Respectful Agnostic's Thanksgiving Message
nan
EarsToHear.net Home
Original Intent. - Did you know...?
Separation of Church and State?
The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
of the former Soviet Union.
"Separation of Church and State is The Big Lie, for there is no such
law! This phrase does not appear in ANY founding document. Only a
letter (below) taken out of context and misrepresented by the Supreme
Court
meant to mean Separation of Christianity and America. All 50 states
acknowledge God in their state constitutions.
Christian Heritage or Immoral Agenda
[...]the origin and truth, of the deception, of Separation of Church
and State.
Thomas Jefferson said: "No power over the freedom of religion is
delegated to the United States by the Constitution." And "I consider
the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from
intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines,
discipline, or exercises." Deception: The Big Lie - Separation of
Church and State? There is no such law. "The so-called separation of
church and state is not a 'founding principle' of this nation and can
be found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution (the document reflecting the
founding principles of our Founders). Manipulating and rewriting
history has become quite fashionable these days as those who define
the Constitution as a 'living' document attempt to diabolically mold
it so that it sanctions their ever-changing moral 'standards.'" Dr.
Jerry Falwell -- Deception + coercion + apathy = the fall of America.
"Separation of Church and State" is no where to be found in the
Constitution! The First Amendment says just the opposite. However, you
decide with your own wisdom, reading, comprehension, and common sense
if what Thomas Jefferson wrote gives legal basis for the assaults
against America's Christian Heritage.
The first thing Congress did on September 25, 1789, was ask the
president to acknowledge a day of public thanksgiving and prayer. On
that same day, the words of the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution were finalized.
"Separation of Church and State" is a miss-representation of the First
Amendment intended to deceive those that can be deceived. Do you have
ears to hear what the ENTIRE First Amendment truly says? "Congress
shall make no law respecting an establishment of (not from) religion,
or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Click here to
learn the origin of this misrepresented phrase by Thomas Jefferson.
"If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the
constitution framed by the Convention . . . might possibly endanger
the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would
never have placed my signature to it." --George Washington
"The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by
me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning
contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United
States at the time of its adoption -- a meaning to be found in the
explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who
opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they
denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson
On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
"...A right of the people as a whole – not an individual right – is
the protected object of the first clause of the First Amendment to the
Constitution. Even if one accepts the doctrine that the Bill of Rights
must be taken as the basis for understanding the privileges and
immunities of citizenship, the first clause of the First Amendment
simply secures this right of the people, giving clear constitutional
effect to their immunity from federal dictation in matters of
religion....The establishment clause of the First Amendment secures a
right of the people. Until now, though, many have treated the first
two clauses of the amendment as if they are one ("Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
free exercise thereof ..."). This practice ignores both the linguistic
and the logical contrast between the two clauses. Where the first
clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of
government reserved to the states and to the people), the second
clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of
religion) that cannot be free unless they originate in individual
choice. The first clause forbids Congress to address a subject at all.
The second allows for federal action, but restricts the character of
such action..."
In 1778 George Washington wrote a letter to Thomas Nelson, Jr. citing
God's divine intervention in the founding of our nation. "The hand of
providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse
than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not
gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations."
COURTS PERPETUATE 'SEPARATION' LIE -- AND AMERICANS ARE BUYING IT -
Lawsuits and disputes over public display of God's law have been
widespread across the country. Activist courts have demonstrated by
their recent rulings a prevalent anti-Christian bias in such cases.
It's all predicated on a lie, says Alan Keyes. More details:
http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/62004b.asp
Jefferson's Letter
Thomas Jefferson (in his oft miss-quoted dissertation on the subject)
did NOT state that there was or should be such a separation, but that
there was a "wall of separation" which the government could not
breach. The misunderstood statement from Thomas Jefferson has resulted
in Judges who ignore the Constitution and the original intent of the
First Amendment of our Founding Fathers. Jefferson's statement was in
a letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut (January 1, 1802), who
were concerned about the government breaching their religious freedom
and the affairs of the Church. Jefferson in his letter stated exactly
this:
"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his
faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach
actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence
that act of the whole American people which declared that their
legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of
religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a
wall of separation between church and State."
Jefferson is saying the legislature can not favor a specific religion
and it can not prohibit religious exercise. As he also stated:
"No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United
States by the Constitution."
Can you hear what Jefferson actually was saying? As evidenced in
another letter to Samuel Miller in 1808, Jefferson wrote:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted
(prohibited) by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious
institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."
Jefferson's own "free exercise thereof"
In 1804, Bible reading and the use of the Bible as a textbook was
implemented in the first public schools of the District of Columbia,
while Thomas Jefferson was president of the school board.
Moral instruction including "the proof of the being of a God, the
Creator" in public schools by teachers, was part of the curricular
plan designed by Thomas Jefferson for the University of Virginia.
Religious instruction on an equal footing with other instruction, as
occurred at the University of Virginia, when Thomas Jefferson was
rector and approved of setting aside a chapel "for religious worship"
and "proposed to encourage various denominations to situate their
theological schools near the University," thus "enabling the students
of the University to attend religious exercises."
Also, concerning our Nation Jefferson said:
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a
nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift
of God? That they are not to violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I
tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His
justice cannot sleep forever." - "Yes, we did produce a near perfect
Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of
plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without
character is the surest way to destruction."
"I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who
led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted
them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of
life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper
years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to
join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of
your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that
whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you
the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."
...The director of the Center for Christian Statesmanship says the men
who founded America never intended to remove God from public life. Dr.
Frank Wright says quite the contrary, most were devout Christians who
applied their Christian faith to everyday life, including government.
He says President Thomas Jefferson is a good example. He notes that at
the same time Jefferson served as president, he was the chairman of
the D.C. public school system -- and mandated in 1804 that two books
be taught in those schools: the Bible and Watts' Hymnal. Wright calls
that "an extraordinary thing to do" for someone who believes in the
"separation of church and state." Wright believes anti-Gospel forces
like the American Civil Liberties Union have twisted the working of
the establishment clause and developed their own false interpretation
about separation of church and state -- which he says the founding
fathers never intended.
"Human happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." George
Washington
Visit the nation's capitol and read the inscriptions on the memorials.
The Word of God is evident of our past American leaders whom we hold
high in respect, those who laid the American foundation. Why does
America now separate these words from the men who were driven by these
words? It is evident that our American leaders today do not share the
same source of inspiration. What do liberals proclaim today? What do
liberals encourage? What organizations support liberal? Do today's
American leaders proclaim the Word of God or or reject it?
Our Founding Fathers wanted future generations to acknowledge the hand
of God in the founding of our nation. Therefore, even the Capitol
Building is a witness of this. Its mighty Rotunda, the center of the
Capitol, features a dramatic oil painting that impresses upon visitors
the direct intervention of God from the earliest days of our history.
The painting portrays the landing of Columbus in the Western World in
1492. Columbus' eyes are cast toward heaven in thanks and praise as
others around him kneel in gratitude to God. This painting depicts
the gratitude Columbus felt in the fulfillment of what he believed was
his God-given calling. "It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could
feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from
here to the Indies." Those who commissioned this painting knew what
we have known all along, that God in His grace and wisdom guided those
who first came to these shores.
When the Capitol Building was built, its designers were well aware of
the dependence of the members of Congress upon God and prayer. The
83rd Congress designated a small room in the Capitol, near the
rotunda, that is always open for the private prayer and meditation of
members of Congress. This room is open whenever Congress is in
session, and stands as a witness to the need for prayer by our
nation's leaders. The focal point of the room is an intricate stained
glass window that depicts George Washington kneeling in prayer.
Surrounding him are words from Psalm 16: "Preserve me, O God, for in
Thee do I put my trust."
Samuel Adams, has been called "The Father of the American Revolution."
"We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be
obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of
the sun, let His kingdom come." Samuel Adams, signer of the
Declaration of Independence: His likeness appears in the large
painting depicting the signing of the Declaration that holds a
prominent spot in the Rotunda of the Capitol Building. A full size
statue of him is also found in the East Central Hall of the Capitol.
His political involvement is widely acknowledged and valued. But it
was Adam's Christian faith that guided his political views. "First of
all, I ... rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my
sins." His essay, The Rights of the Colonists was widely circulated in
1772. In it he wrote, "The right to freedom being the gift of the
Almighty. The rights of the colonists as Christians may be best
understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The
Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be
found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."
Inscription on a wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.
"God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
be thought secure when we removed their only firm basis, a conviction
in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God?"
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Pete
more "Christian"-like to their fellow man than the hypocrits in most
Christian churches.
Pete
Dave Thompson
Christians who want to redefine religious freedom in this country, just read
on.
"nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:8f49fa86.04120...@posting.google.com...
> "...A right of the people as a whole - not an individual right - is
Mike Ward
news:DXlsd.36361$kI6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
What's with this trend of holier-than-thou athiest and agnosticas on the
internet? I see 10 times as many non-Christians bragging about how
Christian-like they are than I see Christians doing the same. The irony is
overwhelming.
Mike Ward
news:10r44n3...@corp.supernews.com:
> If you all want to get a look at what goes on in the mind of the right
> wing Christians who want to redefine religious freedom in this
> country, just read on.
>
It's mostly just a list of quotes from the founders. Do you object to any
of them in particular or do you think all the founders were anti-freedom
right-wing Christians?
ProudSoutherner
Muslim bastards any day.
Mike Ward
> "Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
> news:LAosd.89985$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> Read the personal comments from the troll who posted them, not the
> cherry-picked quotes.
>
> The old argument about the colloquialism "separation of church and
> state" has been dealt with repeatedly.
It's an easy thing to say that your opponents arguement has been delt with;
it's a little harder to actually deal with it, isn't it?
If you had anything useful to contribute you would have.
> It's only repeated because they
> want to deceive the people who know nothing about the constitution.
>
Dave Thompson
news:LAosd.89985$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Read the personal comments from the troll who posted them, not the
cherry-picked quotes.
The old argument about the colloquialism "separation of church and state"
has been dealt with repeatedly. It's only repeated because they want to
Dave C.
> What's with this trend of holier-than-thou athiest and agnosticas on the
> internet? I see 10 times as many non-Christians bragging about how
> Christian-like they are than I see Christians doing the same. The irony is
> overwhelming.
Huh? Most of the nicest people I know are agnostic, but they don't go
telling other people, as they don't want all the loonies to try to "save"
them. You'd be surprised. You probably know many very nice people who you
assumed were religious who actually are agnostic or even atheist. Only, you
don't KNOW that they are agnostic or atheist. Ironically, only those with
no religious beliefs are TRULY religiously persecuted. If you are agnostic,
you have to hide that like you are GAY or something, because it's a major
pain in the ASS if the religious folks you know learn of your own religious
beliefs . . . or lack thereof. -Dave
Mike Ward
>
>> What's with this trend of holier-than-thou athiest and agnosticas on
>> the internet? I see 10 times as many non-Christians bragging about
>> how Christian-like they are than I see Christians doing the same. The
>> irony is overwhelming.
>
> Huh? Most of the nicest people I know are agnostic, but they don't go
> telling other people, as they don't want all the loonies to try to
> "save" them. You'd be surprised. You probably know many very nice
> people who you assumed were religious who actually are agnostic or
> even atheist. Only, you don't KNOW that they are agnostic or atheist.
> Ironically, only those with no religious beliefs are TRULY
> religiously persecuted.
I'm sure all the people in this world who have been killed because of their
religion would be filled with pity for how much athiests suffer in the U.S.
if they weren't dead.
Is it not enough that news groups are filled with athiest and agnostics
preaching the tenatants of a religion that they don't believe in and
probably don't even understand, but now we have an agnostic whining about
how persecuted he his?
There are many people in this world (religious and non-religious alike) who
truly are persecuted; you make light of their situation when you count
yourself among them.
But what should I expect from a man who pretended to have been in the armed
services until numerous posters who really had served pointed out he didn't
know what he was talking about.
nan
> If you all want to get a look at what goes on in the mind of the right wing
> Christians who want to redefine religious freedom in this country, just read
> on.
You express yourself like a Roman who wants to herd Christians to the
Colisium for Lion fodder. Or, a sophomoric leftover parroting the
hatred mantra.
"Right wing Christians" have every right and the intrinsic freedom to
think and believe what they may as well as to express themselves in
public speech or public array.
Can you refute this:
> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
> > of the former Soviet Union.
There is no reason to "redefine religious freedom" because in the U.S.
we've always have had constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom as
well as the freedom of being irreligious. As an agnostic and
independent observer, there is no doubt in my mind that the assaults
on religious freedom and on America's essentially benign-Christian
cultural traditions are malevolently engineered by neurotic intolerant
"liberals" and atheists who espouse neoMarxist mandates to destroy
religion in deference to the GOD-State and the politik-gensia.
Marxism is a hateful and destructive manifesto thinly veiled in
dialectic rhetoric - its a mind game for revenge which appeals to
sophists and the congentially dispirited. Ardent "liberals" and
"altruistic humanists" do not realize that in their "liberal"
discourse they expose themselves as proponents of Marxist tenets -
they parrot the old leftover lines. Using prescribed Marxist tactics
of perverse opposition, "Liberal" hatred and intolerance seeths over
the radical brim. Marx's mandate, as it is of "liberals", is
destruction, not reformation.
"Liberal" religious intolerance seethes especially, if not humorously
in vain, when they cite pre-revolutionary/pre-constitution colonial
Salem's witch hunts to justify their 21st Century hatred of American
Christians and religious foundations.
I am an observer and a searcher, not an authority, but Dr. John J. Ray
is an authorative source for liberating thought. From Dr. Ray's
on-going "Dissecting Leftism",
//:geocities.com/johnjayray/site/html:
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
4 December, 2004
MOST MORALITY IS INSTINCTIVE
Although moral philosophy is a field in which I have made some very
minor academic contributions, I have never taken it very seriously. So
although my own account of the nature of morality is in my view at
once factually correct, useful and not dependant on religious
assumptions, I have been content merely to outline it rather than
defend it in every detail. And I believe that to be a very
conservative thing to do. And in making that claim I am also saying
that there is a substantial opposition between what philosophers
generally do and what conservatives generally do. And I should make
clear that in talking about philosophers, I am talking about real
students of the world and of discourse about the world -- not the
psychiatric cases and comedians (Derrida etc.) who pass as
philosophers in Europe.
There are two things behind what I have just expressed: 1). My belief
that morality is largely inborn and, 2). A thoroughly conservative
distrust of theory carried to extremes. That really constitutes the
whole of what I want to say on the matter but let me spell it out a
bit more anyway.
Because the standard psychological measures of moral attitudes (e.g.
Kohlberg's) are profoundly contaminated by the Leftist assumptions of
their authors, I have not even tried to look up inheritance data about
morality in the behaviour genetics literature. So suffice it to say
that most important human characteristics seem to show very
substantial genetic inheritance (See e.g. here and here and here). If
morality were an exception that would be most surprising. And from the
viewpoint of evolutionary biology, it would be even more surprising.
Man is both a social animal and an animal that falls very readily into
conflict with his fellow humans. So ways of regulating behaviour to
enable co-operation and forestall conflict must necessarily be of
foremost importance. And that is largely what moral and ethical rules
are all about. To forestall conflict there HAVE to be rules against
murder, stealing, coveting your neighbour's wife etc. And that is why
there are considerable similarities between the laws of Moses (ten
commandments etc) and the much earlier Babylonian code of Hammurabi.
The details of moral and legal rules are of course responsive to time,
place and circumstances, but there are some basics that will almost
always be there. And given the importance of those basic rules for
social co-operation, it should be no surprise that such rules became
internalized (instinctive) very early on in human evolution. So many
if not most of our social instincts are in fact moral or ethical
instincts. Ethics are the rules we need for co-operative existence.
Obviously, however, the rules are not so well entrenched as to produce
automatic responses. We have broad tendencies towards ethical
behaviour but that is all. This is probably due to their relatively
recent evolutionary origin. Most of what we are originates far back in
our evolutionary past whereas the social rules that we use became
needed only with the evolution of the primates.
Additionally, we are the animal that relies least on instinct. So all
our instincts can be both modified and defended by our reasoning
processes. Just because a thing is instinctive to us it does not mean
that the behaviour concerned is emitted in any automatic way. We think
about why we do what our instincts tell us and generally conclude that
our instincts are thoroughly commendable! And we do generally explain
our rules of behaviour in a thoroughly empirical and functional way --
generally starting with: "If everyone did that .... ". And moral
philosophers are of course people who specialize in such talk. But the
talk is largely epiphenomenal (an afterthought). It is predominantly
their set of inherited dispositions that make people behave ethically,
not any abstract rationalizations.
And that realization does explain why philosophers so often back
themselves into absurd corners. You might guess what is coming next at
that point: Peter Singer. Peter Singer is undoubtedly a very able and
influential philosopher and in good philosophical style he starts out
with a few simple and hard-to-dispute general rules from which he
logically deduces all sorts of conclusions that are greeted with
horror by normal people -- his view that babies and young children may
be killed more or less at will, for example. As a theoretical
deduction, his views are defensible but seen in the light of the
biological basis of morality, they are counterproductive. A society
that killed off its young more or less at will would not last long.
So we come back in the end to the good Burkean principle that theories
are to be distrusted and and continually tested against whether or not
they lead to generally desired outcomes. Philosophers judge an
argument on its consistency, elegance and comprehensivesness.
Conservatives judge it on its practical outcomes. And Leftists judge
it on whether they can use it to make themselves look good.
**************************************************************************
nan
Where do you live? As an agnostic and independent observer, I am
quite overwhelmed by the blasts of atheist intolerance and hatred.
Most Christians, and certainly there are false and hypocritical
Christians, but most Christians I know and have known are too busy
doing good works and living with wholesome intent to politicize
themselves with self-aggrandizing altruism like pseudo-liberals and
atheists do.
In fact, "liberals" intolerance and insufferible arrogance define
"liberals" as being rather ill-liberal thus causing the label
"liberal" to be a misnomer.
Furthermore, "liberal" is a disgraced political designation, no longer
an intrinsic virtue.
from Nan
Bob LeChevalier
>"Pete" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in
>news:DXlsd.36361$kI6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com:
>
>> It's a sad reflection on religion that atheists and agnostics are most
>> often more "Christian"-like to their fellow man than the hypocrits in
>> most Christian churches.
>
>internet? I see 10 times as many non-Christians bragging about how
>Christian-like they are than I see Christians doing the same. The irony is
>overwhelming.
The atheists and agnostics are tired of listening to the hypocrites
that claim to worship Jesus Christ but do not follow his moral code.
Those hypocrites further claim that atheists have no basis for a moral
code, whereupon the fact that atheists may act as morally as
Christians or more morally than Christians shows that claim to
likewise be false.
Christians who want the gospel of Jesus Christ to spread should be
praying that God will tell the hypocrites to shut up and start living
the Word, which is the best way to preach the Word.
lojbab
--
lojbab loj...@lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group
(Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.)
Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org
Bob LeChevalier
>Can you refute this:
>
>> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
>> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
>> > of the former Soviet Union.
The phrase "separation of powers" is not found in the Constitution.
Nor is the phrase "three branches of government". Nor is the word
"coercion" which is libertarian-speak for government enforcement of
the laws.
The CONCEPT of "separation of Church and State" is clearly expressed
in the Constitution, and that most libertarian of the Founders, Thomas
Jefferson, happened to be the one who used that phrase to succinctly
describe the concept which was stated in the Constitution using
different words at considerably greater length.
>I am an observer and a searcher, not an authority,
Agreed. And your observation is through opaque glasses
>but Dr. John J. Ray is an authorative source for liberating thought.
There is no such authoritative source.
Mike Ward
news:avq4r0lej14n89q9k...@4ax.com:
> nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote:
>>Can you refute this:
>>
>>> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
>>> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
>>> > of the former Soviet Union.
>
> The phrase "separation of powers" is not found in the Constitution.
> Nor is the phrase "three branches of government". Nor is the word
> "coercion" which is libertarian-speak for government enforcement of
> the laws.
>
> The CONCEPT of "separation of Church and State" is clearly expressed
> in the Constitution, and that most libertarian of the Founders, Thomas
> Jefferson, happened to be the one who used that phrase to succinctly
> describe the concept which was stated in the Constitution using
> different words at considerably greater length.
Moreover, we NEED a speration of Church and State at least as much for the
protection of religion as for protection for the State.
The biggest reason that I despise the untra-left-wing interpration of the
seperation of church and state is that it is an interpretion that renders
the first amendment so anti-religion that it could ultimately turn people
against the first amendment.
Put another way, if people are forced to choose between a first amendment
that is hostile toward religion and no first amendment at all, they may
choose the latter. And I for one would hate to see that happen.
>
>>I am an observer and a searcher, not an authority,
>
> Agreed. And your observation is through opaque glasses
That is completely unfair. Up to this point your post was very thoughtful.
Why would you ruin it by suddenly resorting to this sort of personal
attack?
Mike
Dave Thompson
> news:<10r44n3...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> If you all want to get a look at what goes on in the mind of the right
>> wing
>> Christians who want to redefine religious freedom in this country, just
>> read
>> on.
>
> You express yourself like a Roman who wants to herd Christians to the
> Colisium for Lion fodder. Or, a sophomoric leftover parroting the
> hatred mantra.
>
> "Right wing Christians" have every right and the intrinsic freedom to
> think and believe what they may as well as to express themselves in
> public speech or public array.
But not to use the government as a bully pulpit.
>
> Can you refute this:
>
>> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
>> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
>> > of the former Soviet Union.
It's a paraphrase. It's not important at all that it is found in the
constitution or not. The establishment clause is enough.
>
> There is no reason to "redefine religious freedom" because in the U.S.
> we've always have had constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom as
> well as the freedom of being irreligious. As an agnostic and
> independent observer,
Yeah, right. I'm an agnostic. You're no agnostic.
I've seen theist after theist claim to be agnostics because they think they
can fly under the radar and fool the gullible. It usually turns out that
these theists claim to be so because they say Jesus is real and not a
religious figure, thus they are not religious at all.
Don't continue along this path. No one here is buying it.
there is no doubt in my mind that the assaults
> on religious freedom and on America's essentially benign-Christian
> cultural traditions
Benign? Can you say "apologist"?
are malevolently engineered by neurotic intolerant
> "liberals" and atheists who espouse neoMarxist mandates to destroy
> religion in deference to the GOD-State and the politik-gensia.
Uh huh. You seem to have marxism on the brain, and don't have any clue what
it is. Everything to you is Marxist.
>
> Marxism is a hateful and destructive manifesto thinly veiled in
> dialectic rhetoric - its a mind game for revenge which appeals to
> sophists and the congentially dispirited. Ardent "liberals" and
> "altruistic humanists" do not realize that in their "liberal"
> discourse they expose themselves as proponents of Marxist tenets -
> they parrot the old leftover lines. Using prescribed Marxist tactics
> of perverse opposition, "Liberal" hatred and intolerance seeths over
> the radical brim. Marx's mandate, as it is of "liberals", is
> destruction, not reformation.
>
> "Liberal" religious intolerance seethes especially, if not humorously
> in vain, when they cite pre-revolutionary/pre-constitution colonial
> Salem's witch hunts to justify their 21st Century hatred of American
> Christians and religious foundations.
It's liberal religious tolerance that has made this country the most
religiously diverse and free country in the world. If you think conservative
religious politics in any way guarantee religious freedom, you are ignorant
of history and reality.
Dave Thompson
Hahahahahahaha!
A figment of your own ideologically asinine and polluted imagination.
If this arrogant remark doesn't pigeon hole you as one of the blathering
right wing nut cases, I don't know what does.
But keep adding to the list, I'm sure you can come up with something better
given enough time.
Mike Ward
> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f49fa86.04120...@posting.google.com...
>> "Pete" <nos...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:<DXlsd.36361$kI6.1...@news20.bellglobal.com>...
>>> It's a sad reflection on religion that atheists and agnostics are
>>> most often
>>> more "Christian"-like to their fellow man than the hypocrits in most
>>> Christian churches.
>>> Pete
>>
>> Where do you live? As an agnostic and independent observer, I am
>> quite overwhelmed by the blasts of atheist intolerance and hatred.
>> Most Christians, and certainly there are false and hypocritical
>> Christians, but most Christians I know and have known are too busy
>> doing good works and living with wholesome intent to politicize
>> themselves with self-aggrandizing altruism like pseudo-liberals and
>> atheists do.
>>
>> In fact, "liberals" intolerance and insufferible arrogance define
>> "liberals" as being rather ill-liberal thus causing the label
>> "liberal" to be a misnomer.
>>
>> Furthermore, "liberal" is a disgraced political designation, no
>> longer an intrinsic virtue.
>
> Hahahahahahaha!
>
Well, most left leaning politicians claim that they're insulted when anyone
calls them a liberal so they would seem to find it a disgraceful
designation.
There are a lot of exceptions though. Robert Riche has made the point that
liberals should be proud to call themselves liberals and should not hide
from the term.
Barney Lyon
If you believe that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
to be separation of church and state, which religion do you think they
intended Americans to be?
If a founder had meant America not to be a secular government
(areligious governing, in other words government would be silent on
the subject of religion, but citizens could practice any religion they
cared to), would he have said, "Question with boldness even the
existence of a god."
Or "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself,
as far as I know."
How about this: "I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the
most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind
has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of
grief has produced!"?
Or "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that
denomination (Protestant Calvinism)."
Would a founder who thought he was creating a government in collusion
with religion write this?:
"The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first
example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and
if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of
artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider
this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the
formation of the American governments is at present little known or
regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an
object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons
employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any
degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon
ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will
forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely
by the use of reason and the senses."
Or this?: ". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus
founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a
pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over
the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great
point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."
How about this?:
"During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of
Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in
all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility
in the laity; in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution."
Or this?:
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on
society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual
tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they
have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no
instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people.
Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an
established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government,
instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
Or this?:
"My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received
from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But
scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having
doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them
combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of
Revelation itself.
Or this?:
". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened
that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended
by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be
refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short,
I soon became a through Deist."
Or this?:
"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects
in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been
persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians
thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on
one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed
persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans.
These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice
themselves both here [England] and in New England."
Or this?:
"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the
Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by
any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "
Or this?:
"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no
more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more
repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing
called Christianity. "
John Quincy Adams, Ethan Allen, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James
Madison, Thomas Paine and George Washington were all Deists. A Deist
is not a Christian -- Deism does not recognize revealed religion,
preferring instead a view that "while God created the universe, he is
not directly involved in it". They eschew miracles, the divinity of
Christ and generally practice no regular worship service. They prefer
a naturalistic view of the world to one influenced by the
supernatural.
Ian Robertson, in Sociology (3rd edition, Worth Publishing Inc.: New
York, 1987) said, "At the time of its founding, the United States
seemed to be an infertile ground for religion. Many of the nation's
leaders - include George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin
Franklin - were not Christians, did not accept the authority of the
Bible (Jefferson's word for the Bible was "dunghill"), and were
hostile to organized religion. The attitude of the general public was
one of apathy: in 1776, only 5 percent of the population were
participating members of the churches."
The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself
upon Christianity or any religion comes from the very document that
defines it - the United States Constitution.
If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian or
religious/theocratic republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they
would have forgotten to leave out their Christian or religious
intentions in the Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the
Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus,
or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and
they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says,
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. .
." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever
be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the
United States."
Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to
the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church
and State."
Some religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation
between church and state by claiming that those words do not occur in
the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say
"freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.
As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the
Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:
"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the
plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by
inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the
plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion
was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to
comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the
Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every
denomination."
James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church
and state, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution,
also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward
Livingston, 10 July 1822:
"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every
past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in
greater purity, the less they are mixed together."
Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of
church and state works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only
need to look at the plethora of churches, temples, and shrines that
exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a
secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such
tolerant diversity.
Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity
usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears
obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the
Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees
with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a
support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.
More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the
land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at
announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various
grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The
grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than
thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important
historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain
at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although
the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty
thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it
holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must
take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration
of Independence.
Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it
aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious
monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we
all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of
happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted
among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by
Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.
Treaty of Tripoli
Unlike governments of the past, the American Fathers set up a
government divorced from religion. The establishment of a secular
government did not require a reflection to themselves about its
origin; they knew this as an unspoken given. However, as the U.S.
delved into international affairs, few foreign nations knew about the
intentions of America. For this reason, an insight from at a little
known but legal document written in the late 1700s explicitly reveals
the secular nature of the United States to a foreign nation.
Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the
United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of
Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article
11, it states:
"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense
founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and
as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
against any Mehomitan 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."
The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the
end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the
American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility
for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington
as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with
Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he
abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate
of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain
Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of
the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow
forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy
Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams
concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the
Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially
ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All
during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never
raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through
its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
So here we have a clear admission by the United States that our
government did not found itself upon Christianity. Unlike the
Declaration of Independence, this treaty represented U.S. law as all
treaties do according to the Constitution (see Article VI, Sect. 2).
Although the Christian exclusionary wording in the Treaty of Tripoli
only lasted for eight years and no longer has legal status, it clearly
represented the feelings of our founding fathers at the beginning of
the U.S. government.
Common Law
According to the Constitution's 7th Amendment: "In suits at common
law. . . the right of trial by jury shall be preserved; and no fact,
tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the
United States than according to the rules of the common law."
Here, many Christians believe that common law came from Christian
foundations and therefore the Constitution derives from it. They use
various quotes from Supreme Court Justices proclaiming that
Christianity came as part of the laws of England, and therefore from
its common law heritage.
But one of our principle founding fathers, Thomas Jefferson,
elaborated about the history of common law in his letter to Thomas
Cooper on February 10, 1814:
"For we know that the common law is that system of law which was
introduced by the Saxons on their settlement in England, and altered
from time to time by proper legislative authority from that time to
the date of Magna Charta, which terminates the period of the common
law. . . This settlement took place about the middle of the fifth
century. But Christianity was not introduced till the seventh century;
the conversion of the first christian king of the Heptarchy having
taken place about the year 598, and that of the last about 686. Here
then, was a space of two hundred years, during which the common law
was in existence, and Christianity no part of it.
". . . if any one chooses to build a doctrine on any law of that
period, supposed to have been lost, it is incumbent on him to prove it
to have existed, and what were its contents. These were so far
alterations of the common law, and became themselves a part of it. But
none of these adopt Christianity as a part of the common law. If,
therefore, from the settlement of the Saxons to the introduction of
Christianity among them, that system of religion could not be a part
of the common law, because they were not yet Christians, and if,
having their laws from that period to the close of the common law, we
are all able to find among them no such act of adoption, we may safely
affirm (though contradicted by all the judges and writers on earth)
that Christianity neither is, nor ever was a part of the common law."
In the same letter, Jefferson examined how the error spread about
Christianity and common law. Jefferson realized that a
misinterpretation had occurred with a Latin term by Prisot, "*ancien
scripture*," in reference to common law history. The term meant
"ancient scripture" but people had incorrectly interpreted it to mean
"Holy Scripture," thus spreading the myth that common law came from
the Bible. Jefferson writes:
"And Blackstone repeats, in the words of Sir Matthew Hale, that
'Christianity is part of the laws of England,' citing Ventris and
Strange ubi surpa. 4. Blackst. 59. Lord Mansfield qualifies it a
little by saying that 'The essential principles of revealed religion
are part of the common law." In the case of the Chamberlain of London
v. Evans, 1767. But he cites no authority, and leaves us at our peril
to find out what, in the opinion of the judge, and according to the
measure of his foot or his faith, are those essential principles of
revealed religion obligatory on us as a part of the common law."
Thus we find this string of authorities, when examined to the
beginning, all hanging on the same hook, a perverted expression of
Priscot's, or on one another, or nobody."
The Encyclopedia Britannica, also describes the Saxon origin and adds:
"The nature of the new common law was at first much influenced by the
principles of Roman law, but later it developed more and more along
independent lines." Also prominent among the characteristics that
derived out of common law include the institution of the jury, and the
right to speedy trial.
Christian Sources
Virtually all the evidence that attempts to connect a foundation of
Christianity upon the government rests mainly on quotes and opinions
from a few of the colonial statesmen who had professed a belief in
Christianity. Sometimes the quotes come from their youth before their
introduction to Enlightenment ideas or simply from personal beliefs.
But statements of beliefs, by themselves, say nothing about
Christianity as the source of the U.S. government.
There did occur, however, some who wished a connection between church
and State. Patrick Henry, for example, proposed a tax to help sustain
"some form of Christian worship" for the state of Virginia. But
Jefferson and other statesmen did not agree. In 1779, Jefferson
introduced a bill for the Statute for Religious Freedom which became
Virginia law. Jefferson designed this law to completely separate
religion from government. None of Henry's Christian views ever got
introduced into Virginia's or U.S. Government law.
Unfortunately, later developments in our government have clouded early
history. The original Pledge of Allegiance, authored by Francis
Bellamy in 1892 did not contain the words "under God." Not until June
1954 did those words appear in the Allegiance. The United States
currency never had "In God We Trust" printed on money until after the
Civil War. Many Christians who visit historical monuments and see the
word "God" inscribed in stone, automatically impart their own personal
God of Christianity, without understanding the Framers Deist context.
In the Supreme Court's 1892 Holy Trinity Church vs. United States,
Justice David Brewer wrote that "this is a Christian nation." Many
Christians use this as evidence. However, Brewer wrote this in dicta,
as a personal opinion only and does not serve as a legal
pronouncement. Later Brewer felt obliged to explain himself: "But in
what sense can [the United States] be called a Christian nation? Not
in the sense that Christianity is the established religion or the
people are compelled in any manner to support it. On the contrary, the
Constitution specifically provides that 'Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof.' Neither is it Christian in the sense that all its
citizens are either in fact or in name Christians. On the contrary,
all religions have free scope within its borders. Numbers of our
people profess other religions, and many reject all."
Conclusion
The Framers derived an independent government out of Enlightenment
thinking against the grievances caused by Great Britain. Our Founders
paid little heed to political beliefs about Christianity. The 1st
Amendment stands as the bulkhead against an establishment of religion
and at the same time insures the free expression of any belief. The
Treaty of Tripoli, an instrument of the Constitution, clearly stated
our non-Christian foundation. We inherited common law from Great
Britain which derived from pre-Christian Saxons rather than from
Biblical scripture.
Today we have powerful Christian organizations who work to spread
historical myths about early America and attempt to bring a Christian
theocracy to the government. If this ever happens, then indeed, we
will have ignored the lessons from history. Fortunately, most liberal
Christians today agree with the principles of separation of church and
State, just as they did in early America.
"They all attributed the peaceful dominion of religion in their
country mainly to the separation of church and state. I do not
hesitate to affirm that during my stay in America I did not meet a
single individual, of the clergy or the laity, who was not of the same
opinion on this point"
-Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America, 1835
Bibliography
Borden, Morton, "Jews, Turks, and Infidels," The University of North
Carolina Press, 1984
Boston, Robert, "Why the Religious Right is Wrong About Separation of
Church & State, "Prometheus Books, 1993
Boston, F. Andrews, et al, "The Writings of George Washington," (12
Vols.), Charleston, S.C., 1833-37
Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., "The Diaries of George Washington,
1748-1799," Houghton Mifflin Company: Published for the Mount Vernon
Ladies Association of the Union, 1925
Gay, Kathlyn, "Church and State,"The Millbrook Press," 1992
Handy, Robert, T., "A History of the Churches in U.S. and Canada," New
York: Oxford University Press, 1977
Hayes, Judith, "All those Christian Presidents," [The American
Rationalist, March/April 1997]
Kock, Adrienne, ed., "The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the
American Experiment and a Free Society," New York: George Braziller,
1965
Mapp, Jr, Alf J., "Thomas Jefferson," Madison Books, 1987
Middlekauff, Robert, "The Glorious Cause," Oxford University Press,
1982
Miller, Hunter, ed., "Treaties and other International Acts of the
United States of America," Vol. 2, Documents 1-40: 1776-1818, United
States Government Printing Office, Washington: 1931
Peterson, Merrill D., "Thomas Jefferson Writings," The Library of
America, 1984
Remsburg, John E., "Six Historic Americans," The Truth Seeker Company,
New York
Robinson, John J., "Born in Blood," M. Evans & Company, New York, 1989
Roche, O.I.A., ed, "The Jefferson Bible: with the Annotated
Commentaries on Religion of Thomas Jefferson," Clarkson N. Potter,
Inc., 1964
Seldes, George, ed., "The Great Quotations," Pocket Books, New York,
1967
Sweet, William W., "Revivalism in America, its origin, growth and
decline," C. Scribner's Sons, New York, 1944
Woodress, James, "A Yankee's Odyssey, the Life of Joel Barlow," J. P.
Lippincott Co., 1958
Encyclopedia sources:
Common law: Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. 6, "William Benton,
Publisher, 1969
Declaration of Independence: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia,
MicroSoft Corp., Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.
In God We Trust: MicroSoft Encarta 1996 Encyclopedia, MicroSoft Corp.,
Funk & Wagnalls Corporation.
Pledge of Allegiance: Academic American Encyclopedia, Vol. 15, Grolier
Incorporated, Danbury, Conn., 1988
Special thanks to Ed Buckner, Robert Boston, Selena Brewington and
Lion G. Miles, for help in providing me with source materials.
http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/farrell_till/myth.html
http://www.postfun.com/pfp/worbois.html
http://www.deism.com/washington.htm
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3b44ab97110d.htm
http://www.deism.com/deism_defined.htm
http://www.borndigital.com/founders.htm
Barney Lyon
If she believes that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
to be separation of church and state, which religion does she think
"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American
people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between church
and State."
Some religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation
nan
> Let's ask nan which religion she's pushing for.
Wow! I stirred up a nest of viperous atheists, methinks. It's well to
have them well stirred on the surface rather than simmering in their
underworld.
There is no religion for which I am "pushing." BUT, I am pushing
against the neo-Marxist "liberal" surge against freedom of thought and
speech which attacks religious belief. The Marxist-inspired attacks
are specifically anti-Christian.
The greatest value of American society is its cemented foundation on
Christian humanism and Judeo-Christian religious law.
> If she believes that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
> to be separation of church and state, which religion does she think
> they intended Americans to be?
There was and is no mandated "religion" "intended" for Americans. The
pseudo-liberal, neo-Marxist politik mantra "separation of church and
state" has NO coherence to it. Neither has America been or is a
theocracy, nor are Americans bound by government to be religious. The
tradition is to swear to telling the Truth on the revered Bible, or by
reverence and obedience to the Creator, or universal God. Certainly,
no one wants to swear to the Truth by evoking the name of Karl Marx
except ill-liberals and athesists.
The founders'intent, as proven in the carefully drafted constitution,
was to protect this nation by LIMITING GOVERNMENT and its force upon
citizens. The IDEA is to prevent this nation's government becoming a
theocracy or religiously monolithic. _Restraint_ is directed upon
government, not citizens. The American SPIRIT is to limit government,
NOT to limit its citizens'freedom of _public_ religious expressions,
theologic thinking, the pursuit of religion, religious rites and
display.
The constititution is void of convoluted expression. It means what it
says in unambiguous expression.
> If a founder had meant America not to be a secular government
> (areligious governing, in other words government would be silent on
> the subject of religion, but citizens could practice any religion they
> cared to), would he have said, "Question with boldness even the
> existence of a god."
If the founders wanted the government to be composed of amoral
atheists, the constitution would have stated it so. The founders, in
forming the constitution, did not anticipate the virulent religious
hatred of Karl Marx's dialectic manifesto and of his nihilistic
phoney-liberal disciples.
> Or "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself,
> as far as I know."
>
And, I too, "am of a sect by myself." The right to practice thus is
my God-given right which takes precedence and power over any given
right by government.
Merry Christmas and thanks for your thought-provoking post.
from Nan
Mike Ward
maintining a sepration of church and state, I object to the expansion of
the term state to refer to all institutions that receive anything from the
government and the expansion of the term church to refer to any
organization that makes reference to anything spiritual.
Mike
nan
> nanl...@hotmail.com (nan) wrote:
> >Can you refute this:
> >
> >> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
> >> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
> >> > of the former Soviet Union.
>
> The phrase "separation of powers" is not found in the Constitution.
> Nor is the phrase "three branches of government". Nor is the word
> "coercion" which is libertarian-speak for government enforcement of
> the laws.
Jefferson explained once, "...a wall of separation between Church and
State." Deistic/libertarian Jefferson, and other founders, never
expressed that government would forbid religious citizens to
participate and to be represented in government. Nor does the
constitution allow a prejudiced legal system to pursue the petty
persecution of manifested aspects of Christian beliefs - like logos!
While anti-Christians endlessly cite the sins, persecutions and errors
committed in the name of religious righteousness throughout history,
those abominations were committed by the assent of and under the
auspices of GOVERNMENT, ruling powers, theocratic dictatorships and
other such tyrannies. The founders were quite knowledgeable and
perceptive about these historical facts and events involving
irreligious practices. However, they did not condemn Christianity nor
religion in view of this knowledge. They KNEW the evil lay in the
GOVERNMENT POWER which allowed or dictated persecution by religious
fanatics.
> The CONCEPT of "separation of Church and State" is clearly expressed
> in the Constitution, and that most libertarian of the Founders, Thomas
> Jefferson, happened to be the one who used that phrase to succinctly
> describe the concept which was stated in the Constitution using
> different words at considerably greater length.
>
> >I am an observer and a searcher, not an authority,
>
> Agreed. And your observation is through opaque glasses
Your view, Bob, is always predictable and prescribed on the line.
If my view is opaque, then yours is degeneratively myopic.
> >but Dr. John J. Ray is an authorative source for liberating thought.
>
> There is no such authoritative source.
Sounds like yours is a brainwashed response "...no such authorative
source..." I didn't imply Dr. Ray was THE source, but an enlightening
source. I certainly do not look to the dogmatism of political
partyism nor to spurious ideological propaganda as a source for
elevating thinking.
Hey, Bob, according to what you've expressed in so many responses to
me, you revere the authority of the NEA and of the ACLU. You defend
both subversive entities with effusive dissembling through denial and
dismissiveness. You've never utter an original nor independent
analytical thought on the issue. You are their servant.
Most normal moral persons believe in some concept of an omnipotent
creative or natural power, and they may name it "God." No reasonable
person should ever put their faith and trust in Man's governing Man.
The founders did not.
from Nan
nan
> I will take right wing Christians over fanatical crazy bomb strapping
> Muslim bastards any day.
>
anti-Christians is amusingly ironic in that Christians in America are
benign and unobtrusive. However, these so-called "liberals" seem
quite faint-hearted about attacking the oppressive religion of Muslim
terrorists.
I have no doubt that American "liberals" like John Kerry, Michael
Moore, et al, would joyfully wave white flags in surrender, then
capituate and collaborate with attacking Muslim terrorists. The
American "liberal" left would readily *altruisticly* assist the
(hypothetical) invading Muslims in their genocide of the "stupid"
right-wing/Republican Christian (and Jewish) religious citizens -
their fellow citizens and neighbors who they deem enemies liken to
nazis and facists and morons.
American "liberals," whose collective affinitiy is far more
cosmopolitan/internationalist than patriotic "xenophobic rightwing
nuts," are comparable to the cowardly leisure class of Vichy French
cafe society aka the socialist elite.
I am fair sick of them - the ill-liberals: their cowardly
politicizations.
from Nan
Divin Marquis
The problem in the first case is that religious-oid orgs are known to use
this technique as a form of bait and switch to climb up the ladder of
government power.
Divin Marquis
> I will take right wing Christians over fanatical crazy bomb strapping
> Muslim bastards any day.
Remember Tim McVeigh?
nan
Well said, Mike, and very insightful about the threat to the First
Amendment. The left wants to revise the amendment to suit their
purposes which is to subvert our Constitutional freedoms.
The Constitution LIMITS the powers of government. The
Leftist/neoMarxist (pseudo-liberals)devise to transmute government
with absolute power determined by socialist totalitarianism.
We've already had warning premonitions: politically correct thought
and speech, as well as the suppression of contrary information and the
permeation of dysinformation through the media.
If you read Marx and his neoMarxist disciples, including Mao and our
present-day American "liberal" imperatives, ad hominem warfare is
their preferred tactic. This tactic is used to augment their tenet of
"perverse opposition".
The ad hominen acts like a stiletto in rhetorical warfare.
Among prevailing ad hominem favourites:
racist, xenophobe, religious nut, "Christian Troll", (the big
generic)bigot, nazi, facist, capitalist pig, homophobe, moron,
dumb-fuck, middle-class inferior, (another big generic)hypocrite,
neo-con, etc, etc.
Bob LeChevalier nearly always ends his posts to me with an obligatory
cliched ad hominem/a personal attack. It's predictable because of his
socio-political orientation - he's programmed in groupthink mantras.
Bob's ad hominem response is typical of an automaton's reflex
developed in political party "workshops" or in socialization labs or
in cults or at "liberal" elite cocktail parties.
I refer you to various websites on the old-soviet studies in
psychopolitics which are, in part, nefarious extensions of Pavlovian
behavioral theory, Machiavelli's PRINCE and Pascal's PENSEES.
from Nan
P.S.
> >
I wrote, "...but Dr. John J. Ray is an authorative source for
liberating thought."
Bob's response:
> >
> > There is no such authoritative source.
Perhaps Bob means there is "no such authoritative source" for
liberating thought except Michael Moore, the NEA and the ACLU. Please
note I wrote "an authorative source" - I didn't write "THE authorative
source."
Bob likes to bend and convolute the rhetoric.
from Nan
nan
> "Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
> news:LAosd.89985$7i4....@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
> > "Dave Thompson" <Da...@kissmybigfatwhitehairyass.com> wrote in
> > news:10r44n3...@corp.supernews.com:
> >
> >> If you all want to get a look at what goes on in the mind of the right
> >> wing Christians who want to redefine religious freedom in this
> >> country, just read on.
> >>
> >
> > It's mostly just a list of quotes from the founders. Do you object to any
> > of them in particular or do you think all the founders were anti-freedom
> > right-wing Christians?
>
> Read the personal comments from the troll who posted them, not the
> cherry-picked quotes.
I assume I am the "troll" - the object of your cliched ad hominem?
> The old argument about the colloquialism "separation of church and state"
> has been dealt with repeatedly.
The LEFTIST repeatedly use the deceptive "colloquialism" as a
cognitive subversion of the TRUE meaning of the First Amendment which
meaning is to LIMIT government, not to limit religion nor religious
expression. The spirit of the First Amendment expresses Freedom not
the suppression of Freedom.
> It's only repeated because they want to
> deceive the people who know nothing about the constitution.
Rathering than quoting verbatim the First Amendment, the conspicious
usage of the phrase "separation of church and state" in argument by
"liberals" is a *Grand Deception*, if not a brainwashing contrivance.
Little public school boys and girls parrot the mantra "separation of
church and state" and they cannot quote, and probably have never read
the First Amendment.
I cite my own experience the other month. Two local high school
girls, who flaunted the "colloquial" phrase in our casual
conversation, had never but never read nor studied the Constitution -
they relied (!) on their English teacher's interpretation of the First
Amendment. Furthermore, next year these two teenaged girls are
eligible to vote, and they had no frikkin idea what was written in the
First Amendment. They were confused when I explained, "The First
Amendment limits government, not religion." Also, I said, "Go tell
THAT to your teacher."
Also, you petty ad hominem verkrampre, before you stereotype me to
prove your false arguments, you had better know that I am not
religious and I am not a Republican nor a "rightwinger." Furthermore,
you insolent verkrampre, be advised that only an ignorant fool calls
those with whom he disagrees a "troll." IN FACT, by evoking the
"troll" ad hominem, you've automatically negated the value of what you
say, which of course is already negated by the fact that your thinking
reflects stale leftover leftist cliched crap.
I refer you to Ben Shapiro's book BRAINWASHED and to the "Dissecting
Leftism" website of Dr. John J. Ray.
The collective insolence and ignorance of group-think pseudo-liberals
is comedic redundancy.
from Nan
nan
> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:8f49fa86.04120...@posting.google.com...
> > "Dave Thompson" <Da...@kissmybigfatwhitehairyass.com> wrote in message
> > news:<10r44n3...@corp.supernews.com>...
> >> If you all want to get a look at what goes on in the mind of the right
> >> wing
> >> Christians who want to redefine religious freedom in this country, just
> >> read
> >> on.
> >
> > You express yourself like a Roman who wants to herd Christians to the
> > Colisium for Lion fodder. Or, a sophomoric leftover parroting the
> > hatred mantra.
> >
> > "Right wing Christians" have every right and the intrinsic freedom to
> > think and believe what they may as well as to express themselves in
> > public speech or public array.
>
> But not to use the government as a bully pulpit.
The "government" does not have a bully pulpit - the government has
elected representatives and entrenched bureaucrats. The president is
the nation's elected moral leader. The bully pulpit is his. If John
Kerry was elected, he'd use the presidency's bully pulpit to advocate
worship of the corrupt UN and worship of the Global Test.
> > Can you refute this:
> >
> >> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
> >> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
> >> > of the former Soviet Union.
>
> It's a paraphrase. It's not important at all that it is found in the
> constitution or not. The establishment clause is enough.
No, it is a subverted "paraphrase" flagrantly used by
leftists/"liberals" to distract from true meaning of the First
Amendment which LIMITS government, not religion.
> > There is no reason to "redefine religious freedom" because in the U.S.
> > we've always have had constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom as
> > well as the freedom of being irreligious. As an agnostic and
> > independent observer,
>
> Yeah, right. I'm an agnostic. You're no agnostic.
Don't you dare tell me what I am or what I am not, you fucking little
SHIT!
Agnostics are not groupthink clones hatched out of a brainwashing lab
like atheistic pseudo-liberals are - like you appear to be.
As a very defiant agnostic and a true libertarian defending Christians
against Marxist imperatives, I wish you a Merry Christ Mass and a
joyful holiday season.
from Nan
Mike Ward
news:8f49fa86.0412...@posting.google.com:
It's more of the trend that I've mentioned earlier. Agnostics and atheist
exhibiting the same sorts of negative behaviors that Christians are
sterotyped as having.
Sometimes it's the holier-than-thou "we athiest and agnostics are so much
more moral than you Christians."
Other times it's athiest and agnositics preaching sermons on how Christians
ought to live.
And here it's one agnostic establishing his own narrow-minded definition of
"agnostic" and using it to tell someone else that she isn't a real
agnostic.
Fortunately, I mainly only see this sort of behavior on the internet. I
only occasionally see it among athiest and agnostics I meat in RL.
Mike
Dave Thompson
"Mike Ward" <m@d.w> wrote in message
news:yevsd.1032615$Gx4.7...@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net...
Most democrats aren't really liberals. The far left wing hardly has anyone
in a position of authority. Most would call themselves progressives because
it defines a more moderate and wider definition of their politics. And why
should anyone give into republicans using it as a derogatory term?
Republicans have tried to redifine the term to mean commie socialist
anti-american atheist and so on. I say it makes more sense to just say you
aren't a liberal rather than saying you are and defending yourself against a
bunch of falsehoods.
If you consider that republicans are lying through their teeth when they
call themselves conservatives, why should anyone, conservative or liberal,
allow themselves to be pigeon holed either category, considering both are
being used dishonestly to try to poison or whitewash their political
identity.
>
> There are a lot of exceptions though. Robert Riche has made the point that
> liberals should be proud to call themselves liberals and should not hide
> from the term.
It all depends on what it means to be liberal. I may be disgusted at what
republicans are doing with the term, but liberals let them do it, so who is
more at fault?
Dave Thompson
> "Dave Thompson" <Da...@kissmybigfatwhitehairyass.com> wrote in message
> news:<10r4v9v...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "nan" <nanl...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:8f49fa86.04120...@posting.google.com...
>> > "Dave Thompson" <Da...@kissmybigfatwhitehairyass.com> wrote in message
>> > news:<10r44n3...@corp.supernews.com>...
>> >> If you all want to get a look at what goes on in the mind of the right
>> >> wing
>> >> Christians who want to redefine religious freedom in this country,
>> >> just
>> >> read
>> >> on.
>> >
>> > You express yourself like a Roman who wants to herd Christians to the
>> > Colisium for Lion fodder. Or, a sophomoric leftover parroting the
>> > hatred mantra.
>> >
>> > "Right wing Christians" have every right and the intrinsic freedom to
>> > think and believe what they may as well as to express themselves in
>> > public speech or public array.
>>
>> But not to use the government as a bully pulpit.
>
> The "government" does not have a bully pulpit - the government has
> elected representatives and entrenched bureaucrats. The president is
> the nation's elected moral leader.
No he is not. I personally find the man morally bankrupt. Moral leader is
not in the president's job description and I do not accept him as one.
The bully pulpit is his. If John
> Kerry was elected, he'd use the presidency's bully pulpit to advocate
> worship of the corrupt UN and worship of the Global Test.
You are really friggin nuts.
>
>> > Can you refute this:
>> >
>> >> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
>> >> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the
>> >> > 'Constitution'
>> >> > of the former Soviet Union.
>>
>> It's a paraphrase. It's not important at all that it is found in the
>> constitution or not. The establishment clause is enough.
>
> No, it is a subverted "paraphrase" flagrantly used by
> leftists/"liberals" to distract from true meaning of the First
> Amendment which LIMITS government, not religion.
No, it's a paraphrase. And no matter how much dishonest little trolls like
you scream that this distinction is not important, no one is making law on
this as a legal precedent. They are making law based on the establishment
clause.
>
>> > There is no reason to "redefine religious freedom" because in the U.S.
>> > we've always have had constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom as
>> > well as the freedom of being irreligious. As an agnostic and
>> > independent observer,
>>
>> Yeah, right. I'm an agnostic. You're no agnostic.
>
> Don't you dare tell me what I am or what I am not, you fucking little
> SHIT!
Here, I'll do it again. You are a lying bastard and no agnostic. You are a
crazy lying theist piece of shit trying to pass themselves off as something
they are not to try to fly in under the radar. No agnostic goes around
advocating what you do and tossing off tin foil hat catch phrases like
liberal atheist marxists and worshiping the U.N. You may think you are
fooling people, but you aren't, least of all me.
> Agnostics are not groupthink clones hatched out of a brainwashing lab
> like atheistic pseudo-liberals are - like you appear to be.
Well this is certainly the pot calling the kettle black.
>
> As a very defiant agnostic and a true libertarian defending Christians
> against Marxist imperatives, I wish you a Merry Christ Mass and a
> joyful holiday season.
As an obvious theist you should quit lying because you are surely going to
hell for the damage you are doing against faith.
Dave Thompson
I have no narrow definition of agnostic. I do, however have the sense to
know when I am dealing with a theist who is trying to pass themselves off as
an agnostic. Saying you are an agnostic is not like saying you are an artist
in that when you say you are an artist no one can really tell whether you ar
or you aren't. I've encountered theists many times who are trolling as
agnostic or atheist, or nonbeliever but have this strong anti- establishment
clause attitude. They do it to fly under the radar or by the mistaken belief
that unbelievers might just listen to one of their own on weakening our
secular government. When you press them you sometime get them to admit that
they consider themselves such because they don't believe their relationship
with Jesus is religious at all - that it's real, or that god is not
religion, god is reality so believing in god is not religious.
If I have Nan pegged wrong, then at the least she is some twisted little
tinfoil hat type seeing Marxists around the corner everytime she sees a
public school or government employee. Nans little first amendment fallacies
have been dealt with many times over yet she continues to troll the same
thing with the same droning paranoid blather. I see no reason to humor her
on the issue of her agnosticism.
Eric Root
> I will take right wing Christians over fanatical crazy bomb strapping
> Muslim bastards any day.
>
I agree, although it has nothing to do with the original post.
Bob LeChevalier
>I am fair sick of them - the ill-liberals: their cowardly
>politicizations.
We're fair sick of you, but saying so doesn't do any good.
Bob LeChevalier
>The biggest reason that I despise the untra-left-wing interpration of the
>seperation of church and state is that it is an interpretion that renders
>the first amendment so anti-religion that it could ultimately turn people
>against the first amendment.
>
>Put another way, if people are forced to choose between a first amendment
>that is hostile toward religion and no first amendment at all, they may
>choose the latter. And I for one would hate to see that happen.
>
>>
>>>I am an observer and a searcher, not an authority,
>>
>> Agreed. And your observation is through opaque glasses
>
>That is completely unfair.
But quite true.
>Up to this point your post was very thoughtful.
All my posts are thoughtful, unlike those of the nan-entity.
>Why would you ruin it by suddenly resorting to this sort of personal
>attack?
Because "nan" is an idiot, of course.
I respond to what I read, thoughtfully of course. If there is
something worthy of an intelligent comment, I make the intelligent
comment. If it is nansense, I call it what it is.
Bob LeChevalier
You haven't read your Founders.
Jefferson and Madison in particular excoriated the clergy for their
abuses, and they did not want governments aiding religion because of
the abuses by the clergy which that aid would feed.
>> >but Dr. John J. Ray is an authorative source for liberating thought.
>>
>> There is no such authoritative source.
>
>Sounds like yours is a brainwashed response "...no such authorative
>source..." I didn't imply Dr. Ray was THE source, but an enlightening
>source.
You may consider him enlightening, whoever he is. But the claim was
that he is "authoritative" for "liberating thought". There is no
authority for thought. There are authorities for facts, and for
explanations of facts.
>I certainly do not look to the dogmatism of political
>partyism nor to spurious ideological propaganda as a source for
>elevating thinking.
"Elevating" is not a useful adjective for "thinking"; nor is it
apropos as a gerund.
I look for sources of data. I use my brain for thinking.
>Hey, Bob, according to what you've expressed in so many responses to
>me, you revere the authority of the NEA and of the ACLU.
The NEA had little authority, and the ACLU has even less. I am a
member of neither and "revere" neither.
>You defend
>both subversive entities with effusive dissembling through denial and
>dismissiveness.
They need no defense. Each organization appears to be doing the job
it was set up to do. You seem to have a problem with the jobs each
was set up to do, and you furthermore seek to characterize the
organizations ideologically, whereas I consider all ideology to be
worthless.
>You've never utter an original nor independent
>analytical thought on the issue.
And here the other guy was saying my post was thoughtful until I
slammed you. Apparently others find my utterances worthwhile.
>You are their servant.
>
>Most normal moral persons believe in some concept of an omnipotent
>creative or natural power, and they may name it "God."
Your awareness of the scope of world religious beliefs is lacking.
>No reasonable
>person should ever put their faith and trust in Man's governing Man.
Truly "reasonable" people don't put faith in *anything*, since faith
is inherently unreasoning.
nan
You've already expressed your bigoted "narrow definition" of agnostic
only to prove you are defining your own intolerant atheism.
I repeat: Agnostics are not groupthink clones hatched out of a
brainwashing lab
like atheistic pseudo-liberals are - like you appear to be.
> Saying you are an agnostic is not like saying you are an artist
> in that when you say you are an artist no one can really tell whether you ar
> or you aren't.
If I say I am an agnostic, an amateur artist, a half-assed musician, a
superior horsewoman, I am telling YOU truthfully what I am in Real
Life. I don't misrepresent myself nor do I conform to your ASININE
bigoted idea of what an agnostic is or is not.
> I've encountered theists many times who are trolling as
> agnostic or atheist, or nonbeliever but have this strong anti- establishment
> clause attitude.
"...but have this strong anti-establishment clause attitude. ???
So, you believe anyone who claims to be a non-believer but expresses
this "attitude" is a trolling theist?
You should be made aware that the rigid and intolerant beliefs you've
expressed are delusional and irrational, and symptomatic of terminal
brainwash.
I repeat: Agnostics are not groupthink clones hatched out of a
brainwashing lab
like atheistic pseudo-liberals are - like you appear to be.
Agnostics for the most part are not a Christian hating cult whereas
atheists for the most part are a cult of hatred, mockery and
intolerance - as you indeed seem a representative thereof.
Bob LeChevalier
>The "government" does not have a bully pulpit - the government has
>elected representatives and entrenched bureaucrats. The president is
>the nation's elected moral leader.
No. He is the elected president, head of the executive branch of
government. There is NO constitutional provision granting him any
sort of moral leadership powers.
>> >> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
>> >> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
>> >> > of the former Soviet Union.
>>
>> It's a paraphrase. It's not important at all that it is found in the
>> constitution or not. The establishment clause is enough.
>
>No, it is a subverted "paraphrase" flagrantly used by
>leftists/"liberals" to distract from true meaning of the First
>Amendment which LIMITS government, not religion.
It limits both, with respect to each other.
>> > There is no reason to "redefine religious freedom" because in the U.S.
>> > we've always have had constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom as
>> > well as the freedom of being irreligious. As an agnostic and
>> > independent observer,
>>
>> Yeah, right. I'm an agnostic. You're no agnostic.
>
>Don't you dare tell me what I am or what I am not, you fucking little
>SHIT!
You seem to have no problems telling him what he is (and telling me
what I am, and telling the world what you think Kerry is, etc). Why
shouldn't he tell you what you are?
>Agnostics are not groupthink clones hatched out of a brainwashing lab
>like atheistic pseudo-liberals are - like you appear to be.
>
>As a very defiant agnostic and a true libertarian defending Christians
>against Marxist imperatives, I wish you a Merry Christ Mass and a
>joyful holiday season.
You have made the statement that this country is built on Christian
moral values. That is not a statement of an agnostic.
Bob LeChevalier
>I'd like to say that while I personally agree witht he concept of
>maintining a sepration of church and state, I object to the expansion of
>the term state to refer to all institutions that receive anything from the
>government
"State" does not refer to all such institutions. The public schools
are a branch of the state government in every state, established by
law and both mandated and empowered by law.
Private schools sometimes get things from the government, and indeed
private universities often get substantial government monies, but
neither are part of the state.
But any such aid for the benefit of religious activities would be a
breech of a wall of separation.
>and the expansion of the term church to refer to any
>organization that makes reference to anything spiritual.
It is usually the right that wishes to make that expansion - they are
the ones that claim that atheism is a religion, and that "secular
humanism" is a religious establishment in the public schools even
though few people in the public schools could state three tenets of
secular humanism more or less correctly.
nan
> Le Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:50:18 +0000, Mike Ward a écrit :
>
> > I'd like to say that while I personally agree witht he concept of
> > maintining a sepration of church and state,
Mike Ward doesn't realise that this nation is not under threat of
becoming a theocracy - the First Amendment forbids it. Threats of
constitutional and governance upheaval come from Marxist indoctrinated
"liberals".
> > I object to the expansion of
> > the term state to refer to all institutions that receive anything from the
> > government and the expansion of the term church to refer to any
> > organization that makes reference to anything spiritual.
>
> The problem in the first case is that religious-oid orgs are known to use
> this technique as a form of bait and switch to climb up the ladder of
> government power.
Religious-oid orgs??? (Cripes - another pseudo-liberal mantra.)
The Bait & Switch Tactic is notoriously employed by leftists - its
their manifesto. The bait is false altruism, racism, class warfare,
capitalism evils, the immorality of morality, et al. Caveat: Don't
look into the mouth of a Trojan Horse - it attacks from the rear with
its hind legs.
I am more concerned about subversive neoMarxist-oid front orgs, like
the ACLU, operating as tax-exempt, non-profit and behaves like a
stridently subversive political party.
from Nan
Prudence P. Pringlehoeffer III
>
> If she believes that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
> to be separation of church and state, which religion does she think
> they intended Americans to be?
Sir, separation of church and state is a leftist construct designed
solely to influence ill-tutored dolts ignorant of American history
into thinking religion, as such, should have absolutely no role in the
political, social and cultural affairs of this republic. It's repeated
use by neo-Bolsheviks in America now amounts to little more than a
propaganda device which falls under the heading, "If you repeat
something often enough, people will believe it."
It's done intentionally by your crowd and with full intent to confuse
and decieve.
The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment merely states that the
government shall not establish "A" religion, period. It limits the
government, sir, not the people. This is what our entire system of
government is about, why we left Europe and why we later told King
George to go straight to hell and proceeded to fight a war with the
English.
Now, the very direct idea of proscribing the government, OUR
government, from establishing a religion, effectively a state
religion, is light years removed from the idea that religion, in any
of its forms or denominations, should be banned from all public life,
from all our institutions and in any influence in the governance of
this nation. You imbeciles are now so demented that you'll soon assert
that anyone in Congress who belongs to any organized religion should
be expelled as representing a violation of this church/state
separation canard you toss around like green salad.
This is what your crowd would have us believe, sir, and effectively it
will soon translate into denying people of religion access to
political office and high position (as we're now seeing with the
Supreme Court), and not too long down the road the very questioning of
the right to the franchise of those who openly profess any religious
affiliation whatever. This is the logical extension of your reasoning
here, and to the extent it's so utterly evil at its core I have to
believe your crowd has precisely this in mind when the time is right.
Cleopatra
nan
Yes, the president is the nation's elected moral leader and protector.
> I personally find the man morally bankrupt. Moral leader is
> not in the president's job description and I do not accept him as one.
You don't have accept the president as the nation's elected moral
leader, but it is his presidency which gives him the opportunity to
use the bully pulpit.
>
> The bully pulpit is his. If John
> > Kerry was elected, he'd use the presidency's bully pulpit to advocate
> > worship of the corrupt UN and worship of the Global Test.
>
> You are really friggin nuts.
You're friggin nuts if you think that if elected president John Kerry
wouldn't advocate worship of the corrupt UN and worship of the Global
Test. I dare say Kerry believes that worship of the UN would be the
"people's opiate" replacing the old opiate of worshipping God.
> >> > Can you refute this:
> >> >
> >> >> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
> >> >> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the
> >> >> > 'Constitution' of the former Soviet Union.
> >>
> >> It's a paraphrase. It's not important at all that it is found in the
> >> constitution or not. The establishment clause is enough.
> >
> > No, it is a subverted "paraphrase" flagrantly used by
> > leftists/"liberals" to distract from true meaning of the First
> > Amendment which LIMITS government, not religion.
>
> No, it's a paraphrase. And no matter how much dishonest little trolls like
> you scream that this distinction is not important, no one is making law on
> this as a legal precedent. They are making law based on the establishment
> clause.
It's a subverted "paraphrase," AND no matter what precedence, reason
and logic prevails, your mind is strangulated by your neoMarxist
"liberal" indoctrination. What is VITALLY important to see here is
that stark-raving mad atheists like you cannot accept the explicit
wording and meaning of the First Amendment establishment clause:
Definition: \Re*spect"ing\, prep.
With regard or relation to; regarding; concerning; as,
respecting his conduct there is but one opinion.
"Congress shall make no law [concerning] an establishment of
religion..."
"Congress shall make no law [regarding]an establishment of
religion..."
"establishment"! The act of establishing; the fact of
being established. (usage 1596-1793 per Oxford Universal Dictionary)
Your Marxist dictionary and your NeoMarxist indoctrination doesn't
work here in discussing the U.S. Constitution and the First Amendment.
The spirit of the Constitution LIMITS government NOT religion.
> >> > There is no reason to "redefine religious freedom" because in the U.S.
> >> > we've always have had constitutionally guaranteed religious freedom as
> >> > well as the freedom of being irreligious. As an agnostic and
> >> > independent observer,
> >>
> >> Yeah, right. I'm an agnostic. You're no agnostic.
> >
> > Don't you dare tell me what I am or what I am not, you fucking little
> > SHIT!
>
> Here, I'll do it again. You are a lying bastard and no agnostic. You are a
> crazy lying theist piece of shit trying to pass themselves off as something
> they are not to try to fly in under the radar. No agnostic goes around
> advocating what you do and tossing off tin foil hat catch phrases like
> liberal atheist marxists and worshiping the U.N. You may think you are
> fooling people, but you aren't, least of all me.
You are insane as you are insolent. You seem to be suffering a fit of
imploding brainwash. Do you believe that all agnostics must worship
the UN? All agnostics would vote for a treasonous candidate like John
Kerry? That all agnostics embrace the Marxism which you in fact
unabashedly express? That all professed agnostics hate theists - they
especially hate Christians? That all agnostics want to change the
First Amendment to accommodate atheists?
I know agnostics who despise antagonistic atheists and won't associate
with them at all. I've always tried to tolerate my radical atheist
friends who usually are generational Marxists. I certainly believe
that punk atheists like you suffer from incurable hatreds which course
malignantly.
> > Agnostics are not groupthink clones hatched out of a brainwashing lab
> > like atheistic pseudo-liberals are - like you appear to be.
>
> Well this is certainly the pot calling the kettle black.
Cripes! What a simple-minded response - you keep proving you cannot
think for yourself. Your mind is shot full of deeply imbedded
cliches.
> > As a very defiant agnostic and a true libertarian defending Christians
> > against Marxist imperatives, I wish you a Merry Christ Mass and a
> > joyful holiday season.
>
> As an obvious theist you should quit lying because you are surely going to
> hell for the damage you are doing against faith.
Oh??? You have another demented belief that agnostics accept the
"liberal" mandate to not wish a "Merry Christmas" and in full dementia
you conclude,
1. I (Nan)uttered "Merry Christmas, therefore I am not an agnostic.
2. Anyone who is not an agnostic or atheist, is a hated theist - the
Enemy.
3. Ergo: I (Nan) am just another hated, vilified theist who is lying.
Now, do you believe an agnostic would play a dulcet flute to accompany
a Bach chorale in a church? Nah, only a stupid theist would do that,
right?
It is better to define and agree upon terms at the beginning of a
discussion,
so I am late in asking for *your definition* of the following words
which are "key" words:
1. bigotry
2. prejudice
3. persecution
4. subversion
5. perverse opposition
6. psychopolitics
7. brainwash
8. false premise
9. agnosticism
10. liberalism (philosophical)
Merry Christmas, Joyous Holiday and
may the Good and Kind Spirit of the Holiday Season be with you.
from Nan
Patsy
“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation
was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but
on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
- Patrick Henry, American Patriot
nan
> It's a sad reflection on religion that atheists and agnostics are most often
> more "Christian"-like to their fellow man than the hypocrits in most
> Christian churches.
> Pete
Explain what you mean by "more Christian-like", and please give
examples of Christian hypocrisy you have observed, as well as an
estimate of how many Christian churches throughout America you have
visited and what the time factor is so that you may validate your
rather condemning opinion of Christians.
Most of my atheist friends are intolerably intolerant, filled with
unresolved angst, brimming over with hatred and ridicule toward
Christians. Certainly they seem more dogmatic to me than the benign
Christians I know, and that includes two rather progressive Christian
ministers I - one is a woman.
I am not sure I know any agnostics right now, but we agnostics usually
are not obsessed with theism and antitheism - that is why we are
agnostics and are not so easy to identify or to stereotype. Most
agnostics are solitary creatures and do not care what other agnostics
believe, at least this is true of me for I have no need to
collaborate. I veer off to philosophical spheres for enlightenment and
celebrate nature for spiritual renewal.
Yet, I would still like to understand what you mean when you said that
atheists and agnostics are "more Christian-like" as well to know what
hypocrites are doing in "most Christian churches."
Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, from Nan
nan
> > What's with this trend of holier-than-thou athiest and agnosticas on the
> > internet? I see 10 times as many non-Christians bragging about how
> > Christian-like they are than I see Christians doing the same. The irony is
> > overwhelming.
>
> Huh? Most of the nicest people I know are agnostic, but they don't go
> telling other people, as they don't want all the loonies to try to "save"
> them.
Well, I have never hidden nor feared declaring that I am an agnostic.
I've been open about that nearly all of my 68 years of life, and ever
since I first posted in the atc over 6 years ago.
Only TWO people have attacked me on my agnosticism and both were
intolerant atheists and rabid political "liberals." (Just today too!
Check it out.)
> You'd be surprised. You probably know many very nice people who you
> assumed were religious who actually are agnostic or even atheist. Only, you
> don't KNOW that they are agnostic or atheist.
That is probably true in general, and certainly true of most
agnostics, but antagonistic atheists expose themselves when they tip
the scale on intolerance, persecution and hateful mockery like "all
the loonies."
> Ironically, only those with
> no religious beliefs are TRULY religiously persecuted.
Please provide real life examples or cites for such persecutions. The
only entity I am aware of committing persecutions is the ACLU, a
Marxist front org.
> If you are agnostic,
> you have to hide that like you are GAY or something,
Ridiculous! Absolute hogwash. I am an agnostic, and if I ever have
to hide, it will be because I am threatened by "liberals" and by
atheists forcing me to conform to their groupthink hatreds - demanding
that I call religious people "loonies." It's much safer to be "saved"
by a zealous Christian dunking me into holy water than being spit upon
and attacked, or WORSE: brainwashed by socio-politically correct
groupthink scripted by radical "liberals" and intolerant atheists.
NeoMarxist "liberals"/leftists and atheists as a collective force in
accord with Marxist tenents, will try every nefarious tactic to make
people conform, to diminish peoples' individuality and defame
opposition's cause, because anyone who opposes their ideological
imperatives is an abhored "enemy" and treated thus (Ref. Mao's Red
Book) - e.g., reviled as a "loonie" or a "moron."
If one recognizes the symptoms, then one knows the disease. The
disease is pandemic in the newsgroups.
Mike Ward
> Mike Ward <m@d.w> wrote:
>>The biggest reason that I despise the untra-left-wing interpration of
>>the seperation of church and state is that it is an interpretion that
>>renders the first amendment so anti-religion that it could ultimately
>>turn people against the first amendment.
>>
>>Put another way, if people are forced to choose between a first
>>amendment that is hostile toward religion and no first amendment at
>>all, they may choose the latter. And I for one would hate to see that
>>happen.
>>
>>>
>>>>I am an observer and a searcher, not an authority,
>>>
>>> Agreed. And your observation is through opaque glasses
>>
>>That is completely unfair.
>
> But quite true.
>
>>Up to this point your post was very thoughtful.
>
> All my posts are thoughtful, unlike those of the nan-entity.
Well, most of your last one was, but it's starting to look like a fluke.
Dave Thompson
Which explains you trolling exclusively on theist issues how?
>
> Yet, I would still like to understand what you mean when you said that
> atheists and agnostics are "more Christian-like" as well to know what
> hypocrites are doing in "most Christian churches."
>
> Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays, from Nan
Why would a supposed agnostic like yourself include this?
Nan is a liar. She's a theist looking for game. Treat her as a hostile
witness.
Mike Ward
> Divin Marquis <postm...@127.0.0.1> wrote in message
> news:<pan.2004.12.05....@127.0.0.1>...
>> Le Sun, 05 Dec 2004 13:50:18 +0000, Mike Ward a écrit :
>>
>> > I'd like to say that while I personally agree witht he concept of
>> > maintining a sepration of church and state,
>
> Mike Ward doesn't realise that this nation is not under threat of
> becoming a theocracy - the First Amendment forbids it. Threats of
> constitutional and governance upheaval come from Marxist indoctrinated
> "liberals".
Nan, your drifting into la-la land. Try to real it back in.
Dave Thompson
Nope. You can claim it all you want but neither I nor anyone I know look
toward him for moral guidance. He is a dishonest lying jackass and deserves
no respect, and I do not need the government to determine or lead me
morally. If you want to look upon such a person as a moral leader, you are
free to do so, but do not include anyone else in it. And don't continue to
claim yourself as either an agnostic or libertarian, because neither would
consider the president as a moral leader that speaks for them. Your claims
are specious and corrupt.
>
>> I personally find the man morally bankrupt. Moral leader is
>> not in the president's job description and I do not accept him as one.
>
> You don't have accept the president as the nation's elected moral
> leader, but it is his presidency which gives him the opportunity to
> use the bully pulpit.
Nothing gives him the right to the bully pulpit. You are a spineless,
gutless libertarian and a dishonest agnostic if you believe such.
>>
>> The bully pulpit is his. If John
>> > Kerry was elected, he'd use the presidency's bully pulpit to advocate
>> > worship of the corrupt UN and worship of the Global Test.
>>
>> You are really friggin nuts.
>
> You're friggin nuts if you think that if elected president John Kerry
> wouldn't advocate worship of the corrupt UN and worship of the Global
> Test.
As someone posted, if you are using a colander on your head to channel your
paranoia, please use a metal one because plastic does not work.
I dare say Kerry believes that worship of the UN would be the
> "people's opiate" replacing the old opiate of worshipping God.
And you have proof of this idiocy?
Did not think so.
>
>> >> > Can you refute this:
>> >> >
>> >> >> > The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
>> >> >> > Constitution of the United States. It is found in the
>> >> >> > 'Constitution' of the former Soviet Union.
>> >>
>> >> It's a paraphrase. It's not important at all that it is found in the
>> >> constitution or not. The establishment clause is enough.
>> >
>> > No, it is a subverted "paraphrase" flagrantly used by
>> > leftists/"liberals" to distract from true meaning of the First
>> > Amendment which LIMITS government, not religion.
>>
>> No, it's a paraphrase. And no matter how much dishonest little trolls
>> like
>> you scream that this distinction is not important, no one is making law
>> on
>> this as a legal precedent. They are making law based on the establishment
>> clause.
>
> It's a subverted "paraphrase," AND no matter what precedence, reason
> and logic prevails, your mind is strangulated by your neoMarxist
> "liberal" indoctrination.
You know nothing about me you ignorant jackass, but I know something about
you. When you are losing an argument you pull out the
liberal/marxist/atheist crap because you want to poison the well so you
don't have to deal with the facts. You are a troll and a theist and are piss
poor at covering it up. The problem is that you are in denial. No one buys
the shit you are selling. Get a fucking clue.
What is VITALLY important to see here is
> that stark-raving mad atheists like you cannot accept the explicit
> wording and meaning of the First Amendment establishment clause:
Here you go again. I'm an atheist and a Marxist. Right.
Rest of insane crap snipped.
Nan, you are an ignorant lying piece of shit.
Go trolling for suckers with someone new. I'm done with you.
CommonSense?
the separation of church and state is just implicit in the first amendment
of the "constitution of the United States:
------
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
speech,or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble,
and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
-----
How could the state have anything to do with ANY church if it has the
constitutional obligation to not get involved in religion?
Read what Thomas Jefferson described as "a wall of separation" in his letter
dated January 1, 1802 to the Danberry Baptist Association in the State of
Connecticut...
So this issue being resolved, let's move to the "WHY?":
As successor of the respected Benjamen Franklin who spent twenty years of
his life in france Thomas Jefferson lived in France too, about ten years.
There both of theses men learned about the atrocity of the wars of religion
in France, England, and almost everywhere else in europe (but less brutal).
Here the catholics murdered and opressed the hugenots (protestants), there
the protestants were the abusers... for a while. The list of atrocity is
just appalling. Each side just made illegal the religion of the other
side... whenever they could! The jews were killed everywhere (this started
at earlier in the middle age), and their assets would "naturally" be taken
by the church, the nobility.. or both. Wonder why?
Tyndale who is translated the bible in england, was burned at the stake!
Why? Because the existence of a good translation, just made irrelevant the
book of the sins... which generated so much revenues to the church....
His translation was slightly modified by Canondale to make it "reluctantly
acceptable" by the chuch, and became the "King's James Bible".
It goes on and on...
The carenages and terrors created by the religion wars made many great
thinkers in europe fully aware of the impossibility to have peace without
this clear separation of church and state. They are too many to be all
mentioned here, but John Locke in england (around 1689), Voltaire, Rousseau
in france, and even several members of the catholic as well as protestant
clergy came to the same conclusion.
Thomas Jefferson (TJ) was fascinated by the the character of Jesus, and
wrote many letters about it (The Morals Of Jesus to Dr Benjamin Rush: Apr
21, 1803) and wrote a book "Jesus of Nazareth", used in military schools as
a template of good character.
TJ was very concerned by what he called the "corruption of christianity"...
and so was Victor Hugo (19th century) in france.
Both were men of deep religious faith.
So the separation of church and state should be read as a wonderful garanty
for one to practice...or not his/her the religion of choice (included
none), without any coercion.
For myself, a jewish man, I still see the reference to divinity in the
pledge of allegiance as an awfull thing, in direct contradiction with the
third commandment... It is of interest to notice that this disgrace was
added at a time of public shame and hysteria (McCarthysm).
In my view this is clearly unconstitutional.., and inquisitorial (another
dark period).
I suggest to anyone who would like the state to be involved in religion to
consider this":
1) The state chose to force onto you a religion that you really dislike.
2) The state ask you to pay taxes to pay for the bulding of a temple of this
religion and pay salrry for their priests.(This was the TJ's "disagrement"
with Alexander Hamilton).
Then I bet you will grab a copy of "your favorite constitution" and go to
court to get back your freedom of religion ASAP.
Common Sense? I hope so.
-----------------------------
nan wrote:
> Last Updated 09-Nov-2004
> EarsToHear.net Home
> Original Intent. - Did you know...?
> Separation of Church and State?
>
> The phrase "separation of Church and State" is not found in the
> Constitution of the United States. It is found in the 'Constitution'
> of the former Soviet Union.
>
> "Separation of Church and State is The Big Lie, for there is no such
> law! This phrase does not appear in ANY founding document. Only a
> letter (below) taken out of context and misrepresented by the Supreme
> Court
> meant to mean Separation of Christianity and America. All 50 states
> acknowledge God in their state constitutions.
>
> Christian Heritage or Immoral Agenda
>
> [...]the origin and truth, of the deception, of Separation of Church
> and State.
>
> Thomas Jefferson said: "No power over the freedom of religion is
> delegated to the United States by the Constitution." And "I consider
> the government of the U.S. as interdicted by the Constitution from
> intermeddling with religious institutions, their doctrines,
> discipline, or exercises." Deception: The Big Lie - Separation of
> Church and State? There is no such law. "The so-called separation of
> church and state is not a 'founding principle' of this nation and can
> be found nowhere in the U.S. Constitution (the document reflecting the
> founding principles of our Founders). Manipulating and rewriting
> history has become quite fashionable these days as those who define
> the Constitution as a 'living' document attempt to diabolically mold
> it so that it sanctions their ever-changing moral 'standards.'" Dr.
> Jerry Falwell -- Deception + coercion + apathy = the fall of America.
>
> "Separation of Church and State" is no where to be found in the
> Constitution! The First Amendment says just the opposite. However, you
> decide with your own wisdom, reading, comprehension, and common sense
> if what Thomas Jefferson wrote gives legal basis for the assaults
> against America's Christian Heritage.
>
> The first thing Congress did on September 25, 1789, was ask the
> president to acknowledge a day of public thanksgiving and prayer. On
> that same day, the words of the First Amendment to the U.S.
> Constitution were finalized.
>
> "Separation of Church and State" is a miss-representation of the First
> Amendment intended to deceive those that can be deceived. Do you have
> ears to hear what the ENTIRE First Amendment truly says? "Congress
> shall make no law respecting an establishment of (not from) religion,
> or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of
> speech; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
> petition the Government for a redress of grievances." Click here to
> learn the origin of this misrepresented phrase by Thomas Jefferson.
>
> "If I could have entertained the slightest apprehension that the
> constitution framed by the Convention . . . might possibly endanger
> the religious rights of any ecclesiastical society, certainly I would
> never have placed my signature to it." --George Washington
>
> "The Constitution on which our Union rests, shall be administered by
> me [as President] according to the safe and honest meaning
> contemplated by the plain understanding of the people of the United
> States at the time of its adoption -- a meaning to be found in the
> explanations of those who advocated, not those who opposed it, and who
> opposed it merely lest the construction should be applied which they
> denounced as possible." --Thomas Jefferson
>
> On the establishment of religion: What the Constitution really says
> "...A right of the people as a whole – not an individual right – is
> the protected object of the first clause of the First Amendment to the
> Constitution. Even if one accepts the doctrine that the Bill of Rights
> must be taken as the basis for understanding the privileges and
> immunities of citizenship, the first clause of the First Amendment
> simply secures this right of the people, giving clear constitutional
> effect to their immunity from federal dictation in matters of
> religion....The establishment clause of the First Amendment secures a
> right of the people. Until now, though, many have treated the first
> two clauses of the amendment as if they are one ("Congress shall make
> no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the
> free exercise thereof ..."). This practice ignores both the linguistic
> and the logical contrast between the two clauses. Where the first
> clause deals with a right of the people (that is, a power of
> government reserved to the states and to the people), the second
> clause deals with an action or set of actions (the free exercise of
> religion) that cannot be free unless they originate in individual
> choice. The first clause forbids Congress to address a subject at all.
> The second allows for federal action, but restricts the character of
> such action..."
>
> In 1778 George Washington wrote a letter to Thomas Nelson, Jr. citing
> God's divine intervention in the founding of our nation. "The hand of
> providence has been so conspicuous in all this, that he must be worse
> than an infidel that lacks faith, and more than wicked, that has not
> gratitude enough to acknowledge his obligations."
>
> COURTS PERPETUATE 'SEPARATION' LIE -- AND AMERICANS ARE BUYING IT -
> Lawsuits and disputes over public display of God's law have been
> widespread across the country. Activist courts have demonstrated by
> their recent rulings a prevalent anti-Christian bias in such cases.
> It's all predicated on a lie, says Alan Keyes. More details:
> http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/62004b.asp
>
> Jefferson's Letter
>
> Thomas Jefferson (in his oft miss-quoted dissertation on the subject)
> did NOT state that there was or should be such a separation, but that
> there was a "wall of separation" which the government could not
> breach. The misunderstood statement from Thomas Jefferson has resulted
> in Judges who ignore the Constitution and the original intent of the
> First Amendment of our Founding Fathers. Jefferson's statement was in
> a letter to a group of Baptists in Connecticut (January 1, 1802), who
> were concerned about the government breaching their religious freedom
> and the affairs of the Church. Jefferson in his letter stated exactly
> this:
>
> "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely
> between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his
> faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach
> actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence
> that act of the whole American people which declared that their
> legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of
> religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a
> wall of separation between church and State."
>
> Jefferson is saying the legislature can not favor a specific religion
> and it can not prohibit religious exercise. As he also stated:
>
> "No power over the freedom of religion is delegated to the United
> States by the Constitution."
>
> Can you hear what Jefferson actually was saying? As evidenced in
> another letter to Samuel Miller in 1808, Jefferson wrote:
>
> "I consider the government of the United States as interdicted
> (prohibited) by the Constitution from intermeddling with religious
> institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises."
>
> Jefferson's own "free exercise thereof"
>
> In 1804, Bible reading and the use of the Bible as a textbook was
> implemented in the first public schools of the District of Columbia,
> while Thomas Jefferson was president of the school board.
>
> Moral instruction including "the proof of the being of a God, the
> Creator" in public schools by teachers, was part of the curricular
> plan designed by Thomas Jefferson for the University of Virginia.
>
> Religious instruction on an equal footing with other instruction, as
> occurred at the University of Virginia, when Thomas Jefferson was
> rector and approved of setting aside a chapel "for religious worship"
> and "proposed to encourage various denominations to situate their
> theological schools near the University," thus "enabling the students
> of the University to attend religious exercises."
>
> Also, concerning our Nation Jefferson said:
>
> "God who gave us life gave us liberty. And can the liberties of a
> nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a
> conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are a gift
> of God? That they are not to violated but with His wrath? Indeed, I
> tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His
> justice cannot sleep forever." - "Yes, we did produce a near perfect
> Republic. But will they keep it, or will they, in the enjoyment of
> plenty, lose the memory of freedom? Material abundance without
> character is the surest way to destruction."
>
> "I shall need, too, the favor of that Being in whose hands we are, who
> led our fathers, as Israel of old, from their native land and planted
> them in a country flowing with all the necessaries and comforts of
> life; who has covered our infancy with His providence and our riper
> years with His wisdom and power, and to whose goodness I ask you to
> join in supplications with me that He will so enlighten the minds of
> your servants, guide their councils, and prosper their measures that
> whatsoever they do shall result in your good, and shall secure to you
> the peace, friendship, and approbation of all nations."
>
> ...The director of the Center for Christian Statesmanship says the men
> who founded America never intended to remove God from public life. Dr.
> Frank Wright says quite the contrary, most were devout Christians who
> applied their Christian faith to everyday life, including government.
> He says President Thomas Jefferson is a good example. He notes that at
> the same time Jefferson served as president, he was the chairman of
> the D.C. public school system -- and mandated in 1804 that two books
> be taught in those schools: the Bible and Watts' Hymnal. Wright calls
> that "an extraordinary thing to do" for someone who believes in the
> "separation of church and state." Wright believes anti-Gospel forces
> like the American Civil Liberties Union have twisted the working of
> the establishment clause and developed their own false interpretation
> about separation of church and state -- which he says the founding
> fathers never intended.
>
> "Human happiness and moral duty are inseparably connected." George
> Washington
>
> Visit the nation's capitol and read the inscriptions on the memorials.
> The Word of God is evident of our past American leaders whom we hold
> high in respect, those who laid the American foundation. Why does
> America now separate these words from the men who were driven by these
> words? It is evident that our American leaders today do not share the
> same source of inspiration. What do liberals proclaim today? What do
> liberals encourage? What organizations support liberal? Do today's
> American leaders proclaim the Word of God or or reject it?
>
> Our Founding Fathers wanted future generations to acknowledge the hand
> of God in the founding of our nation. Therefore, even the Capitol
> Building is a witness of this. Its mighty Rotunda, the center of the
> Capitol, features a dramatic oil painting that impresses upon visitors
> the direct intervention of God from the earliest days of our history.
> The painting portrays the landing of Columbus in the Western World in
> 1492. Columbus' eyes are cast toward heaven in thanks and praise as
> others around him kneel in gratitude to God. This painting depicts
> the gratitude Columbus felt in the fulfillment of what he believed was
> his God-given calling. "It was the Lord who put into my mind (I could
> feel His hand upon me) the fact that it would be possible to sail from
> here to the Indies." Those who commissioned this painting knew what
> we have known all along, that God in His grace and wisdom guided those
> who first came to these shores.
>
> When the Capitol Building was built, its designers were well aware of
> the dependence of the members of Congress upon God and prayer. The
> 83rd Congress designated a small room in the Capitol, near the
> rotunda, that is always open for the private prayer and meditation of
> members of Congress. This room is open whenever Congress is in
> session, and stands as a witness to the need for prayer by our
> nation's leaders. The focal point of the room is an intricate stained
> glass window that depicts George Washington kneeling in prayer.
> Surrounding him are words from Psalm 16: "Preserve me, O God, for in
> Thee do I put my trust."
>
> Samuel Adams, has been called "The Father of the American Revolution."
> "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be
> obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of
> the sun, let His kingdom come." Samuel Adams, signer of the
> Declaration of Independence: His likeness appears in the large
> painting depicting the signing of the Declaration that holds a
> prominent spot in the Rotunda of the Capitol Building. A full size
> statue of him is also found in the East Central Hall of the Capitol.
> His political involvement is widely acknowledged and valued. But it
> was Adam's Christian faith that guided his political views. "First of
> all, I ... rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my
> sins." His essay, The Rights of the Colonists was widely circulated in
> 1772. In it he wrote, "The right to freedom being the gift of the
> Almighty. The rights of the colonists as Christians may be best
> understood by reading and carefully studying the institution of The
> Great Law Giver and Head of the Christian Church, which are to be
> found clearly written and promulgated in the New Testament."
>
> Inscription on a wall of the Jefferson Memorial in Washington, D.C.
> "God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation
> be thought secure when we removed their only firm basis, a conviction
> in the minds of people that these liberties are a gift from God?"
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
CommonSense?
name calling makes a very mediocre argument, but this may be intentional
to discredit the people with the point of view you claim to advocate.
Convoluted but very possible.
Being the case or not, is that worth it?
I would say no, there are better and more honorable ways.
Coomon Sense ?
---
Bob LeChevalier
>THE UNITED STATES IS A CHRISTAIN NATION.
No it is not. From another post in this thread which you apparently
have not read:
>Officially called the "Treaty of peace and friendship between the
>United States of America and the Bey and Subjects of Tripoli, of
>Barbary," most refer to it as simply the Treaty of Tripoli. In Article
>11, it states:
>
>"As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense
>founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of
>enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Musselmen; and
>as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility
>against any Mehomitan 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."
>
>The preliminary treaty began with a signing on 4 November, 1796 (the
>end of George Washington's last term as president). Joel Barlow, the
>American diplomat served as counsel to Algiers and held responsibility
>for the treaty negotiations. Barlow had once served under Washington
>as a chaplain in the revolutionary army. He became good friends with
>Paine, Jefferson, and read Enlightenment literature. Later he
>abandoned Christian orthodoxy for rationalism and became an advocate
>of secular government. Barlow, along with his associate, Captain
>Richard O'Brien, et al, translated and modified the Arabic version of
>the treaty into English. From this came the added Amendment 11. Barlow
>forwarded the treaty to U.S. legislators for approval in 1797. Timothy
>Pickering, the secretary of state, endorsed it and John Adams
>concurred (now during his presidency), sending the document on to the
>Senate. The Senate approved the treaty on June 7, 1797, and officially
>ratified by the Senate with John Adams signature on 10 June, 1797. All
>during this multi-review process, the wording of Article 11 never
>raised the slightest concern. The treaty even became public through
>its publication in The Philadelphia Gazette on 17 June 1797.
>“It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation
>was founded, not by religionists but by Christians, not on religions, but
>on the gospel of Jesus Christ.”
>- Patrick Henry, American Patriot
Unfortunately, while Henry was a patriot, he never held national
office, and served only a few years as governor of Virginia, where his
efforts to make Virginia a supporter of religious schools was defeated
by James Madison, who penned a document "Remonstrance and Memorial"
which is considered one of the key forerunners of Madison's later
effort in the first amendment to absolutely separate church and state.
In short, Henry's point of view LOST even before the United States
adopted its Constitution. Meanwhile we have legal evidence in the
form of an adopted treaty of the time that the United States was not
and was never intended to be, a "Christian nation".
Bob LeChevalier
wrote:
>founta...@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon) wrote in message news:<881a53f6.04120...@posting.google.com>...
>> Let's ask nan which religion she's pushing for.
>>
>> If she believes that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
>> to be separation of church and state, which religion does she think
>> they intended Americans to be?
>
>Sir, separation of church and state is a leftist construct
Were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson "leftists"?
>The establishment clause of the 1st Amendment merely states that the
>government shall not establish "A" religion, period.
No it doesn't. It says that Congress (government) shall make no law
RESPECTING an establishment of religion (no article "A" is found -
Congress cannot establish 5 religions, nor can it pass laws about
religion, nor can it give money for the support of religion, nor can
it do any of these things against a religion or against religion in
general.
>It limits the government, sir, not the people.
Correct.
But people working for the government are limited while wearing their
"official hats", because government is not limited if its employees
are not limited on the job. Any action by an official must be
authorized by law, and if Congress cannot pass a law respecting an
establishment of religion, then no government official can act
respecting an establishment of religion.
>Now, the very direct idea of proscribing the government, OUR
>government, from establishing a religion, effectively a state
>religion, is light years removed from the idea that religion, in any
>of its forms or denominations, should be banned from all public life,
Depends on what you mean by public life. Billy Graham conducting one
of his revivals is one form of public life, and that is fine.
Likewise Pat Robertson and his TV shows. But government officials on
the job are not merely "public life" but "acting in the public
service", and that is where religion is inappropriate.
And remember that a public school teacher or principal is a government
worker, acting in an official government capacity to fulfill the state
mandates for public education.
>from all our institutions and in any influence in the governance of
>this nation.
One cannot ban religion from influence. One can ban government from
responding to that influence.
>You imbeciles are now so demented that you'll soon assert
>that anyone in Congress who belongs to any organized religion should
>be expelled as representing a violation of this church/state
>separation canard you toss around like green salad.
No proponent of separation suggests any such thing, so far as I know.
many separationists are in fact active members of organized religions
themselves.
>This is what your crowd would have us believe, sir, and effectively it
>will soon translate into denying people of religion access to
>political office and high position (as we're now seeing with the
>Supreme Court)
No one is denying people of religion access to political office and/or
high position.
>and not too long down the road the very questioning of
>the right to the franchise of those who openly profess any religious
>affiliation whatever.
That would be a violation of the free exercise clause. Individuals
can do whatever they want, but once they put on a government hat, then
they must cease acting either in favor of, or against, establishments
of religion.
>This is the logical extension of your reasoning here,
Obviously you do not understand the reasoning of your opponents, if
you think that the logical extension of their argument leads to the
exact opposite of their position.
Thom
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>Prud...@linkedto.nospymail.com (Prudence P. Pringlehoeffer III)
>wrote:
>>founta...@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon) wrote in message news:<881a53f6.04120...@posting.google.com>...
>>> Let's ask nan which religion she's pushing for.
>>>
>>> If she believes that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
>>> to be separation of church and state, which religion does she think
>>> they intended Americans to be?
>>
>>Sir, separation of church and state is a leftist construct
>
>Were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson "leftists"?
By the standards of the day...yes
THOM
Bob LeChevalier
>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:28:10 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>
>>Prud...@linkedto.nospymail.com (Prudence P. Pringlehoeffer III)
>>wrote:
>>>founta...@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon) wrote in message news:<881a53f6.04120...@posting.google.com>...
>>>> Let's ask nan which religion she's pushing for.
>>>>
>>>> If she believes that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
>>>> to be separation of church and state, which religion does she think
>>>> they intended Americans to be?
>>>
>>>Sir, separation of church and state is a leftist construct
>>
>>Were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson "leftists"?
>
>By the standards of the day...yes
By the standards of the day, the label "leftist" was meaningless, so
there were no leftists.
Thom
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>toml...@melbpc.org.au (Thom) wrote:
>>On Mon, 06 Dec 2004 04:28:10 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
>><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>
>>>Prud...@linkedto.nospymail.com (Prudence P. Pringlehoeffer III)
>>>wrote:
>>>>founta...@hotmail.com (Barney Lyon) wrote in message news:<881a53f6.04120...@posting.google.com>...
>>>>> Let's ask nan which religion she's pushing for.
>>>>>
>>>>> If she believes that the founders of this nation didn't mean for there
>>>>> to be separation of church and state, which religion does she think
>>>>> they intended Americans to be?
>>>>
>>>>Sir, separation of church and state is a leftist construct
>>>
>>>Were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson "leftists"?
>>
>>By the standards of the day...yes
>
>By the standards of the day, the label "leftist" was meaningless, so
>there were no leftists.
sorry but your wrong. The term was extremely relivent then and
originated then according to "which side of the room" you sat on. The
rich and lazy on the right, the rest on the left as it were, that's
where the term comes from.
If you prefer liberal vs conservitive then that's OK too, Jefferson
and the boys were open minded, progressive and liberal. VS the
republicans who are authoritarian, greedy, closed minded and ludites
who don't want things to change or adapt.
THOM
templara2z
"Thom" <toml...@melbpc.org.au> wrote in message
news:41bc2a40...@news.melbpc.org.au...
> On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:12:14 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
> <loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>>>Sir, separation of church and state is a leftist construct
>>>>
>>>>Were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson "leftists"?
>>>
>>>By the standards of the day...yes
> originated then according to "which side of the room" you sat on. The
> rich and lazy on the right, the rest on the left as it were, that's
> where the term comes from.
Jefferson would be considered a Liberterian by today's "standards". The
incorrect interpetation of the separation clause was indeed the result of
the socialist or secularist beliefs of the Justices. Looking at the
current situation with the first sprout and his army of Bible-thumpers and
Jesus-jumpers it is time to cut the ties of Federal money and anything
religious. No money for the black churchs, Catholic charities, JCC's and
JFS's or anything related to a religion of any kind even secular humanism,
the worship of self.
Bob LeChevalier
>On Tue, 07 Dec 2004 04:12:14 -0500, Bob LeChevalier
><loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
>>>>>Sir, separation of church and state is a leftist construct
>>>>
>>>>Were James Madison and Thomas Jefferson "leftists"?
>>>
>>>By the standards of the day...yes
>>
>>By the standards of the day, the label "leftist" was meaningless, so
>>there were no leftists.
>
>sorry but your wrong. The term was extremely relivent then and
>originated then according to "which side of the room" you sat on. The
>rich and lazy on the right, the rest on the left as it were, that's
>where the term comes from.
Wrong.
http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=left
>left
>Political sense arose from members of a legislative body assigned to
> the left side of a chamber, first attested in Eng. 1837 (by Carlyle,
> in ref. to the Fr. Revolution), probably a loan-translation of Fr. la
> gauche (1791), said to have originated during the seating of the Fr.
> National Assembly in 1789 in which the nobility took the seats on the
> President's right and left the Third Estate to sit on the left.
> Became general in U.S. and British political speech c.1900 (cf.
> Leftist, 1924; left wing, 1898).
So "left" was not used politically in English until 1837, and
"leftist" is 20th century.
>If you prefer liberal vs conservitive then that's OK too, Jefferson
>and the boys were open minded, progressive and liberal. VS the
>republicans who are authoritarian, greedy, closed minded and ludites
>who don't want things to change or adapt.
That dichotomy did not hold in American politics at the time of the
Founders. There were Federalists and anti-Federalists. The
Federalists wanted a strong federal government taking power from the
states, and the anti-Feds wanted a weak federal government leaving
most power with the states. Both groups wanted power to rest with
propertied white males, and both were progressive, indeed
revolutionary.
Jefferson started as a Federalist, but sided with the anti-Feds after
Washington's first term, merging his following with them to form the
Democratic-Republican party. Jefferson's views were possibly more
akin to modern libertarianism. Madison remained a Federalist, and
indeed he and Alexander Hamilton led the Federalist faction during
ratification of the Constitution.
The "conservatives" were the ones who did not want independence from
Britain (Tories), and a lot of them left the country after the war, or
accepted the changes.
Thom
<loj...@lojban.org> wrote:
yes, the right wing needed a buzz word they could attach a negative
emotional content to.
>
>>If you prefer liberal vs conservitive then that's OK too, Jefferson
>>and the boys were open minded, progressive and liberal. VS the
>>republicans who are authoritarian, greedy, closed minded and ludites
>>who don't want things to change or adapt.
>
>That dichotomy did not hold in American politics at the time of the
>Founders. There were Federalists and anti-Federalists.
That came after the war
>The
>Federalists wanted a strong federal government taking power from the
>states, and the anti-Feds wanted a weak federal government leaving
>most power with the states. Both groups wanted power to rest with
>propertied white males, and both were progressive, indeed
>revolutionary.
Like slavary, Jefferson said that progress in these areas must rest
with the next generations.
>
>Jefferson started as a Federalist, but sided with the anti-Feds after
>Washington's first term, merging his following with them to form the
>Democratic-Republican party.
Yup
>Jefferson's views were possibly more
>akin to modern libertarianism. Madison remained a Federalist, and
>indeed he and Alexander Hamilton led the Federalist faction during
>ratification of the Constitution.
Don't leave the others out like Franklin who hated organized religion
and the right wing.
>
>The "conservatives" were the ones who did not want independence from
>Britain (Tories), and a lot of them left the country after the war, or
>accepted the changes.
That's about right
THOM