Somedays all the PC nonsense just fires me up

SourKraut said:

Help me out with this metaphor thing,Tawnos. Are you saying the First Amendment is just writen in figures of speech? Are any of the other amendments to The Bill of Rights written in this kind of code?

Click to expand...

Are you dense? I simply quoted the authors' metaphors which explains the first amendment, not that the first amendment is a figure of speech or metaphor for something else. A->B != B->A

Jefferson said, in essence, "the people put great value in separating religion and government." He used a metaphor to do so, saying that the inclusion of the amendment in the constitution built a wall between church and state.

Madison went further and said ""things are great for religion and government because of the total separation we've put between religion and government."

Tawnos said:

Are you dense? I simply quoted the authors' metaphors which explains the first amendment, not that the first amendment is a figure of speech or metaphor for something else. A->B != B->A

Jefferson said, in essence, "the people put great value in separating religion and government." He used a metaphor to do so, saying that the inclusion of the amendment in the constitution built a wall between church and state.

Madison went further and said ""things are great for religion and government because of the total separation we've put between religion and government."

Click to expand...

:banghead: Dude, Jefferson wanted to keep the government from interfering with church's and religions. Not the other way around you simply cannot separate christian beliefs from our legal system and government. If we were based on say Sharia law, we would be very very messed up, so yes we can lean towards one common religion "christianity" because its the more appropriate way to deal with many issues. Right vs Wrong, the 10 commandments, the golden rule, the list keeps going. Please stop talking about Jeffersons metaphors like some yale hippy. I go by what was written in ink in the constitution, and also Jefferson's stance when he penned the letter to the Baptists in Danbury, CT.

BTW I'm sure the Atheist symbol first used in the early 1960's wasnt available to Arlington before that. Which means most go crosses, I guess its time to go sue the government over petty nonsense! Its America and our money says in God we trust! not Allah not Buddha and not is some atomic symbol. Ship is still sailing! :banana::monkey

tim12232 said:

:banghead: Dude, Jefferson wanted to keep the government from interfering with church's and religions. Not the other way around you simply cannot separate christian beliefs from our legal system and government. If we were based on say Sharia law, we would be very very messed up, so yes we can lean towards one common religion "christianity" because its the more appropriate way to deal with many issues. Right vs Wrong, the 10 commandments, the golden rule, the list keeps going. Please stop talking about Jeffersons metaphors like some yale hippy. I go by what was written in ink in the constitution, and also Jefferson's stance when he penned the letter to the Baptists in Danbury, CT.

Click to expand...

Odd that you claim that last sentence, when I'm the one quoting him and Madison.

As for your diatribe about separating christian beliefs from the legal system and government... Uh, you're wrong. Just so far wrong I don't even know where to start.

BTW I'm sure the Atheist symbol first used in the early 1960's wasnt available to Arlington before that. Which means most go crosses, I guess its time to go sue the government over petty nonsense! Its America and our money says in God we trust! not Allah not Buddha and not is some atomic symbol. Ship is still sailing! :banana::monkey

Click to expand...

And then you bring up other stupidity, indicating your lack of knowledge of history. Let's see, the continental congress had money that said "mind your business". Our federal reserve notes had no idiocy about god until 1956...

...you know what, I'm done with you. You're unlikely to see anything but the inside of your own posterior, and I have better things to do and people to talk with.

Tawnos said:

And then you bring up other stupidity, indicating your lack of knowledge of history. Let's see, the continental congress had money that said "mind your business". Our federal reserve notes had no idiocy about god until 1956....

Click to expand...

You clearly have no idea what you are talking about. I happen to have a 1921 Morgan dollar in my hand right now, and it says "In God We Trust" on the reverse.

In God We Trust has been on U.S. currency long before the FRB started. Your opinion that the phrase "In God We Trvst" is "idiocy" is idiotic.

Tawnos said:

Odd that you claim that last sentence, when I'm the one quoting him and Madison.

As for your diatribe about separating christian beliefs from the legal system and government... Uh, you're wrong. Just so far wrong I don't even know where to start.



And then you bring up other stupidity, indicating your lack of knowledge of history. Let's see, the continental congress had money that said "mind your business". Our federal reserve notes had no idiocy about god until 1956...

...you know what, I'm done with you. You're unlikely to see anything but the inside of your own posterior, and I have better things to do and people to talk with.

Click to expand...

It started appearing on coins in 1864 and congress passed a law in 1955 to put it on paper currency when deemed practical.

sFe said:

It started appearing on coins in 1864 and congress passed a law in 1955 to put it on paper currency when deemed practical.

Click to expand...

Cite please?

thebigsd said:

Cite please?

Click to expand...

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

Tawnos said:

Odd that you claim that last sentence, when I'm the one quoting him and Madison.

As for your diatribe about separating christian beliefs from the legal system and government... Uh, you're wrong. Just so far wrong I don't even know where to start.



And then you bring up other stupidity, indicating your lack of knowledge of history. Let's see, the continental congress had money that said "mind your business". Our federal reserve notes had no idiocy about god until 1956...

...you know what, I'm done with you. You're unlikely to see anything but the inside of your own posterior, and I have better things to do and people to talk with.

Click to expand...

UH OH

butt hurt!

we discuss to learn, not call names, but being I "obviously" have my head up my "posterior" as you put, you are more than welcome to leave the discusion, I wasnt calling names, just bringing up obvious reasoning. Besides if our laws were based on Darwinism it would be survival of the fittest and can you imagine that being the law of the land OMG!!!! Cya Twanos!
:banana:

sFe said:

http://www.treasury.gov/about/education/Pages/in-god-we-trust.aspx

Click to expand...

Thanks, I was more curious about the topic. It was not a case of me not believing you

Tawnos said:

...Now, if they allow any group that wants to put up their religious symbols to do so as well, it would be okay, as no preference in monetary spending would be part of the official government policy. However, the government cannot simply fund a specific religious symbol to the exclusion of others.

Click to expand...

I actually agree with Tawnos on this one. Church & State arguments aside, there were a lot of people of different faiths that died in the towers. It is insulting to only put one symbol of faith when the towers were full of a multitude. They should all be recognized. I say let the families or the individual churches place their symbols up there next to each other. Star of David, Cross, Crescent Moon, Wiccan Star, whatever the scientologists use for a symbol, that crazy atom looking thing that the Athiests use sometimes. Whatever. And if John Doe's family wants a particular KIND of Cross, or star, or 'have a nice day' smiley face, they're free to slap one up there.

Or they could just erect an American flag and cover all the bases in one shot. Eh.

As far as the cross that came out of the debris and was taken to a Catholic church- that's sorta neat I guess. (although I hate the idea that anything in a t-shape automatically becomes a 'cross' for some reason, even if it's just a burned out metal beam...) I can see them wanting to attach a special meaning to it and let it become a symbol and all that. Have the church keep it, and the Catholics can fund turning it into a 9-11 memorial and stick it out in ground zero, or out back of the church, or send it to the vatigan for people to visit. In any case, it doesn't have to be the single symbol for everyone who died that day.

frommycolddeadhands said:

although I hate the idea that anything in a t-shape automatically becomes a 'cross' for some reason, even if it's just a burned out metal beam...

Click to expand...

And the cross had religious significance long before "christians" adopted it.

tim12232 said:

Separation of church and state was originally intended to keep the government out of the church's affairs and not so much the other way around. Regardless this country was still founded upon Christian faith, if it were not, the Declaration of Independence would have made no mention of God and Creator.

IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776.

The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America,

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

You can read the rest.

Here is a little info on separation of church and state as well.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/987191/posts



Tim

Click to expand...

There is no "separation of church and state" in any law of the US. "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion." That's it. The word "separation" does not legally exist. Merely no state religion may be established.

PS. Just noted Citizen and Southern Boy beat me to it. But it bears repeating.

Gunslinger said:

There is no "separation of church and state" in any law of the US. "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion." That's it. The word "separation" does not legally exist. Merely no state religion may be established.

PS. Just noted Citizen and Southern Boy beat me to it. But it bears repeating.

Click to expand...

ANY law?

You do realize we recognize case law in this country as a form of law, right?

Gunslinger said:

There is no "separation of church and state" in any law of the US. "Congress shall make no law establishing a religion." That's it. The word "separation" does not legally exist. Merely no state religion may be established.

PS. Just noted Citizen and Southern Boy beat me to it. But it bears repeating.

Click to expand...

To clarify a bit: The argument in the Constitution was not about any individual state having a "state religion" as several of the states already had a "state" religion (Mass did into the 1800's). It was a prohibition against the US national government declaring a "national" state religion (like there are in Europe) supported by taxes. The "state" religions of the individual states were different and none of them wanted to concede their "state" religion to some "national" religion that may or may not have been the same.

It was not a prohibition against the individual states having their own state religion, only estalishing a "National" state religion.

I am very much for a proibition against a national state religion. I think the state should stay out of my personal religious beliefs, and I will not try to force my ownpersonal beliefs on others...that is fine.

The problem is: These days the PC view seems to be, freedom FROM religion, rather than freedom OF religion. Why is that a problem? Because freedom FROM religion is in effect it's own religion, that is humanism. (been through the US supreme court, yes, Humanism is to be considered a religion.

So, in effect, we do now have a National religion, even though there is a prohibition against such...that national religion is Humanism.

hermannr said:

To clarify a bit: The argument in the Constitution was not about any individual state having a "state religion" as several of the states already had a "state" religion (Mass did into the 1800's). It was a prohibition against the US national government declaring a "national" state religion (like there are in Europe) supported by taxes. The "state" religions of the individual states were different and none of them wanted to concede their "state" religion to some "national" religion that may or may not have been the same.

It was not a prohibition against the individual states having their own state religion, only estalishing a "National" state religion.

I am very much for a proibition against a national state religion. I think the state should stay out of my personal religious beliefs, and I will not try to force my ownpersonal beliefs on others...that is fine.

The problem is: These days the PC view seems to be, freedom FROM religion, rather than freedom OF religion. Why is that a problem? Because freedom FROM religion is in effect it's own religion, that is humanism. (been through the US supreme court, yes, Humanism is to be considered a religion.

So, in effect, we do now have a National religion, even though there is a prohibition against such...that national religion is Humanism.

Click to expand...

The implication in Justice Black's footnote that Secular Humanism is a religion has been seized upon by religious opponents of the teaching of evolution, who have made the argument that teaching evolution amounts to teaching a religious idea. The claim that Secular Humanism could be considered a religion for legal purposes was examined by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Peloza v. Capistrano School District, 37 F.3d 517 (9th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 515 U.S. 1173 (1995). In this case, a science teacher argued that, by requiring him to teach evolution, his school district was forcing him to teach the "religion" of Secular Humanism. The Court responded, "We reject this claim because neither the Supreme Court, nor this circuit, has ever held that evolutionism or Secular Humanism are 'religions' for Establishment Clause purposes." The Supreme Court refused to review the case.

Click to expand...

.

Tawnos said:

ANY law?

You do realize we recognize case law in this country as a form of law, right?

Click to expand...

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Case law is not binding, unless from the Supreme Court. While stare decisis often forms a foundation for a finding, it is not absolute. Even the FAC is only binding within its district.

Gunslinger said:

Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). Case law is not binding, unless from the Supreme Court. While stare decisis often forms a foundation for a finding, it is not absolute. Even the FAC is only binding within its district.

Click to expand...

I WAS citing a supreme court case.

Which was?

Gunslinger said:

Which was?

Click to expand...

Everson v. Board of Education citing Reynolds v. United States

Everson v. US said:

Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect "a wall of separation between church and State." Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.

Click to expand...

Reynolds v. US said:

Accordingly, at the first session of the first Congress, the amendment now under consideration was proposed with others by Mr. Madison. It met the views of the advocates of religious freedom, and was adopted. Mr. Jefferson afterwards, in reply to an address to him by a committee of the Danbury Baptist Association (8 id. 113), took occasion to say:

"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 the 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. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

Coming as this does from an acknowledged leader of the advocates of the measure, it may be accepted almost as an authoritative declaration of the scope and effect of the amendment thus secured.

Click to expand...

Tawnos said:

Everson v. Board of Education citing Reynolds v. United States

Click to expand...

Thanks for the cites. However, }'separation of church and state' is obiter dicta in both of them, as the subject at bar did not deal directly with 1st Amendment prohibition and guarantee and in neither case did the court attempt to redefine, broaden or restate the amendment. Quoting Jefferson in a non-legal sense also is judicial license to hunt for substantiation from sources which are not and cannot be made binding but have a philosophical bearing. Jefferson's remarks were private in nature and only his opinion. He did not write the BoR and can only conclude intent based on his own feelings, which were of course, anti-religious.