House votes on reaffirming our Nation's Motto

thebigsd · Nov 4, 2011

MilProGuy said:
And you are correct.

The sarcasm was directed at the fellow who thinks we have 57 states and whose White House staff doesn't know the difference between Wyoming and Colorado.

I meant he was being sarcastic about his feelings being hurt.

DrakeZ07 · Nov 4, 2011

thebigsd said:
I meant he was being sarcastic about his feeligs being hurt.

Ding, ding, ding. You sir win a free hug and 4 internets. ~<3

All in fun and games of course~

Daylen · Nov 5, 2011

MilProGuy said:
So does Barack Obama.

He also thinks we have 57 states.

He gets partial credit in the case of the US motto. Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn sometimes. Although he seems to have a far different take on the deeper meaning of our motto than it had by the founders.

Only fools call the sky purple because someone distasteful calls it blue.

MilProGuy · Nov 5, 2011

I'm impressed.:dude:

Ruby · Nov 5, 2011

A Thousand Small Cuts

Although the motto "In God We Trust" may seem inconsequential to some of you, I think it is important. I think the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer in school is important. I grew up in an earlier time when these things were commonly practiced and taken for granted as the normal thing to do. To me they fostered respect and love of country, as well as a feeling of unity with other Americans. Some may call it brain washing, but if it was I see it as something positive. Every country in the world seeks to foster patriotism.

Then they declared there would be no prayer in schools. Since I do not have children I do not know if that is still the case. Maybe they have a minute of silence or something. I don't believe that anyone should be required to recite a prayer, but don't take that away from those who want to. I have nothing against atheists, I believe that everyone should have freedom of religion or no religion. If IIRC, and if I don't I'm sure someone will correct me, this country was founded by people who had a belief in God and lived by Christian principles. I don't believe they would have had the courage or determination to declare independence from England unless they had faith in a higher power. What an audacious idea! And they won! Many died before they saw that freedom realized. And today we are led by a president (I refuse to capitilize for Obama!) and others who clearly have no love for this country and do not honor the oaths they took to support and defend the Constitution.

This country is morally bankrupt, as well as financially bankrupt, and not just in the halls of power. The two are tied together. You cannot do evil or wrong and expect to prosper; neither can a nation. Unless we develop a moral backbone we are not going to survive, economically or in any way that matters. Little things matter, it's how we lose our rights and liberties; a thousand small cuts and we bleed to death.

slowfiveoh · Nov 6, 2011

Ruby said:
Although the motto "In God We Trust" may seem inconsequential to some of you, I think it is important.

Ruby. You are the nicest old lady I have ever seen post on here.

With all due respect, I do not want your Christian values forced upon me by governmental imposition.

I don't think Mormoms do.
I do not think Muslims do.
I know us Atheists don't.

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. The home of equality.

I want religion in government like I want Roseanne Barr as the ATF chief.
I need religion in government like I need an enormous festering open sore on my body.

This is not a Christian nation just as it is not a Muslim nation, or a Hindu nation. (Treaty of Tripoli)

However, in this glorious nation, all can expect impartial treatment from the government with respect, without the precept of religious subservience in counsel chambers, on judiciary seats, or committee floors.

Leave Christianity out of my government. It does not belong there.

Citizen · Nov 6, 2011

Brass Magnet said:
Booooo! I'm with the other guy that said this is grandstanding and a waste of time. This was adopted first in 1956 and NOT at founding. Showed up on coins in 1864 and paper currency in 1957.

Count me as number three. Except I woulda used a---um---stronger word than grandstanding, just on account of me being me.

Congress is sewer of self-interested, power-grabbing, constitution-ignoring, machinat-ing criminals. There is no way they have any intention of actually applying such a motto except to fool the electorate.

Jim675 · Nov 6, 2011

The issue of government supporting someone else's beliefs in school is easily remedied by removing government from school completely.

If you want a Christian/Muslim/Flying Spaghetti Monster-driven curriculum then simply choose (or start) an appropriate school.

Can't find one or afford to start one? No problem - that is also an educational opportunity.

since9 · Nov 6, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
This is not a Christian nation...

So say most atheists. Our founding fathers stated otherwise in our Declaration of Independence and tens of thousands of public and private documents on file in the Library of Congress. They're through the main entrance, through the main hall, into the rear center hall, first door on the left. I've read many of them, and they undeniably and very clearly state that ours was indeed founded as a Christian nation.

I support Ruby's perspective 100%.

You're right about one thing, though. They agreed that when a government mandates a religion, or gives preferential treatment of one religion over another, it's a bad thing.

"In God We Trust" isn't shoving a thing down your throat. You're just taking it wrong. That's been the motto of our country long before it's official establishment in 1776 or its official adoption as our motto in 1956. It's origin dates back thousands of years, as recorded in the Christian Bibles of both our Founding Fathers as well as The People of our nation, specifically in Psalms 20, Psalms 56, & Psalms 62.

I'm sorry you don't like it. I'm sorry you were born in a country where just 0.53% of her population identify as atheists.

The rest of us, close to 85% of Americans as a whole, respect your beliefs. We simply ask you respect ours.

If you cannot respect the beliefs of others, if you mistakenly believe the only way you can live with your atheism is to rewrite history, make false claims about our nation's history, and force your own beliefs down our throats, then perhaps you are ill-suited to live in a free country such as the United States of America.

Leave Christianity out of my government.

Your comment uncovers a fundamental flaw in your thinking: It's not your government. It's our government.

DrakeZ07 · Nov 6, 2011

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. The home of equality.

First portion, to some extent, yes. Latter part on the other hand... Only when someone is Straight, face it, not everyone, or every group is "equal".

I want religion in government like I want Roseanne Barr as the ATF chief.
I need religion in government like I need an enormous festering open sore on my body.

Very well spoken~ <3

This is not a Christian nation just as it is not a Muslim nation, or a Hindu nation. (Treaty of Tripoli)

I must be missing something somewhere along the lines of the things in our official motto, currency, pledge of allegiance, and so on... Can you guess what I'm missing?

However, in this glorious nation, all can expect impartial treatment from the government with respect, without the precept of religious subservience in counsel chambers, on judiciary seats, or committee floors.

Sigh, where was this impartial treatment from the government, judiciary, committees, and counsel chamber when Kentucky, and other states out-right banned same-sex adoption and marriage? Oh right, I forgot, because there is no such thing whatsoever, of impartial treatment if your a social/sexual/racial minority. Much like our colored breathern sum 60 years ago, right? Or did that not happen, and doesn't happen AT ALL in today's USA? :/

Leave Christianity out of my government. It does not belong there.

It seems you you're implying that it is in our government... Why, that's not possible at all! It has no bearing whatsoever on our government, executive, or judiciary, right? :O

I'm sorry for being belligerent... Bad day.
Also, I don't know how to add names to the seperate qoutes... but they came from slowfiveoh, and I wanna say that I concur with the point he makes.

slowfiveoh · Nov 6, 2011

since9 said:
So say most atheists. Our founding fathers stated otherwise in our Declaration of Independence and tens of thousands of public and private documents on file in the Library of Congress. They're through the main entrance, through the main hall, into the rear center hall, first door on the left. I've read many of them, and they undeniably and very clearly state that ours was indeed founded as a Christian nation.

Wrong, and nice try again.

To quote the Treaty of Tripoli:

"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 tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli, November 4 1796

Get that Christians?

Here let me state it again until its drilled in:

"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 tranquility, of Mussulmen,—and as the said States never entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries." - Treaty of Tripoli, November 4 1796

To recap on all of this:

since9 had tried, with no success or substantiation whatsoever, to inform us that the nation is a Christian nation and that there is no separation outlined in church and state. He then attempted to tell us that in all the vast libraries of congress (30-45 minutes down the road from me if any of you would like to go with to prove my point, I will even drive) there were no framer comments supporting the separation of church and state. This, as we all know after studying the framers for more than 2 minutes on the topic, is untrue.

Here is since9's original unfounded rhetoric wherein he tries to convince us that he went on some magical expedition to the library of congress, and amongst their documents, never found any comments to support the separation of Church and State:

since9 said:
My $250

While in college, I spent a summer in the Library of Congress researching many of the 50,000+ documents specifically written by our Founding Fathers contained therein. My purpose was simple: To determine if, and to what extent, the concept of the Separation of Church and State as we know it today is in agreement with the many letters and documents of those who drafted our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, specifically the first half our our First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I quickly discovered it most certainly is not.

1. I observed the vast majority of the Separation of Church and State rhetoric out there, including many of the Supreme Court rulings on the matter, are pure, unadulterated bunk diametrically opposed to the explicit and implicit intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in both the First Amendment itself as well as in thousands of official and personal supporting documents written by the Founding Fathers.

2. I observed a strong correlation between the vociferousness of those who hold the concept of the separation of church and state (SOCAS) high and their animosity towards any religious display, particularly if they also hold Christianity or religion in general in disdain, or if they hold anti-Christian systems of belief or atheism in general, in high esteem.

3. I observed most of the pro-SOCAS arguments rely heavily on court rulings, and are markedly void of comments by the drafters of the First Amendment and contemporaries of those drafters as contained in the 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.

4. I observed most of the pro-Founders arguments, naturally, relay heavily on those 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.

5. The Library of Congress has not hidden these documents away in any respect. They remain in the Library of Congress, and are available for viewing by the general public. Approval takes a while, and you must wear white gloves.[/I]

Substantiating my observations:

A. The Founders repeatedly invoked God in the Declaration of Independence and most of their 50,000+ documents, whether personal letters to one another, friends, and family, or official letters of note, including Congressional Record of early proceedings of Congress. Daily invocations of prayer continue to this day in Congress, as does the Congressional chaplain and chaplains throughout all military branches of service and

B. Both the Founders and state governments expressed concern about repeating the grievous harm caused by the state-sponsored (mandated) religion of the Church of England. Their solution was ensure the federal government had no say so over religious matters, either in support of them or against them. Specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.

C. Of the Founders, almost to a man, except for three abstainers, they believed in a Christian God. Between half and two-thirds were devout Christians. This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.

D. Both the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Thomas Jefferson and his response are a matter of public records. The letter to the President simply expressed concern over governmental intrusion on religious freedoms, and the President's letter in response simply reassured the Danbury Baptists that such intrusion was not in the purview of the government. This is plainly evidence in Jefferson's own writings after the fact.

E. During his term of presidency, Thomas Jefferson himself opened up the Treasury Building for worship services to help alleviate the problem of a rapidly growing population surging ahead of building efforts. Jefferson did not see this as an intrusion on religious freedoms, but as a support of religious freedom. This fact was reported on the Library of Congress' website for several years, from about 1998 through 2001.

That's the gist of the results of my summer study. For what it's worth.

My conclusion is that those who hold "the separation of church and state" concept as it has grown and developed over the years higher than the simple verbiage of the First Amendment and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists are fooling themselves. Those who keep citing SCOTUS decisions one after another are missing the same boat as SCOTUS has missed over the last two centuries.

Out.

I replied with actual citations, substantiations, and excerpts from the actual library of Congress. Here is that reply, to each of his errant "I am a Christian and want a Christian government" claims:

slowfiveoh said:
since9 said:

While in college, I spent a summer in the Library of Congress researching many of the 50,000+ documents specifically written by our Founding Fathers contained therein. My purpose was simple: To determine if, and to what extent, the concept of the Separation of Church and State as we know it today is in agreement with the many letters and documents of those who drafted our Constitution, our Bill of Rights, specifically the first half our our First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."

I quickly discovered it most certainly is not.

Click to expand...

I am wondering what documents you read? I will provide, in the interest of educational decorum, comprehensive citations as to founder commentary in conflict with what you state.

slowfiveoh said:
since9 said:

1. I observed the vast majority of the Separation of Church and State rhetoric out there, including many of the Supreme Court rulings on the matter, are pure, unadulterated bunk diametrically opposed to the explicit and implicit intent of the Founding Fathers as stated in both the First Amendment itself as well as in thousands of official and personal supporting documents written by the Founding Fathers.

Click to expand...

Statements such as these?:

James Madison
"The civil Government, though bereft of everything like an associated hierarchy, possesses the requisite stability, and performs its functions with complete success, whilst the number, the industry, and the morality of the priesthood, and the devotion of the people, have been manifestly increased by the total separation of the church from the State" Letter to Robert Walsh, Mar. 2, 1819)

"Strongly guarded as is the separation between religion and Gov't in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history." (Detached Memoranda, circa 1820) *Such as the display of religious doctrine, law, or exercise by the federal or local government.

"Every new and successful example, therefore, of a perfect separation between the ecclesiastical and civil matters, is of importance; and I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in showing that religion and Government will both exist in greater purity the less they are mixed together (Letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822)

"I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points.The tendency to a usurpation on one side or the other or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them will be best guarded against by entire abstinence of the government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order and protecting each sect against trespasses on its legal rights by others." (Letter Rev. Jasper Adams, Spring 1832) *Please note that the inference states "Entire abstinence", not "partial or limited exercising of".

"To the Baptist Churches on Neal's Greek on Black Creek, North Carolina I have received, fellow-citizens, your address, approving my objection to the Bill containing a grant of public land to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, Mississippi Territory. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion and Civil Government as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States, I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself" (Letter to Baptist Churches in North Carolina, June 3, 1811)

Rufus King:
"...he remarked that he had never wished to see the "lawn sleeves" of Episcopal bishops in America. "I never liked the Hierarchy of the Church--an equality in the teacher of Religion, and a dependence on the people, are republican sentiments--but if the Clergy combine, they will have their influence on Government" (Rufus King: American Federalist, pp. 56-57, emphasis mine).

Edmund Randolph:
"Congress has no power over religion and...the exclusion of religious tests for federal officeholders meant that "they are not bound to support one mode of worship, or to adhere to one particular sect." He added that there were so many different sects in the Unites States that "they will prevent the establishment of any one sect, in prejudice to the rest, and forever oppose all attempts to infringe religious liberty" (Leonard Levy, The Establishment Clause, p. 89)

Charles Pinckney:

This is one of his specific beliefs and well-established historical viewpoints as a founder -
-That he united with James Madison in proposing that Congress should be specifically empowered to establish a university "in which no preference or distinction should be allowed on account of religion.-

Thomas Jefferson:
"I consider the government of the United States as interdicted by the Constitution from intermeddling in religious institutions, their doctrines, discipline, or exercises. This results not only from the provision that no law shall be made respecting the establishment or free exercise of religion, but from that also which reserves to the states the powers not delegated to the United States. Certainly, no power to prescribe any religious exercise or to assume authority in religious discipline has been delegated to the General Government. It must rest with the States, as far as it can be in any human authority" (letter to Samuel Miller, Jan. 23, 1808). *The Ten Commandments are in fact religious law as well as doctrine.

A list of many of the Founders who believed firmly in seperation of Church and State:

James Madison

James Wilson

Rufus King

Elbridge Gerry

Edmund Randolph

Charles Pinckney

George Mason

Alexander Hamilton

Gouverneur Morris

John Rutledge

Caleb Strong

George Read

John Marshall

John Vining

Ben Franklin

Fisher Ames

James Monroe

James McHenry

Thomas Jefferson

Samuel Adams

Patrick Henry

John Q. Adams

John Adams

Oliver Ellsworth

Ben Rush

John Jay

John Randolph

Joseph Story

Henry Lee

John Hancock

John Witherspoon

Noah Webster

If necessary, and if you deem to pursue this conversation after specifically stating you have been to the libraries of congress, and clearly, disingenuously studied the founders position on the separation of church and state, i will happily, and with personal promise, post every statement made, by every founder that I can find, which proves your commentary beyond this point questionable.

It is absolutely established in this reply, that any claim that there is no link between the founders and the separation of church and state, is disingenuous and dishonest, despite ones claims to have studied in the library of congress.

It is also well established, and well understood, that many founders, including Thomas Jefferson, did not want government partaking in any sort of doctrine, religious law, or religious exercise. *Thomas Jefferson section of this post, as annotated above.

since9 said:

2. I observed a strong correlation between the vociferousness of those who hold the concept of the separation of church and state (SOCAS) high and their animosity towards any religious display, particularly if they also hold Christianity or religion in general in disdain, or if they hold anti-Christian systems of belief or atheism in general, in high esteem.

Click to expand...

An unmeasurable metric being used to justify personal observation of an assumed state of mind. In other words, a completely unsubstantiated opinion.

I have no disdain or hatred for Christianity.

I simply want an equitable government without preferential exercise on governments behalf, towards a given religion. This is in line with many of the founders comments. If you cannot see the necessity for firm division, that is your lack of critical thinking, and not my issue, nor that of any other equality seeking free man or woman.

Were the display discussed in this thread changed to an opened copy of the Qu'Ran displaying Shariahs law, I would likewise take enormous issue with it.

However, it is not in your best interest as a Christian to acknowledge this!

No, it is in your best interest to somehow try to denigrate the pursuit of equality by trying to bind it to various subsets of humanity. Such terms are sensationalist, such as "Anti-Christian". An appeal to the emotional side of individuals, particularly Christians you seek to evoke support from.

I don't want your Bible displayed by my government. Nor do I want the Qu'ran, the Satanic Bible, the book of Mormon, or any other religious doctrine, law, or religious exercise.
I don't want any part of its laws on full display in my countries judicial system.

If you have a problem with this, then you miss entirely Jeffersons inference as posted above.

since9 said:

3. I observed most of the pro-SOCAS arguments rely heavily on court rulings, and are markedly void of comments by the drafters of the First Amendment and contemporaries of those drafters as contained in the 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.

Click to expand...

I have not, as of yet, visited the Library of Congress. Were you honest, you would admit that you have not either.

However, had you somehow missed the uncountable references made by the founders, I have been extremely polite in providing them for you above in great detail.

Should you require any more assistance in locating any and all citations by the founders supporting the "Pro-SOCAS" position as you put it, I will be happy to guide you extensively.

Seriously. 32 of the founders have made explicit statements about the separation of church and state, yet you missed them while looking for them in the library of congress?

Please explain in great detail how this happens.

Thanks...

since9 said:

4. I observed most of the pro-Founders arguments, naturally, relay heavily on those 50,000+ documents held in the Library of Congress.

Click to expand...

"pro-Founders" is a desperate, pathetic reaching attempt on your part to state that the founders wanted union of Church and State. This is incorrect as pointed out clearly, concisely, and directly, above.

The majority of the founders were for the separation of Church and State. Therefore, by definition, the "Pro-Founders" position is, in fact, the upholding of the separation of Church and State.

since9 said:

5. The Library of Congress has not hidden these documents away in any respect. They remain in the Library of Congress, and are available for viewing by the general public. Approval takes a while, and you must wear white gloves.

Click to expand...

I am wondering how you missed so many founders (at least 32 of them) who specifically state that there is a hard necessity for the existence of separation of Church and State?

Did you actually look for this topic?

since9 said:

Substantiating my observations:

Click to expand...

I have to admit to being a little let down here since9. As an officer in the U.S. Air Force, you know how imperative it is to be thorough. You make this grand reference to the libraries of Congress, then post nothing at all in any wayfrom the library substantiating your claims.

You then create this bi-party scheme asserting that anybody who is for the unity of Church and State, is a "Pro-Founder", while those who actually study the founders and realize the original statements, BY the founders to be "Pro-Socas" and in opposition to the founders. It is rhetorical, unsubstantiated nonsense on your behalf.

It took me, literally, 5 minutes to relocate the previous founder statements on the topic, and many more, that I remembered reading (mostly Jefferson at the time) regarding the necessity for a separation of Church and State. Yet after a trip to the Library of Congress yourself, you were unable to find founder references to such a well discussed topic during the ratification conventions as the separation of Church and State, and the historical perspective of King George the III's Church and State union being a driving factor in their escape from tyranny?

Did you look for them?

since9 said:

A. The Founders repeatedly invoked God in the Declaration of Independence and most of their 50,000+ documents, whether personal letters to one another, friends, and family, or official letters of note, including Congressional Record of early proceedings of Congress. Daily invocations of prayer continue to this day in Congress, as does the Congressional chaplain and chaplains throughout all military branches of service and...

Click to expand...

They also included references to the necessity for the Separation of Church and State in the exact same letters and documents you reference.

Could it be that the comments about faith were made to family members who shared the same faith, yet the realization was that government should not have said luxury?

Furthermore, you completely lack the understanding of the fundamental difference between forced religious display by a government body, and the allowance of prayer.

There is an enormous disconnect there, wherein one is the simple acknowledgement of the held beliefs of many in congress and the fact that their daily routine may be so busy that impedance to their religious beliefs is an issue. The Constitution enumerates the rights of the individual, thus prayer is just fine by the individuals comprising congress. It's not like they are prohibiting a muslim member, were there one, from performing his morning prayer ion chambers too. That is religious equality and freedom.

The static display of religious law is, however, preferential in nature. It displays the religious preference of a judicial locality in this case. As already noted several times, if the slabs were blank, it would be hard to say that they were specifically the Ten Commandments, and not a historical inference to stone tablature.

since9 said:

B. Both the Founders and state governments expressed concern about repeating the grievous harm caused by the state-sponsored (mandated) religion of the Church of England. Their solution was ensure the federal government had no say so over religious matters, either in support of them or against them. Specifically, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.

Click to expand...

Disingenuous commentary. The founders specifically stated in several letters (again, that you somehow missed) that the government was to abstain from religious preference. Allowing for display of specific religious doctrine, law, texts, totems, icons etc., is all specifically preferential.

There is not an argument that can be meaningfully constructed against this using any form of collegiate level critical thinking. However, you will try.

since9 said:

C. Of the Founders, almost to a man, except for three abstainers, they believed in a Christian God. Between half and two-thirds were devout Christians. This information was gleaned by analyzing the countless documents from that period, including many personal journals.

Click to expand...

Lie. Blatant lie. Even those who were wanted none of their religion to hold sway whatsoever in government as they realized it would corrupt government.

Thomas Jefferson:
"But while this syllabus is meant to place the character of Jesus in its true light, as no imposter himself, but a great reformer of the Hebrew code of religion, it is not to be understood that I am with him in all his doctrines. I am a materialist; he takes the side of spiritualism; he preaches the efficacy of repentance towards forgiveness of sin; I require a counterpoise of good works to redeem it." -- letter to William Short, April 13, 1820; Definition of a Materialist:

"If by religion we are to understand sectarian dogmas, in which no two of them agree, then your exclamation on that hypothesis is just, "that this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it." But if the moral precepts, innate in man, and made a part of his physical constitution, as necessary for a social being, if the sublime doctrines of philanthropism and deism taught us by Jesus of Nazareth, in which all agree, constitute true religion, then, without it, this would be, as you again say, "something not fit to be named even, indeed, a hell." -- Letter from Thomas Jefferson to John Adams, May 5, 1817

"Christianity neither is, nor ever was, a part of the Common Law." -letter to Dr. Thomas Cooper, 1814

Benjamin Franklin:
"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)

"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise." -letter to Wm. Bradford, April 1, 1774

"The purpose of separation of church and state is to keep forever from these shores the ceaseless strife that has soaked the soil of Europe in blood for centuries." -1803 letter objecting use of government land for churches

"My parents had early given me religious impressions, and brought me through my childhood piously in the Dissenting [Protestant] way. But I was scarce fifteen, when, after doubting by turns of several points, as I found them disputed in the different books I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself. Some books against Deism fell into my hands; they were said to be the substance of sermons preached at Boyle's Lectures. It happened that they wrought an effect on me 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 thorough deist."
- Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, 1793

John Adams:"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."
[SIZE=-1]"A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88), from Adrienne Koch, ed, The American Enlightenment: The Shaping of the American Experiment and a Free Society (1965) p. 258, quoted from Ed and Michael Buckner, "[SIZE=-1]Quotations that Support the Separation of State and Church[/SIZE][SIZE=-1]"[/SIZE]

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims] ... it is declared ... that no pretext arising from religious opinion shall ever product an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries...."
"The United States is not a Christian nation any more than it is a Jewish or a Mohammedan nation."
[SIZE=-1]-- Treaty of Tripoli (1797), carried unanimously by the Senate and signed into law by John Adams (the original language is by Joel Barlow, US Consul)

Thomas Paine:
"The study of theology, as it stands in the Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authority; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion." - Thomas Paine

"Take away from Genesis the belief that Moses was the author, on which only the strange belief that it is the word of God has stood, and there remains nothing of Genesis but an anonymous book of stories, fables, and traditionary or invented absurdities, or of downright lies." - Thomas Paine

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church" (Thomas Paine - Age of Reason)

"From the time I was capable of conceiving an idea and acting upon it by reflection, I either doubted the truth of the Christian system or thought it to be a strange affair." (Thomas Paine - Age of Reason)

George Washington:
"Religious controversies are always productive of more acrimony and irreconcilable hatreds than those which spring from any other cause. Of all the animosities which have existed among mankind, those which are caused by the difference of sentiments in religion appear to be the most inveterate and distressing, and ought most to be depreciated. I was in hopes that the enlightened and liberal policy, which has marked the present age, would at least have reconciled Christians of every denomination so far that we should never again see the religious disputes carried to such a pitch as to endanger the peace of society."
- letter to Edward Newenham, 1792

I can fill this page lengthwise rebuking and rebutting every single erroneous claim you have made, but I will sum this up simply.

The founding fathers were from various religious backgrounds. Of great popularity then and today, is deism. Many were deists.

To lay claim that a group of Christians would come together to make a religiously free nation with near no recognition as to Christianity, is disingenuous at best, and morally defunct at worst. It is attributing to Christianity more credit than it has right to lay claim to.

An old ploy of religious followers and leaders has been to attribute to those long since dead affiliation with their religious body.

It's shameful and reprehensible.

[/SIZE]
[/SIZE]

since9 said:

D. Both the letter from the Danbury Baptists to Thomas Jefferson and his response are a matter of public records. The letter to the President simply expressed concern over governmental intrusion on religious freedoms, and the President's letter in response simply reassured the Danbury Baptists that such intrusion was not in the purview of the government. This is plainly evidence in Jefferson's own writings after the fact.

Click to expand...

Your expression does not change the factual content of the message he delivered.

He expresses clearly, succinctly, and with great directness the complete existence of, and necessity, for a separation of church and state. It is the necessity he is referencing when he tells the Danbury church that government will not encroach upon their civil rights.

One does not define individual freedom of religion, particularly one as learned as Thomas Jefferson, by stating that there is a clear dividing wall separating church and state.

since9 said:

E. During his term of presidency, Thomas Jefferson himself opened up the Treasury Building for worship services to help alleviate the problem of a rapidly growing population surging ahead of building efforts. Jefferson did not see this as an intrusion on religious freedoms, but as a support of religious freedom. This fact was reported on the Library of Congress' website for several years, from about 1998 through 2001.

Click to expand...

There is of course no issue with this. In a prayer for aid and relief the government served the people by opening up its halls for any and all denominations and religions to pursue their faith oriented services.

As part of the support for religious freedom, this activity only makes sense. It embraces the individual concept of religious freedom and allows it to empower itself.

This is not, as clearly demonstrated, specific in religious display. The Treasury was open to any and all denominations and was not explicitly recognizing of any particular one.

Just because your faith was in there somewhere, does not mean the government explicitly supports your faith. It means it has made available the means for you to exercise your faith, regardless its origin.

THAT is true religious equality, and I would die to support that.

since9 said:

That's the gist of the results of my summer study. For what it's worth.

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing your perspective.

since9 said:

My conclusion is that those who hold "the separation of church and state" concept as it has grown and developed over the years higher than the simple verbiage of the First Amendment and Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists are fooling themselves. Those who keep citing SCOTUS decisions one after another are missing the same boat as SCOTUS has missed over the last two centuries.

Click to expand...

My conclusion is that your studies need to continue, and that your single assessment of Jeffersons response to the Danbury Baptists is not only in error, but singular in regards to the numerous other founders comments supporting, even demanding the separation of church and state. This is extremely limiting and, I personally believe, conscientiously limited to your religious perspective.

since9 said:

Out.

Click to expand...

By the way, I am 30 minutes from 101 Independence Ave. SE.

If anybody wants me to go take a look at the sources I cite, I'd be happy to go with you and show you personally.

The separation of church and state was supported by nearly all the founders, and I would be happy to prove it to pretty much anybody.

Peace.

since9 has offered no rebuke to this because, frankly, it would be embarrassing to admit all of my citations are correct, derived from the founders themselves, and outline why his religion stays out of government.

People who do not understand why even their religion should not be in government are truly weak minded, short-sighted, and devoid of common sense on the subject.

Daylen · Nov 6, 2011

Ruby said:
Although the motto "In God We Trust" may seem inconsequential to some of you, I think it is important. I think the Pledge of Allegiance and prayer in school is important. I grew up in an earlier time when these things were commonly practiced and taken for granted as the normal thing to do. To me they fostered respect and love of country, as well as a feeling of unity with other Americans. Some may call it brain washing, but if it was I see it as something positive. Every country in the world seeks to foster patriotism.

Then they declared there would be no prayer in schools. Since I do not have children I do not know if that is still the case. Maybe they have a minute of silence or something. I don't believe that anyone should be required to recite a prayer, but don't take that away from those who want to. I have nothing against atheists, I believe that everyone should have freedom of religion or no religion. If IIRC, and if I don't I'm sure someone will correct me, this country was founded by people who had a belief in God and lived by Christian principles. I don't believe they would have had the courage or determination to declare independence from England unless they had faith in a higher power. What an audacious idea! And they won! Many died before they saw that freedom realized. And today we are led by a president (I refuse to capitilize for Obama!) and others who clearly have no love for this country and do not honor the oaths they took to support and defend the Constitution.

This country is morally bankrupt, as well as financially bankrupt, and not just in the halls of power. The two are tied together. You cannot do evil or wrong and expect to prosper; neither can a nation. Unless we develop a moral backbone we are not going to survive, economically or in any way that matters. Little things matter, it's how we lose our rights and liberties; a thousand small cuts and we bleed to death.

What does this have to do with Atheists? Do you know what else is on the Great Seal other than the one Obama likes? My personal favorite is Annuit cœptis (roughly translates to He approves of the undertakings). Our mottoes have far more to do with America, our history and especially the novelty of the idea that men can rule themselves and choose (or get rid of) their government, than this silly phrase "in god we trust", which is more about encouraging Christianity than anything American.

Daylen · Nov 6, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
Ruby. You are the nicest old lady I have ever seen post on here.

With all due respect, I do not want your Christian values forced upon me by governmental imposition.

I don't think Mormoms do.
I do not think Muslims do.
I know us Atheists don't.

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. The home of equality.

I want religion in government like I want Roseanne Barr as the ATF chief.
I need religion in government like I need an enormous festering open sore on my body.

This is not a Christian nation just as it is not a Muslim nation, or a Hindu nation. (Treaty of Tripoli)

However, in this glorious nation, all can expect impartial treatment from the government with respect, without the precept of religious subservience in counsel chambers, on judiciary seats, or committee floors.

Leave Christianity out of my government. It does not belong there.

It is, however a Republic founded upon the idea of Divine Providence. The founders were much more subtle in public religious matters than we became in the late 19th century. I think this was partly from the influence of the Masons and partly because they were just coming out of the enlightenment where people realized the problems with enacting dogma into law.

sudden valley gunner · Nov 6, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
Ruby. You are the nicest old lady I have ever seen post on here.

She is a nice person whom I have had the privilege to associate with in person. And a strong supporter of OC and has shown up when at meets to support those who have had their rights violated or harrassed by cops.

I as an agnostic agree with your assessments. Religion has no part in government it fosters prejudiced toward others who don't believe the same.

Another point I disagree on is that the pledge of allegiance is a good thing. This is something that was proposed by a socialist and instituted to put the state above individual liberties. I have never said the pledge and I will fight to defend my country against all enemies foreign and domestic, because I love liberty. And of course Ruby knows this doesn't mean I think any less of her because she has a different viewpoint.

Hope all is going well Ruby, see ya at one of the next big meets.

Daylen · Nov 6, 2011

since9 said:
So say most atheists. Our founding fathers stated otherwise in our Declaration of Independence and tens of thousands of public and private documents on file in the Library of Congress. They're through the main entrance, through the main hall, into the rear center hall, first door on the left. I've read many of them, and they undeniably and very clearly state that ours was indeed founded as a Christian nation.

I support Ruby's perspective 100%.

You're right about one thing, though. They agreed that when a government mandates a religion, or gives preferential treatment of one religion over another, it's a bad thing.

"In God We Trust" isn't shoving a thing down your throat. You're just taking it wrong. That's been the motto of our country long before it's official establishment in 1776 or its official adoption as our motto in 1956. It's origin dates back thousands of years, as recorded in the Christian Bibles of both our Founding Fathers as well as The People of our nation, specifically in Psalms 20, Psalms 56, & Psalms 62.

I'm sorry you don't like it. I'm sorry you were born in a country where just 0.53% of her population identify as atheists.

The rest of us, close to 85% of Americans as a whole, respect your beliefs. We simply ask you respect ours.

If you cannot respect the beliefs of others, if you mistakenly believe the only way you can live with your atheism is to rewrite history, make false claims about our nation's history, and force your own beliefs down our throats, then perhaps you are ill-suited to live in a free country such as the United States of America.

Your comment uncovers a fundamental flaw in your thinking: It's not your government. It's our government.

Where are you getting that bs from? Our mottos are on the Great Seal, all are in Latin, and none are "in got we trust". If that was our motto then it would have been put on the Great Seal. You seem lack a knowledge of history and understanding of symbolism, seals and the like.

Ruby · Nov 6, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
Ruby. You are the nicest old lady I have ever seen post on here.

With all due respect, I do not want your Christian values forced upon me by governmental imposition.

I don't think Mormoms do.
I do not think Muslims do.
I know us Atheists don't.

This is the land of the free and the home of the brave. The home of equality.

I want religion in government like I want Roseanne Barr as the ATF chief.
I need religion in government like I need an enormous festering open sore on my body.

This is not a Christian nation just as it is not a Muslim nation, or a Hindu nation. (Treaty of Tripoli)

However, in this glorious nation, all can expect impartial treatment from the government with respect, without the precept of religious subservience in counsel chambers, on judiciary seats, or committee floors.

Leave Christianity out of my government. It does not belong there.

First of all, let me say I respect everyone's religion or no religion, whatever your beliefs may be. I never said I didn't. With the exception of since9, you all are missing the point of my post. I was using prayer in schools as ONE EXAMPLE of ONE WAY we have lost our moral compass. It is by far not the only way.

Slowfiveoh, thank you for the left handed compliment:lol:, just because I am older doesn't mean I am senile! Nicest old lady indeed!

I disagree with you about expecting impartial treatment from the government with respect, etc. I don't know what world you are residing in but it doesn't appear to be this one. That is the IDEAL, but far from what is actually practiced. You should know this from the many examples of how OCers have been treated by the authorities; many such threads exist on this forum. No, in this country you receive as much fair treatment as you can afford to pay for.

No one is forcing Christianity or any other religion down your throat. However, you are incorrect about the Muslims. Take a look at what they have done in Australia and Europe, particularly in France. They ARE trying to force their religion on everyone, trying to enforce Sharia law,etc. In the name of political correctness, these countries are trying to accomidate them and find their own countries being taken over by the Muslims. Read some of the threads the Haz has posted on about it, he lives in Australia. The goal of the Muslims is to create a perfect Muslim world, by force if necessary.

I agree with Since9, it isn't just YOUR government, it's OUR government, and we best be thinking about how to fix it before it's too late. I don't care if you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, or a great big purple frog, our country is facing some severe problems, partially brought on by our lack of morals and sense of being responsible for the world we have created. This was the crux of my previous post. Most morality stems from a belief in something beyond the mortal person, and for a lot of people in this country, that belief is in God. I still say that this country was founded on Christian principles. It is not solely a Christian nation now and I never said it was. We have more freedom and liberty in this country than any other in the world, at least I believe we do. I wonder why that is? I wonder what the guiding principle behind that is? I wonder why so many people want to live here as opposed to living somewhere else? Those are rhetorical questions by the way. I do not expect answers.

I think I have explained my position adequately and I will leave you to squabble amongst yourselves.

slowfiveoh · Nov 6, 2011

Ruby said:
First of all, let me say I respect everyone's religion or no religion, whatever your beliefs may be. I never said I didn't. With the exception of since9, you all are missing the point of my post. I was using prayer in schools as ONE EXAMPLE of ONE WAY we have lost our moral compass. It is by far not the only way.

Prayer is a practice of closing ones eyes, and asking for existence from fantasy beings. If only those consumed by religion would open their eyes, and use critical thinking and reasoning instead of underhanded non-assumption of the problem.

Ruby said:
Slowfiveoh, thank you for the left handed compliment:lol:, just because I am older doesn't mean I am senile! Nicest old lady indeed!

It was not in any way an underhanded or "left handed" compliment. It was genuine and sincere.

Ruby said:
I disagree with you about expecting impartial treatment from the government with respect, etc. I don't know what world you are residing in but it doesn't appear to be this one. That is the IDEAL, but far from what is actually practiced. You should know this from the many examples of how OCers have been treated by the authorities; many such threads exist on this forum. No, in this country you receive as much fair treatment as you can afford to pay for.

There are many problems in this country Ruby. Not the least of which is religion interjecting itself into our judicial systems, or candidacy consideration.

Every time a potential candidate so much as farts an association with a given religion or their "love for God", a million more Christians truly and honestly blindly jump on board. Some even believing it is a "sign from God". It's embarrassing to an impartial process, but, it is using marketing to specific demographics as a tool. It works extremely well because there is a significant demographic of Christians from varying educational backgrounds and proficiencies.

Ruby said:
No one is forcing Christianity or any other religion down your throat.

Wrong!

Whenever you bind religion to government you are preferentializing the religion at the bare minimum, and enforcing under color of law its teachings at the other end of the spectrum. Either case is uncalled for in government.

Ruby said:
However, you are incorrect about the Muslims. Take a look at what they have done in Australia and Europe, particularly in France. They ARE trying to force their religion on everyone, trying to enforce Sharia law,etc.

*gasp* So we should immediately assume Christianity as the national religion thereby stopping the Muslim advance and institutionalization of Sharia Law here in the U.S. ?

Here's another thought for you. What if we tell both Muslim Doctrine and Christian Doctrine to stay the hell out of our government?

Man, that would be excellent! How truly equitable!

Ruby said:
In the name of political correctness, these countries are trying to accomidate them and find their own countries being taken over by the Muslims. Read some of the threads the Haz has posted on about it, he lives in Australia. The goal of the Muslims is to create a perfect Muslim world, by force if necessary.

No, these countries are being "forced" to kowtow to these acts of religion under the guise of "religious freedom". The difference between these countries, and our country, was that our founders were wise enough to fully comprehend the fundamental need for the separation of Church and State.

Do you understand why Ruby?

As one framer put it, paraphrasing, "So that government and religion may stay respectively pure of one another."

It is disingenuous, and downright corrupt to demonize the institution of one religions practices will simultaneously claiming that only yours possesses morality. Thus has been the basis for generations of religious war on an entire continent, and preceding wars of mass genocide worldwide. No religion in our government, just as the framers intended. Thanks.

Ruby said:
I agree with Since9, it isn't just YOUR government, it's OUR government, and we best be thinking about how to fix it before it's too late.

You do not get what since9's inference was. Well, maybe you do!

since9 was specifying that since there was a large number of Christians (The old argument that more means "right". An argument a Christian would say is baseless in a room wherein he was outnumbered by atheists or those of another religion) that it was effectively "their" government. He must have forgot that "Liberty" is one of our enumerated rights, and Liberty does not necessarily mean democracy. Doing the right thing demands that you move beyond your religious bindings, and step out of those shackled shoes for just 2 seconds of a debate on equality.

I believe your statement was meant to imply that it is everybodies government. To that end I agree, and to that end I demand equality across the board. Equality without the consideration for religion.

Ruby said:
I don't care if you believe in God, Allah, Buddha, or a great big purple frog, our country is facing some severe problems, partially brought on by our lack of morals and sense of being responsible for the world we have created. This was the crux of my previous post.

Do you care if I believe in no supernatural or fantasy being at all?

Does it offend ones Christian sensibilities to realize that I teach my child to be polite, loving, caring, considerate, compassionate, and rational without reading a book written by man, purporting itself to be from God?
Does it offend ones Christian Sensibilities to understand that my child has never heard a single excerpt from the Bible or even seen one yet she would share her chocolate milk with you, her toys, her books, or help you clean up a room? (Oh good golly how is this possible without a fictitious belief in imaginary creatures?!?!)
Does it offend ones Christian sensibilities to realize that I agree that the majority of the economies issues and our world involvement is perpetuated by corrupt government, and that I came to this conclusion without closing my eyes and praying to spaghetti monsters??
Does it offend ones Christian sensibilities to realize that many of the "Christian" electorates in office are one of the many sources of problematic responsibility for where our country is heading?

We are suffering a lack of morality Ruby. However, none of it has to do whatsoever with Christian beliefs. It is primarily brought on by those with no work ethic, and those who believe it is our duty to play world police.

Your Bible, the Jewish Torah, the Qu'ran, and the Book of Mormon are equally meaningless in response to this.

However, making just, rationalized, honest decisions without the influence of religion just may be the best way to make everybody happy, and get some serious stuff done. In fact, I assure you its the only way.

Furthermore, as you are a Christian, I am sure you have contempt for the presence of homosexuality. You see it as immoral.

Well Ruby, the reality is that these "immoral" people are far more moral than your religion teaches, and many would die defending your freedom of religion even as you wipe your posterior with their character and choice of lifestyle.

Just keep that in mind.

Ruby said:
Most morality stems from a belief in something beyond the mortal person, and for a lot of people in this country, that belief is in God.

Many people in this country also believe in Shiva.
Many people believe in the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Many people believe in no God, but being one with the universe.

Your pointing to the majority is, as usual in all debates, meaningless in all ways but to point to the size of the mindless mob. A majority does not equal "right". All conclusions must be reached with critical thought.

Also, psychologically speaking, nothing stems from a "belief in something beyond the mortal" except for that which the mind places there in the first place. That is a psychological fact.

You cannot claim that morality stems from God, when the existence of God stems from the mind.

Ruby said:
I still say that this country was founded on Christian principles. It is not solely a Christian nation now and I never said it was. We have more freedom and liberty in this country than any other in the world, at least I believe we do.

A study deep into the minds and hearts of the framers via the works they have left behind will show you that it was not.

We do have great freedom in this country Ruby. I love this country. I love the bill of rights. I love the concepts it was founded on!

Ruby said:
I wonder why that is? I wonder what the guiding principle behind that is?

Not the Bible. I can answer that with absolute certainty.

The guiding principles behind the "great experiment", are driven from the collective years of social studies and governmental experience of our framers. Our nation is so unique, that you cannot even begin to understand how insulting it is to infer that it is religiously derived.

No Judeo-Christian religion would purposefully disassociate itself from its government intertwining at said governments conception!

To even try to say so would be devoid of any logic whatsoever.

The founders were fully aware of the Church of England and its impact on its citizens within the British empire, particularly, prior to the instatement and ratification of the Catholic Relief Act.

Do you have any historical perspective whatsoever on the history of religion in Government and why the founders specifically wanted a wall of separation between the Church and the State?

If not, please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchising_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_Act_1661
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1662
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventicle_Act_1664
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Mile_Act_1665
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Act_1695
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarming_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1836
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banishment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popery_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasional_Conformity_Act_1711

These are just a few. Let me know if you need a few hundred more.

Ruby said:
I wonder why so many people want to live here as opposed to living somewhere else? Those are rhetorical questions by the way. I do not expect answers.

People want to live here Ruby because they believe, as Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Atheists, Deists, Satanists, Jews, Sikhs etc, that they can experience religious equality in a government that does not place importance of one religion over another.

You do not mean that you "do not expect an answer", but rather that you have turned a blind eye, closed your mind, and cemented your belief in a specific thing without so much as an inch to give in consideration for another perspective.

Ruby said:
I think I have explained my position adequately and I will leave you to squabble amongst yourselves.

Cementing firmly my prior comment as absolutely true.

Ruby · Nov 6, 2011

sudden valley gunner said:
She is a nice person whom I have had the privilege to associate with in person. And a strong supporter of OC and has shown up when at meets to support those who have had their rights violated or harrassed by cops.

I as an agnostic agree with your assessments. Religion has no part in government it fosters prejudiced toward others who don't believe the same.

Another point I disagree on is that the pledge of allegiance is a good thing. This is something that was proposed by a socialist and instituted to put the state above individual liberties. I have never said the pledge and I will fight to defend my country against all enemies foreign and domestic, because I love liberty. And of course Ruby knows this doesn't mean I think any less of her because she has a different viewpoint.

Hope all is going well Ruby, see ya at one of the next big meets.

Thank you for your kind words, SVG. I never meant to start a rucus, just express an opinion! I consider you a friend and a difference of opinion will never change that. I hope all is going well for you also, SVG.

I do not see the pledge of allegiance in the same light as you do. "I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the REPUBLIC FOR WHICH IT STANDS..... That sentence says it all, as far as I am concerned. Just about everyone here has allegiance to this country and especially to the Constitution. When I went into the Army and took the oath to defend my country, that wasn't just for the time I was in service. For me, I took that oath for the rest of my life.

I agree that their should be no state mandated religion and government should not respect one religion over another. But, IIRC, at the end of the President,s oath of office are the words, "so help me God." You cannot take "God" out of our society, our documents, etc. Those four words alone are enough to make me believe that our Founding Fathers did believe in God and were guided by Christian principles. I am NOT saying anything against any other religion, just expressing what is there. Whatever anyone's beliefs are, I respect that, whether I share that belief or not; I just would appreciate the same respect.

Ruby · Nov 6, 2011

slowfiveoh said:
Prayer is a practice of closing ones eyes, and asking for existence from fantasy beings. If only those consumed by religion would open their eyes, and use critical thinking and reasoning instead of underhanded non-assumption of the problem.

It was not in any way an underhanded or "left handed" compliment. It was genuine and sincere.

There are many problems in this country Ruby. Not the least of which is religion interjecting itself into our judicial systems, or candidacy consideration.

Every time a potential candidate so much as farts an association with a given religion or their "love for God", a million more Christians truly and honestly blindly jump on board. Some even believing it is a "sign from God". It's embarrassing to an impartial process, but, it is using marketing to specific demographics as a tool. It works extremely well because there is a significant demographic of Christians from varying educational backgrounds and proficiencies.

Wrong!

Whenever you bind religion to government you are preferentializing the religion at the bare minimum, and enforcing under color of law its teachings at the other end of the spectrum. Either case is uncalled for in government.

*gasp* So we should immediately assume Christianity as the national religion thereby stopping the Muslim advance and institutionalization of Sharia Law here in the U.S. ?

Here's another thought for you. What if we tell both Muslim Doctrine and Christian Doctrine to stay the hell out of our government?

Man, that would be excellent! How truly equitable!

No, these countries are being "forced" to kowtow to these acts of religion under the guise of "religious freedom". The difference between these countries, and our country, was that our founders were wise enough to fully comprehend the fundamental need for the separation of Church and State.

Do you understand why Ruby?

As one framer put it, paraphrasing, "So that government and religion may stay respectively pure of one another."

It is disingenuous, and downright corrupt to demonize the institution of one religions practices will simultaneously claiming that only yours possesses morality. Thus has been the basis for generations of religious war on an entire continent, and preceding wars of mass genocide worldwide. No religion in our government, just as the framers intended. Thanks.

You do not get what since9's inference was. Well, maybe you do!

since9 was specifying that since there was a large number of Christians (The old argument that more means "right". An argument a Christian would say is baseless in a room wherein he was outnumbered by atheists or those of another religion) that it was effectively "their" government. He must have forgot that "Liberty" is one of our enumerated rights, and Liberty does not necessarily mean democracy. Doing the right thing demands that you move beyond your religious bindings, and step out of those shackled shoes for just 2 seconds of a debate on equality.

I believe your statement was meant to imply that it is everybodies government. To that end I agree, and to that end I demand equality across the board. Equality without the consideration for religion.

Do you care if I believe in no supernatural or fantasy being at all?

Does it offend ones Christian sensibilities to realize that I teach my child to be polite, loving, caring, considerate, compassionate, and rational without reading a book written by man, purporting itself to be from God?
Does it offend ones Christian Sensibilities to understand that my child has never heard a single excerpt from the Bible or even seen one yet she would share her chocolate milk with you, her toys, her books, or help you clean up a room? (Oh good golly how is this possible without a fictitious belief in imaginary creatures?!?!)
Does it offend ones Christian sensibilities to realize that I agree that the majority of the economies issues and our world involvement is perpetuated by corrupt government, and that I came to this conclusion without closing my eyes and praying to spaghetti monsters??
Does it offend ones Christian sensibilities to realize that many of the "Christian" electorates in office are one of the many sources of problematic responsibility for where our country is heading?

We are suffering a lack of morality Ruby. However, none of it has to do whatsoever with Christian beliefs. It is primarily brought on by those with no work ethic, and those who believe it is our duty to play world police.

Your Bible, the Jewish Torah, the Qu'ran, and the Book of Mormon are equally meaningless in response to this.

However, making just, rationalized, honest decisions without the influence of religion just may be the best way to make everybody happy, and get some serious stuff done. In fact, I assure you its the only way.

Furthermore, as you are a Christian, I am sure you have contempt for the presence of homosexuality. You see it as immoral.

Well Ruby, the reality is that these "immoral" people are far more moral than your religion teaches, and many would die defending your freedom of religion even as you wipe your posterior with their character and choice of lifestyle.

Just keep that in mind.

Many people in this country also believe in Shiva.
Many people believe in the Prophet Joseph Smith.
Many people believe in no God, but being one with the universe.

Your pointing to the majority is, as usual in all debates, meaningless in all ways but to point to the size of the mindless mob. A majority does not equal "right". All conclusions must be reached with critical thought.

Also, psychologically speaking, nothing stems from a "belief in something beyond the mortal" except for that which the mind places there in the first place. That is a psychological fact.

You cannot claim that morality stems from God, when the existence of God stems from the mind.

A study deep into the minds and hearts of the framers via the works they have left behind will show you that it was not.

We do have great freedom in this country Ruby. I love this country. I love the bill of rights. I love the concepts it was founded on!

Not the Bible. I can answer that with absolute certainty.

The guiding principles behind the "great experiment", are driven from the collective years of social studies and governmental experience of our framers. Our nation is so unique, that you cannot even begin to understand how insulting it is to infer that it is religiously derived.

No Judeo-Christian religion would purposefully disassociate itself from its government intertwining at said governments conception!

To even try to say so would be devoid of any logic whatsoever.

The founders were fully aware of the Church of England and its impact on its citizens within the British empire, particularly, prior to the instatement and ratification of the Catholic Relief Act.

Do you have any historical perspective whatsoever on the history of religion in Government and why the founders specifically wanted a wall of separation between the Church and the State?

If not, please read:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disenfranchising_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporation_Act_1661
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Act_of_Uniformity_1662
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventicle_Act_1664
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Mile_Act_1665
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Test_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_Act_1695
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disarming_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_Act_1836
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banishment_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Registration_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popery_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occasional_Conformity_Act_1711

These are just a few. Let me know if you need a few hundred more.

People want to live here Ruby because they believe, as Muslims, Hindus, Taoists, Buddhists, Mormons, Jehovahs Witnesses, Atheists, Deists, Satanists, Jews, Sikhs etc, that they can experience religious equality in a government that does not place importance of one religion over another.

You do not mean that you "do not expect an answer", but rather that you have turned a blind eye, closed your mind, and cemented your belief in a specific thing without so much as an inch to give in consideration for another perspective.

Cementing firmly my prior comment as absolutely true.

What you really mean is that I don't see things from your perspective and you are upset about it. I am only expressing an opinion, not trying to "convert" anyone! So much of what you wrote in your last post I find rude, disrespectul, as well as untrue. You do not know me, nor do you know what kind of person I am. You are making assumptions about me that are absolutely untrue. I do not have the time or energy or desire to answer you, point by point. I see from your post that you are much more upset by our differences than I am. I will leave you to work that out yourself.

I have to get ready to go to work now. Have a good day!

slowfiveoh · Nov 6, 2011

Ruby said:
What you really mean is that I don't see things from your perspective and you are upset about it. I am only expressing an opinion, not trying to "convert" anyone! So much of what you wrote in your last post I find rude, disrespectul, as well as untrue. You do not know me, nor do you know what kind of person I am. You are making assumptions about me that are absolutely untrue. I do not have the time or energy or desire to answer you, point by point. I see from your post that you are much more upset by our differences than I am. I will leave you to work that out yourself.

I have to get ready to go to work now. Have a good day!

Well it is sad that you would simply "declare victory" and trot off.

Either way, these discussions educate the people. I am certainly not making any assumptions and I challenge you to point out where I have. it is one thing to say that I am directing accusations of your character, and a whole other to realize that I simply understand the doctrine of Christianity enough to state, matter of factly, that most Christians view homosexuals as people with no morals, who are wicked and engage in the sinful practice of sodomy.

There is no stretch whatsoever there.

For the record, my perspective on what you believe is limited. However, I believe you are not as adamantly for religion in government as since9 is.

I do get upset about religion in government Ruby. I am well versed on the subject, and understand specifically and directly why the framers almost unanimously wanted that separation there, and intended it to be there in the first place.

You can only preach "God back in schools, courthouses etc." about an inch from your face before the reality comes back with a hard slap that it doesn't belong there any more than Sharia law.

House votes on reaffirming our Nation's Motto

Founder's Club Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Founder's Club Member

Founder's Club Member

Campaign Veteran

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member