper conduct of slavers.
Slavery was the norm in the 19th Century? By what basis are you
suggesting such a thing? As a percentage of the population, slavery was
quite small. And you present a picture that trivializes the volumous work
of Christian abolutionalists who worked tirelessly to bring an end to
slavery.
Are you saying that in a world in which slavery exists, such as China, a
favored trading nation of today, that rules for proper conduct of slavers
should not be in existance? Surely you must have more compassionate that
that for those who find themselves in slavery since everone who buys a
Chinese product today may be supporting slavery by that purchase. The
United States in its actions is supporting slavery even in this day while
the Christians in China are being persecuted and even put to death.
Christians now meet in secrecy while slavery is the norm. Should China be
a favored trading partner and receipant of military technology?
Apparently, our President thinks that slavery is fine and continues to
condone it, even to reward it.
You may also be interested in the following section of Scripture regarding
the slavery which is not the Biblical advocation of slavery that you are
trivalizing : Ex 21:2 If thou buy an Hebrew servant, six years he shall
serve: and in the seventh he shall go out free for nothing.
>
>> >> Because it was a Christian nation. Slavery was eliminated in the US
>> >> because of Christianity and the Christian Constitution.
>> >
>> > The "Christian Constitution" codified slavery. See Dred Scott v.
>> >Sandford, 60 U.S. 393 (1856).
>>
>> The problem is not so much with the Constitution as it is with the flawed
>> decision of the Supreme Court.
>
> The Constitution permitted slavery, and all the Court did in Dred
>Scott was interpret the Constitution that permitted it. The proper fix
>was a constitutional amendment, and thus, it was fixed the right way.
>
>> Similar flawed decisions are adversly
>> affecting America such as but not limited to Wade v Roe
>
> Roe v. Wade was another decision which, regardless of what you may
>think of its moral implications, was from a strictly legal standpoint
>correctly decided. Unlike its Russian counterpart, the Court respects
>precedent. Precedents laid down in Pierce v. Soc'y of Sisters, Meyer
>v. Nebraska, Skinner v. Oklahoma, and Griswold v. Connecticut, et al.,
>made Roe a no-brainer. If you want to fix it, the best way is to pass
>a constitutional amendment. There are no good short-cuts.
The genicide of 37 million people put to death against their will as a
result of Roe v Wade is a holocaust which exceeds the Jews in Germany and
even the Stalin purge which exceeded even that. Roe v Wade is as
unconsitutional as one can get, irrespective of what the Supreme Court has
errorousnly opined.
Strange how we as a nation are so abjectly concerned about an 8 year old
child smoking when only 8 years earlier we could have sucked the child
down a tube and spit it out in a sink without cause. The hypocracy of
these two issues is enormous. Abortion on demand does not represent the
inailable rights granted by our Creator established by the Declaration of
Independence which is the basis of the Constitution.
>
>> and Everson v BOE.
>
> Everson deals with the permissibility of the use of public funds to
>transport parochial school children to and from school. What don't you
>like about that case?
It was this case, in its opinion, that creates the standard *separation of
church and state* and is completely contrary to the intent of the founders
and the purpose of the establishment clause. The phrase separation of
church and state appears in only one Constitution, that of the failed
USSR. The application of that phrase has violated the intent of the
establishment clause which was to encourage Christianity while allowing
freedom of religion for all, including athiests; while the application of
the flawed concept of separation of church and state has separated America
from God, clearly not the intent of the Constutition and has made
athiesm/humanism the de facto state relition of the nation.
>>
>> Slavery was a major compromise with the truth of God's Word in the
>> Constitution and was subsequently rightfully eliminated.
>
> Its inclusion was economically motivated, of that there is no doubt.
>But how can you say that slavery was not a Biblical principle?
What is the defination of slavery that you are using as there are
several. All Christians are slaves. 1Co 9:19 For though I be free from
all men, yet have I made myself servant unto all, that I might gain the
more.
As a Christian, we are called to be slaves, or the more politically
correct term, servant.
>> Like all sin, it
>> was paid for by the shedding of blood by a great many Christian men.
>> Without the compromise, American perhaps would never have existed,
>
> Quite possibly true. Emancipation of slaves in the 1700s would have
>devastated the plantation economy.
>
>> a compromise with a sinful world, and the principles of freedom
>> based upon God's Word may never have been brought forth, that which
>> we take for granted today.
>
> I take it that you believe that the ends always justify the means?
Actually, I am quite offended by such a statement. The ends justifying
the means are the principles of the radical left revolutionaries,
socalists, communists, and the Builderburgers, not of Chrisitan America.
>
> As for our freedom, its price is eternal vigilance -- whether the
>threat comes from without or within.
Beware those who believe that the ends justify the means.
>
>> The Christians who founded our nation agonized over slavery,
>
> It wasn't that much of an issue at the Constitutional Convention. It
>wasn't much of an issue until the 19th century.
Such as statement again trivalizes the tremondous quantity of Christian
abolutionalists tireless work which began before the Constitution and
continued unabated until for over 100 years.
>
>> most freed their slaves and provided for their well being in a sinful
>> world in which slavery was condoned knowing full well that the
>> spirit of the Constitution based upon God's Word would eventually
>> eliminate it, if it were given the change to live.
>
> Based upon what evidence? Jefferson freed his slaves, but he was a
>deist. Beyond that, I am unaware of any of the other Framers except
>Washington even owning them.
A diest believes in God, and Jefferson was well knowlegeable of Scripture
having edited the Jefferson Bible. Simply by dismissing Jefferson as a
diest does not negagte his support of Christian principles. He was also
highly supportive of the Law of Moses which formulates the basis of
Christianity and American culture, nor did he did not rebel against Godąs
Word. Likewise Washingtonąs first act as President was a prayer to God.
These men knew where the principles of the Constitution and Christianity
would take the nation with respect to slavery. All framers knew that the
words of the Constitution did not support slavery, but given its existance
(not creation) would fall to the principles of the Constitution.
In 1790, there were 60,000 free blacks in America; 1 out 10 were not
slaves having received their freedom here from their initial slavery at
the hands of black Africans in the black African slave markets.
>
>> As always, we must be careful in what compromises we make, as Christians
>> and as a Christian nation.
>
> We are not, nor arguably have we ever been, a "Christian" nation. We
>have been a nation composed primarily of Christians, a fact which is
>still true today.
Actually, the reverse it true, We have always been a Christian nation.
Chief Justice Joseph Story was appointed by James Madison, the chief
architect of the Constitution and wrote these words: łProbably at the
time of the adoption of the Constitution, and of the amendement to it now
under consideration [the First Amendment], the general if not the
universal sentiment in America was, that Christianity ought to receive
encouragement from the State so far as was not incompatible with the
private rights of conscience and the freedom of religious worship. An
attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state polict to
hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal
disapprobation, if not universal indignation.
The real object of the [First] amendment was not to countenance, must less
to advance, Mahomentanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating
Christiaqnity; but to exsclude all rivalry among christian sects, and to
prevent any national eccleiastical establishmnt.˛
A Christian America with freedom of religion for all was clearly the
intent of Madison and Story, and it is a Christian American that they
established. They knew what they were doing, and the importance of
encouraging Christian belief to the continuance of the principles of
freedom. Separation of church and state which results not only in the
countenance of Christianity but the countenance of God as well is clearly
un-Constitutional, the legacy of the flawed decision of Everson v BOE
which can not continue to stand without depriving American from the moral
and ethical standards which are cause of its blessings.
Morality and ethics can not be legislated, they must be supplied by the
encouragement of Christian belief. To attempt to legislate it which is
now required in the countenance of Christianity throught the flawed
application of Everson v BOEąs separation of church and state requires a
multitude of legislation to establish law that was previously adhered to
as a matter of choice and responsibility in servanthood to Jesus Christ.
A servant to Jesus Christ should strive to the high goal as it relates to
responsibility, ethics, and morality. Without the encouragement of
Christianity, these things must be legislated, and each point of
legislation is a reduction of freedom of choice.
A major premise of Christianity is the importance of the Laws of Moses as
Christ fulfilled and affirmed the law. But even before Moses, in the
dispensation of Human Government, the laws of men were proven to fail
unless they also included the laws of God.
>
>> Nevil Chamberlain sought peace, compromised
>> Truth, and found death. Winston Churchill sought victory over evil, as
>> did our founders. He did not compromise Truth, and brought blessings to
>> all people.
>
> The Founding Fathers' situation was markedly different. Neville
>Chamberlain was faced with a threat from a foreign power, and simply
>failed to read that situation accurately.
Not entirely, he knew full well the threat, and compromised the Truth with
one who follows evil.
Churchill was a boozer,
Unless he can be cross-examined, I will ignor the insult to the dead as an
unproven allegation.
but he
>knew a bully when he saw one. The Founding Fathers were protesting
>taxation without representation. If George III had made sensible
>concessions at the proper time, the Revolutionary War wouldn't have even
>been fought.
Donąt be so sure, the stamp tax ignited the war but the issues were much
broader than that. Do you also think that if the Japanese had not bombed
Pearl Harbor that America would never have entered WWII? I donąt think
so, for some other event would have ignited this as well.
>
>> >> The majority of the American people support Christian principles over
>> >> athiest/humanistic principles. If one supports the democratic approach,
>> >> then the will of the American people is being oppressed and victemized in
>> >> anti-American cultural oppression unless Christianity is encouraged, the
>> >> intent of the Constitution.
>> >
>> > But then, there's that pesky Bill of Rights. Because we were a nation
>> >of dissenters, we took great pains to preserve the rights of
>> >dissenters. We have said, in effect, that there are certain things that
>> >the majority cannot do. Why? Because ultimately, we are all a minority
>> >of one.
>>
>> Well said. The eventual conclusion of multiculturalism and diversity as
>> it is being defined and implemented is the complete destruction of unity
>> for we are all a minority of one.
>
> I disagree entirely. It is our common understanding that we are all a
>minority of one that precipitates the notion of equal justice under law.
Equal justice yes, equal outcome no. Multiculturalism and diversity
expect identical outcomes and deny individual talent, sacrifices, and
attention. This is not equal justice, this is socalistic mediocraty.
>
>> We need to return to the principle of
>> individual worth, merit, and responsibility, Christian and Constitutional
>> concepts and reject further adherence to the principles of opportunity
>> based upon class identity and class warfare.
>
> That the Constitution should be colorblind is stipulated, if indeed
>not axiomatic. How that has anything at all to do with your assertions
>is not at all clear, though. Bakke has pretty much made affirmative
>action a dead letter.
By law but not by reality. For descrimination continues to be practiced
particularly against men who are attempting to provide for their wives and
children as heads of households.
>>
>> As it is being defined and implemented, multiculturalism and diversity
>> are spin words for officially sanctioned discrimination and promote
>> mediocrity.
>
> Huh?!
Multiculturalism and diversity expect identical outcomes and deny
individual talent, sacrifices, and attention. This is not equal justice,
this is socalistic mediocraty.
>
>> They seem to be designed to trivialize the accomplishes, sacrifices,
>> and responsibility of those who built our nation and the principles
>> upon which it was built.
>
> Double huh?! Diversity has always been one of our strengths -- we got
>kicked out of every decent country in the world. :)
Most American ancesators came here voluntarily and with excitement to
become a part of a Christian nation with religious freedom for all. The
Statue of Liberty says to give me you poor, tired, hungry, not your
criminals, drug addicts, immroal, indecent, derelicts. America is the
most decent country, and the one based upon Christian principles that
people from all nations have come to by choice to become a part of this
unicultural nation. They were proud of American culture as it is, not the
culture that they left behind which they were glad to subjugate to
American culture in the melting pot.
I am sorry if your family was kicked out of a less decent country, that is
an anomolity, however, and quite uncommon.
Multiculturalism,
>when not carried to extremes (see, Quebec), is to our inherent
>advantage.
Multiculturalism will always be carried to extreme. Only uniculturalism
will be strong.
Diversity does not make a nation strong, unity and the principles of
unification makes a nation strong. Those things that unite Americans are
the principles of the Constitutuion, Christian principles, and
individualism.
Multculturalism leads to a divided house which will not stand, this is the
apparent agenda of the radical left revolutionaries and the intolerance of
the politically correct toward Christian principles, Christianity, and
American values based upon Christian principles. Those who advocate
politically correctness are generally politically incorrect.
Mt 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom
divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house
divided against itself shall not stand:
Mr 3:25 And if a house be divided against itself, that house cannot stand.
John F.
William ,
>>
>> >*In Geneva, under Calvin...>major snip<
>>
>> OK. Only four words into your post and already a glaring error. Geneva
was
>> never under Calvin. Geneva was under God's law. It was a Christian
theocracy
>> ordered according to Old Testament civil law. It is God--the God who
>> predestinates I might add--that you have a quarrel with.
>
> So to question John Calvin is to question God. All tru
To question God's law being carried out by a lawful civil authority is
questioning God.
John