Seperation of Church and State
- 02-20-2004, 03:53 PM
How am I not opened minded, it is usually the christians that judge people for being homosexual or different. I dont care what you are, as long as you are not hurting other people with the way you live, rock on.
By your statement I'm assuming that you think it is WRONG to judge others
therefore your premise commits suicide because you are now judging others
(Christians) for judging. Also why do you think it's wrong to hurt others,
don't force your morals down my throat. <----Malthusian school of ethics
- 02-20-2004, 04:14 PM
Originally Posted by ironviking
If you have what you call Christians that judge you, then they are doing such against their religion. Like I said several times before, and you keep missing, it is ignorant to blame this behavior on religion, as anyone that believes anything tend because of self-importance, to look down on everyone else, but especially people that do not agree with them. This is a sign of pride, power-mongering, and self-importance, NOT a sign that someone must be a religious zealot.
I cannot continue to hi-jack this thread, as my conversation could go on indefinitely, but we are both definitely on different pages. The only way we can relate is for us to have the same education, and have an open-minded discussion based on facts. I'm missing your point, obviously, and you're blowing right past the relevant portions of this thread to make your points.
We will continue to disagree, but like I said, we are actually not even in the same book. I appreciate your viewpoint, but religion was intregal in founding this country (read the Federalist papers) -- you can dispute it, but history has recorded it and it has yet to be competely re-written out. In the meantime, try to earn that $250,000.00 reward; it's been around for 12 years, and it will likely remain for a while at least.
- 02-20-2004, 04:19 PM
Godlike, what the hell are you talking about?
GIJOE questioned if I was opened minded, my statement shows how I am opened minded enough to accept others no matter what they are.
How did I try to force my morals down your throat?
Your post seems to have no stance, it just seems to be there to try and be irritating. Excuse me if Im mistaken on my last comment.
02-20-2004, 06:51 PM
GIJoe, I just wanted to let you know how insightful and thought out your responses are, and I have really enjoyed reading them. This topic has opened up quite nicely as I hoped it would.
I also whole heartedly agree with you that people who base their beliefs on a "lack of evidence" in religion really have no evidence in supporting their views; just the opposite of what they argue. Maybe we could throw together some information on the basis that religion (Christianity) can be validated historically, scientificly, and supported by archeloogy. although I do assume that would be a powder keg waiting to erupt, but would be very interesting and educational for all involved if we kept it at a mature level.
02-21-2004, 12:30 PM
GIJOE just because there is no scientific basis that there is no God doesnt mean there is a scientific basis that there is one either. I disagree with you but I respect your opinions. Also I didnt blame anything, good or bad, on religion. It is the extremists that do the horrid acts in the name of religion.
I agreed with you that religion was integral in founding this country and that is why there should be seperation from church and state. The seperation is to protect ALL religions not just christianity. What if they made it a law that you had to go to church on Sunday, you would offend and go against the beliefs of the Seventh Day Evangelists.
I haven't ruled out any God, I guess that makes me Agnostic instead of Atheist.
There has been many points in this thread that show what can happen when religion is forcefully removed from society and its government. How about one where it is forcefully placed INTO its society and government: Nigeria. Way too much to list here check it out on the internet.
Custom, your right it has stayed civilized here, very good thread. Remember though all religions can somehow be validated historically, scientifically, and supported by archeology just as they can be disputed.
02-21-2004, 04:14 PM
Foundational Principles & Character, not Philosophies or Doctrine, to run our Country
Iron, appreciate the respect, and I respect your views also.
Let me assure you that the United States as a country being controlled by one christian religion is an IMPOSSIBILITY; maybe not statistically, but I have never seen so much fighting and division as when different religions get together to establish a consistant philosophy. As a hypothetical, one religion rules the country, all kaos breaks loose in a country that has established freedom from any one religion. Trust me, multiple religions have not worked together in the past, nor will they in the future, at least in our lifetimes
On the contrary, it is not a religion or any one religious philosophy that I see a need for in government, but the basic principles behind these religions that are invaluable, even indispensible. Character is the one thing most lacking in this country. I can trust very few people anymore; I have to do everything it seems myself, because few people do the work or job they are supposed to do. Where is the emphasis on helping others anymore? It seems that we solve this problems with a social program, instead of spending time looking out for others less fortunate than us. The Ten Commandments may not be mandatory to follow literally, but the principles behind the laws are invaluable (do not kill, steal, covet has to do with respect of others; children obey your parents , that your days may be long, deals with bitterness among other things and the deliterious effects in has on the human body; etc.). Where is discernment and wise decisionmaking taught anymore -- certainly not in schools now, but it used to be. So yes, I'll support no religion in govornment with you, as long as you support the emphasis on character with me without discriminating against religion when emphasis is placed on Bible verses to illustrate an example of good behavior or character. The Proverbs are replete with prose and poetry emphasizing character and discernment; we are quick to emphasize Dante, Plato, Aristotle, etc., and reference them as classics, but turn quickly against ANY reference even to the Biblical prose for art, educational benefit, or historical significance. These are the true inconsistant, close-minded individuals that are dangerous to society.
Yes, I agree with you that religion has no place in government in this way: there are philosophies, religions if you will, that are ironically anti-religious. Humanism, socialism, etc. are defined as religions, but their tenets are very anti-religious, to the point of eliminating religion altogether, or at least discriminating heavily against and demeaning it. This is a big part of the Hollywood establishment (not everyone, of course), among other people, and if you don't believe me, watch video footage of how most Hollywood elites react to anything christian: it is a reaction of pure malice, hatred, and yes, often a violent one. These are the religious zealots that are dangerous to the country. They corrupt we citizens with entertainment which has subtle anti-christian undertones, demean character and people which emphasize thinking of others and their plights, constantly emphasize movie decisions based on emotional situations, instead of facts; make us believe we can solve anything in under two hours; desensitize audiences with sex, violence, and ridiculous language, when it has already been proven that more tickets could be sold and more money made if these things were toned down (respect of others).
These philosophies are not mainstream by any means, and yet they permeate this country, teach discrimination, engender strife, and cause problems in society. Humanism, socialism, atheism, communism, agnosticism, etc. are classified as religions according to the Supreme Court, along with christianity, mormonism, buddhism, etc. The truly scary thing is, the first five religions are completely intolerant of religion that involves a God; they are violently opposed, for the most part, to anything relating to God, and these philosophies permeate colleges and universities, often in the form of professors who have nothing better to do in life than wreck young impressionable students with their superior knowledge base.
I too am not in favor of religions taking over our government, but it is happening; these anti-religions are grabbing a foothold, slowly de-emphasizing character and ethics, and putting the country's moral base at risk by emphasizing pleasure and self-gratification as superior to all else. This country has to have a minimum ethical standard by which to judge things by; creating a country which operates based on moral ambiguity, and judges a situation based on the general feelings of the people at the time, has been tried many times in history, and has a strong history of failure (by that I mean the countries were eventually destroyed by employing these philosophies -- Rome, Greece, Babylon, etc.)
I think we can both agree that teaching character is very important (maybe not to judge and condemn others, but definitely to improve ourselves), and the most consistant standard for character values is undeniably the foundational principles found in most godly religions' basic tenets. Every law written in this country, and anywhere else for that matter, legislates someone's morality; so keep philosophy out, allow principles in. Otherwise I fear as proven so many other times in history, our country without structure, will lead to our demise.
02-21-2004, 05:50 PM
03-03-2006, 05:55 PM
The Separation of Church and State was established to protect the twin towers of religion and morality; George Washington never said anything this being a nation under God; and one of laws of nature’s God is not to mix religion and government.Originally Posted by goldylight
03-03-2006, 06:01 PM
The Congressional Records you referenced don't even mention Great Britain, Catholics, Anglicans, God’s principles or denominations.Originally Posted by goldylight
03-03-2006, 06:16 PM
The Court was a Maryland Court; it was not a ruling; and it pertained to the government of Maryland. The Maryland establishment of religion was on paper only (carried over from the Colonial Charter when war broke out in 1776) and was never ratified by the people of Maryland. The authority to establish the Christian religion was never exercised and eventually removed from the Maryland Constitution. Anyone that had attempted to legally establish religon in Maryland after 1776 would have probably wound up in a pine box.Originally Posted by goldylight
03-03-2006, 06:19 PM
Originally Posted by goldylight
The Baptist's letter to Thomas Jefferson did not even mention a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination.
03-03-2006, 06:25 PM
President Jefferson's letter to the Danbury Baptists did not even mention a national denomination, protection of the church; open and free religious expression, orthodox religious practices, true religious expression, true religious duties, a menace to the government or the overall peace and good order of society.Originally Posted by goldylight
03-26-2006, 10:24 AM
That is why they established a strict separation of church and state at the federal level. When religion and politics mix they are like poision to each other.Originally Posted by goldylight
In that case you are not a loyal American because you are attacking the just and truly Christian principle of no civil authority over matters of religion (the duty which we owe to our Creator).Originally Posted by goldylight
Show me where Christians ever talked about the laws of nature's God. That was a term coined by the Diests.Originally Posted by goldylight
Why didn't the First U. S. Congress ever pray during its daily sessions?Originally Posted by goldylight
What Christian principles are you talking about senior?Originally Posted by goldylight
You should have been at the Texas Constitutional Convention in 1845. You would have heard a lot of talk about how the Separation of Church and State was essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness; and how they did not want Bibles in the public schools, the Presbyterians trying to stop the transporting of the mail on Sundays or ministers of the Gospel in the Texas legislature.Originally Posted by goldylight
Texans Loved the Separation of Church and State in 1845
Read the excerpts presented below to learn what the delegates to the Texas Constitution said about the Separation of Church and State at the 1845 Constitutional Convention.
Mr. Baylor spoke in support of the proposed ban on members of the clergy serving as State Legislators and said that the ban was calculated to keep clear and well defined the distinction between Church and State, so essentially necessary to human liberty and happiness. Page 163, Debates of the Texas Convention. Wm. F. Weeks, Reporter, published by authority of the convention, Houston, Published by J.W.Cruger, 1846.
Mr. Davis said The only reason why I rise is that during my canvass in Liberty County, I was accused of wishing to unite Church and State, in consequence of my opinions upon this subject. I deny that it is uniting Church and State to permit ministers of the gospel to participate in the legislation of the country. Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Davis expressed his view that if an effort is desired to be made by the religious portion of the community to unite Church and State, may it not as well be made by the members of the churches as ministers of the gospel? Page 167, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Love pointed out that Protestants marked out a different line of policy. They said it was wrong to unite church and State, wrong that the law should settle the rule of faith, and regulate the religion of Jesus Christ. They would not admit that men should be subject to human authority in matters of opinion: they denied the right to control the conscience, it claimed the right to worship as they pleased; although they submitted to the authority of the law, necessary to prevent crime and preserve the good order of society. It was the cause of the success of Protestantism. Page 170, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Brown said that religion and politics are things that must forever run in parallel lines which never meet; for whenever they meet, there is contamination, and religion has in it much more of earth than heaven. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Brown I am not willing upon any consideration to relinquish the principle that Church and State, by every mode that can enter into the imagination of this body, should be kept separate, that neither may become corrupt, that religion should have its, powerful sway and benefit influence over private life, and that political affairs should rest in the hands of political men: This, sir, is a discrimination which I feel bound to observe. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Brown - It seems to me safer and better for the institution of religion and better for the institution of government, that the two bodies, both grasping at power, both capable of forming contributions, formidable to liberty on the one hand and to religion on the other, should be kept forever separate and distinct. Page 177, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mr. Evans stated they have declared in that Bill of Rights that all men have a natural and indefeasible right to worship God according to the dictates of their own consciences: that no man shall be compelled to attend or support a place of worship, or to maintain any ministry against his consent that no human authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or interfere with the rights of conscience: and that no preference shall ever be given by law, to any religious societies, or mode of worship. Is not that article amply sufficient guard and security against the union of church and state? If not, I will go with any gentleman to make it stronger. But how does the exclusion of the ministers of religion from our legislative halls tend to defeat the ruin of church and state. What bearing has such an exclusion upon it? I say it has none at all. Page 184, Debates of the Texas Convention.
Mabey you don't see the words because you don't want to . Mabey Satan has blinded you. James Madison says the words are there and he was the smartest man that ever lived. He was also the premier authority, during the Early Years of the Republic ,on the meaning of the religion clauses.Originally Posted by goldylight
It is clear that Rep. Daniel Carroll wanted more that just safeguards aginst one denomination running the nation. He wanted to prohibit the government from even touching the rights of conscience.Originally Posted by goldylight
Rep. James Livermore also wanted more that just safeguards aginst one denomination running the nation. He wanted to prohibit the government from touching religion.
Rep. Peter Sylvester wanted to make sure that religion was not abolished.
Rep. James Madison wanted more that just safeguards aginst one denomination running the nation. He wanted laws as might infringe the rights of conscience. (He thought that government advice on religion infringee the rights of conscience)
Rep. Joseph Huntington did not want the people to have a right to support religion as directed by their consciences. He wanted the government to that.
Presented below are all the recorded references to the religion clauses during the drafting of the Bill of Rights by the First Congress
The Debate in the House
Monday, June 8, 1789:
[James Madison speaking]: Fourthly. That in article 1st, section 9, between clauses 3 and 4, be inserted these clauses to wit: The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretext infringed.
Fifthly. That in article 1st, section 10, between clauses 1 and 2 be inserted this clause to wit: No state shall violate the equal rights of conscience, or freedom of the press, or trial by jury in criminal cases. (Annals of Congress, 1:434-435)
Saturday, August 15, 1789:
The House again went into a Committee of the Whole on the proposed amendments to the Constitution. Mr. Boudinot in the chair.
The fourth proposition being under consideration, as follows: Article 1. Section 9. Between paragraphs two and three insert 'no religion shall be established by law, nor shall the equal rights of conscience be infringed.'
Mr. SYLVESTER had some doubts of the propriety of the mode of expression used in this paragraph. He apprehended that it was liable to a construction different from what had been made by the committee. he feared it might be thought to abolish religion altogether.
MR. VINING suggested the propriety to transposing the two members of the sentence.
MR. GERRY said it would read better if it was no religious doctrine shall be established by law.
MR. SHERMAN thought the amendment altogether unnecessary, inasmuch as Congress had 'no authority whatever delegated to them by the Constitution to make religious establishments; he would, therefore, move to have it struck out.'
MR. CARROLL As the rights of conscience are, in their nature, a peculiar delicacy, and will little bear the gentlest touch of governmental hand; and as many sects have concurred in opinion that they are not well secured under the present constitution, he said he was much in favor of adopting the words. He thought it would tend more towards conciliating the minds of the people to the government than almost any other opinion he heard proposed. He would not contend with gentlemen about the phraseology, his object was to secure the substance in such a manner as to satisfy the wishes of the honest part of the community.
MR. MADISON said he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforced the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience. Whether the words are necessary or not, he did not mean to say, but they had been required by some of the state conventions, who seemed to entertain an opinion, that under the clause of the Constitution, which gave power to Congress to make all laws necessary and proper to carry into execution the constitution, and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience, and establish a national religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
MR. HUNTINGTON said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely hurtful to the cause of religion. He understood the amendment to mean what had been expressed by the gentleman from Virginia; but others might find it convenient to put another construction on it. The ministers of their congregations to the eastward were maintained by contributions of those who belong to their society; the expense of building meeting houses was contributed in the same manner. These things were regulated by bylaws. If an action was brought before a federal court on any of these cases, the person who had neglected to perform his engagements could not be compelled to do it; for a support of ministers or buildings of places of worship might be construed into a religious establishment.
By the charter of Rhode Island, no religion could be established by law; he could give a history of the effects of such a regulation; indeed the people were now enjoying the blessed fruits of it. He hoped, therefore, the amendment would be made in such a way as to secure the rights of conscience, and the free exercise of religion, but not to patronize those who professed no religion at all.
MR. MADISON thought, if the word 'National' was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combined together, and establish a religion, to which they would compel others to conform. He thought if the word 'National' was introduced, it would point the amendment directly to the object it was intended to prevent.
MR. LIVERMORE was not satisfied with the amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it were altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.
MR. GERRY did not like the term National, proposed by the gentleman from Virginia, and he hoped it would not be adopted by the House. It brought to his mind some observations that had taken place in the Conventions at the time they were considering the present constitution. It had been insisted upon by those who were called anti-federalists, that this form of government consolidated the union; the honorable gentleman's motion shows that he considers it in the same light. Those who were called anti-federalists at that time, complained that they were in favor of a federal government, and the others were in favor of a National one; the federalists were for ratifying the constitution as it stood, and the others did not until amendments were made. Their names then ought not to have been distinguished by federalists and anti-federalists, but rats and anti-rats.
MR. MADISON withdrew his motion but observed that the words 'no National religion shall be established by law', did not imply that the government was a national one; the question was then taken on MR. LIVERMORE's motion, and passed in the affirmative 31 for it, and 20 against it. (Annals of Congress 1:729-731)
Monday, August 17, 1789:
The committee then proceeded to the fifth proposition:
Article I, Section 10 between the first and second paragraph, insert 'No state shall infringe the equal rights of conscience, nor the freedom of speech or of the press, nor of the right of trial by jury in criminal cases.'
MR. TUCKER: this is offered, I presume, as an amendment to the constitution of the United States, but it goes only to the alteration of constitutions of particular states. It will be much better, I apprehend, to leave the state governments to themselves, and not to interfere with them more than we already do; and that is thought by many to be rather too much. I therefore move, Sir, to strike out these words.
MR. MADISON conceives this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list. If there were any reason to restrain the government of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the state governments. He thought that if they provided against one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and it was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people.
MR. LIVERMORE had no great objection to the sentiment, but he thought it not well expressed. He wished to make it an affirmative proposition; 'the equal rights of conscience, the freedom of speech or of the press, and the right of trial by jury in criminal cases, shall not be infringed by any state.'
This transposition being agreed to, and MR. TUCKER'S motion being rejected, the clause was adopted. (Note: In the final wording of the amendments that were sent to the Senate the transposition had not taken place. No reason for that mistake is recorded). (Annals of Congress, 1:755)
Thursday, August 20, 1789:
On motion of MR. AMES, the fourth amendment was altered to read 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion or to prevent the free exercise thereof, or to infringe the rights of conscience.' This being adopted..." (Annals of Congress, 1:766)
The Debate in the Senate
All that is recorded of the debate over the religion clauses in the Senate of the First Congress is a list of motions and votes in the Senate Journal. Constitutional scholar Derek Davis summarizes the record as follows:
[The] amendment as submitted to the Senate...reflected a stylistic change that gave it the following reading: 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.' No record was left of the proceedings that brought about this stylistic change.
The Senate began deliberations on the House amendment on 3 September and continued through 9 September. The Ames amendment must have provoked controversy in the Senate, since several alternative versions were suggested in its place. In considering the House's draft, a Senate motion was first made to strike out 'religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' and to insert, 'one religious sect or society in preference to others.' The motion was rejected, and then passed. Thus, the first new Senate version read, 'Congress shall make no law establishing one religious sect or society in preference to others, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.'
After further debate, the Senate rejected two alternative wordings. First, they rejected language providing, 'Congress shall not make any law, infringing the rights of conscience, or establishing any Religious Sect or Society." Second, they rejected the language providing, "Congress shall make no law establishing any particular denomination of religion in preference to another, or prohibiting free exercise thereof, nor shall the rights of conscience be infringed.'
Later the same day, 3 September, the Senate adopted a draft the treated religion more generically. 'Congress shall make no law establishing religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.' Six days later, the Senate again changed its mind and adopted as its final form of the amendment, 'Congress shall make no law establishing articles of faith or a mode of worship, or prohibiting the free exercise of religion.'
The Senate version of the Amendment was sent to the House, which rejected it.
A House-Senate joint conference (Madison, Sherman, Vining representing the House, Ellsworth, Carroll, Paterson representing the Senate) was then created to resolve the disagreement over the religion amendment. A compromise amendment was eventually agreed upon as reported under the date of September 24, 1789. (Derek Davis, Original Intent, p. 60)
The Conference Committee
September 24, 1789:
The House proceeded to consider the report of a committee of conference, on the subject matter of the amendments depending between the two houses to the several articles of amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as proposed by this House; whereupon, it was resolved, that they recede from their disagreement to all the amendments; provided that the two articles, which, by the amendments of the Senate, are now proposed to be inserted as the third and eighth articles shall be amended to read as follows: Article three, Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof, or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
On the motion, it was resolved, that the President of the United States be requested to transmit to the Executives of the several States which have ratified the constitution, copies of the amendments proposed by Congress, to be added thereto and like copies to the Executives of Rhode Island and North Carolina. (Annals of Congress, 1:913-914)
How was the Christian religion established? It wasn't. You have obviously misread or intentionally distorted what the Court said.Originally Posted by goldylight
Show me where the Baptists said anything in their letter about a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination; and I will show you where they complained about the Connecticut Certificate Law.Originally Posted by goldylight
03-28-2006, 10:25 AM
I'm against it. Churches are faction groups (note: self interest groups) and the Constitution was designed to fight these organizations from overpowering the government.
Laws and how they are executed should have absolutely no ties, no basis towards any certain religion or religion at all.
03-28-2006, 07:40 PM
That is absolutely correct. The separation of church and state is intended for there to be no state sponsored religion. The founding fathers left their homecountries where state sponsored religion resulted in the persecution of the citizen. The constitutional separation of church and state, is intended to avoid repeating that problem.Originally Posted by ironviking
The separation of church and state has been distorted to argue against religion and God. But its original intent is to prevent the establishment of an official religion. The founding fathers did not intend America to be a godless nation, but rather a nation for all to worship, or not to worship, God as he/she so pleases.
Despite the myth and misinformation, the Declaration of Independence, specifically refer to God, the Creator, and Divine Providence...
" The Declaration of Independence: 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
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
And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the
Protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our
Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor....."
Henceforth, the founding fathers specifically did NOT intend America to be a godless, non-religious nation.
03-28-2006, 08:38 PM
BTW, if people think a godless government is the way to go, there have been political systems like that already. It is called communism and socialism. Yep. No god and no religion. It took over 60 years and tens of millions of lives destroyed, to prove what a catastrophy to humanity that was. I am sure some will argue that it isn't the godless and non-religious nature of communism that destroyed it. Perhads not. But the catastrophic failure of a godless system, certainly does not speak well for it.
03-28-2006, 09:41 PM
Is declaring the people's trust in God on the nation's coins a state sponsored religion?Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Define the term "founding fathers" for us.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
James Madison said it was to exempt the duty which we owe to our Creator from the cognizance of the civil government. During the Early Days of the Republic it was Madison's view that prevalied in every dispute over the meaning of the establishment clause, except for the dispute over government support for military and legislative chaplains.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Distorted by whom and how?Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Which one of the founders said that?Originally Posted by BioHazzard
The First Amendment is so ambiguous it could mean anthing.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Does it advise us to trust in God or recommend that we believe in one nation under God or suggest that we obey any particular religious commandments?Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Is that why the First U. S. Congress did not allow prayer during its daily legislative sessions?Originally Posted by BioHazzard
03-29-2006, 05:00 PM
03-29-2006, 05:55 PM
"Religion is eminently one of these interests, lying outside the true and legitimate province of government."
03-29-2006, 07:07 PM
Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Holy hell, you neocons need to check yourself. Its what I said folks, neocons are unable to properly reason.
As a warning though, there is a clear cut difference between conservatism and neoconservatism. CDB is an example of conservatism. Biohazzard is a neocon. See the vast, gaping hole of intelligence that separates the two.
Wow. Wow. Ok, I think I'm good.
04-01-2006, 02:44 PM
Not sure how i feel about this... When people talk about Religion in american.. it only means "christianity".. all other religions are free to do what ever they wish, when ever.. All aspects of public christianity has been perverted to actually allow all to join... but with that being said.. christianity has always been a religion that would change its views and alter some things to allow people to join. When new people X were taken over by spain.. they worship a sun god with no name... then father joe whomever the hell comes in and said.. "oh! we know the name.. its Jesus.. and those other gods.. nooo they are angels and saints etc etc...
but as for church and state.. it doesn't matter.. all western religions ( jewish faith is not included in my western folder) is so watered down and usless that it will never hold true power.. the liberalization of the church has made it worthless.. therefor.. this topic is a waste of time and band width...
BUT.. with that being said... it is easier to create and control a society and economy if they are woven with religious ideology.... its great for the economy.. its great to keep a class structure... its also needed because human's are born with this feeling of abandonment and thusly religion fills that void....
04-01-2006, 03:01 PM
What exactly is a "state sponsored religion?"Originally Posted by BioHazzard
04-01-2006, 04:09 PM
Like.. the church of england... etc.. there is no "official" reglion of the USA
04-01-2006, 05:28 PM
Like the Church of England in the 1600's or the Church of England in 1789?Originally Posted by MaynardMeek
04-01-2006, 05:53 PM
Blah, I'm not even going to read the entire thread before making an idiotic 17 year old comment!
Half the laws the founding fathers originally came up with don't really hold much sway in the modern political scene.
If we are free to practice religion, then why would I get in trouble for wearing a five pointed star, having satanic signs tattooed onto my body, and worshipping the devil.
(not that I have or do any of those things, but I know kids who are interpreted as bad for those things. It's just religion, and different beliefs... who can say what is wrong and right? In the long term it doesnt matter at all.)
04-01-2006, 07:07 PM
The Congregationalist in New England worshiped the Devil.Originally Posted by Sooty
04-01-2006, 07:20 PM
Good! Equal practice of religion should be tolerated.. IMHO.
However when it starts to get out of control... things such as murder, sacrifice(unless the person volunteers) and violence - this is when the state needs to step in and take a hand in religion.
04-01-2006, 07:22 PM
I`m thinking it`s an ability to freethink not so much intelligence. There are very well educated and/or intelligent people in all movements.Originally Posted by The Experiment
Dogmatic thinking: “Vulgar believers can only operate with slogans and stereotypes within a point of view with which they egocentrically identify…”
04-01-2006, 07:26 PM
The founding fathers came from lands where there was a long history of Church+Politics meant suppresion of one group or another. As such they tried to setup a system to see that this wouldn`t happen again.
04-02-2006, 03:38 PM
What if it is my religious duty to murder or make a human sacrifice or smoke the marijuanna or take the peyote or marry many wives?Originally Posted by Sooty
04-04-2006, 11:03 AM
Does anyone know where I might find the 1853 report of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, in relation to the expediency of abolishing the office of chaplain in the public service?
04-04-2006, 05:45 PM
Unfortunately, you are just another one of those out of the mainstream, fringe lunatics... I mean fringe elements.. who have little or no meaningful participation in the society, and whose opinions are generally ignored by the majority. It is cool that our political system allows crazies to speak freely. lolOriginally Posted by The Experiment
So, what do you do? You sit around and whine about how the rest of the world is not what you fantasize how it should be. Meanwhile, time, life and the world are passing you by.... lol
P.S. Have you read the news? Us neocon rule! Took us 2 decades in the making, and we are not done yet!! You ain't seen nothing yet!! It is inevitable that new world order is one belongs to the NeoCon. Just look at the progress we make globally. Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Germany.. etc... NeoCon on a warpath to domination. The reason is simple. Our ideology is right. That's it! Plain and simple. Oh yeah.. forgot to mention.. we know how to run things, and not just yepping smart on the internet.
04-04-2006, 05:50 PM
Well, I have an idea. Why don't you check with countries that have an official religion? There are plenty of countries with state sponsored religion. I am sure they can provide you an idea what a "state sponsored religion" is.Originally Posted by FredFlash
Even better, move to live in one of those countries with an official religion or state sponsored religion. You can see for yourself how a state sponsored religion operates. I have lived in one such county for many years. You should try it. Sure beats the hell out of just talking about it online.
04-04-2006, 05:51 PM
Exactly what I said earlier.... But some people prefer their own version of reality.Originally Posted by EEmain
04-04-2006, 06:23 PM
We all have our own version of reality... but that is another thread could get real interesting too.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
04-04-2006, 09:14 PM
In 1787 the Congress passed an act in which special lands were designated "for the sole used of Christian Indians and the Moravian Bretheren missionaries, for civilizing the Indians and promoting Christianity."
--Margo Diann Abshier
04-04-2006, 09:21 PM
I'd challenge that statistic because I believe there is much dishonesty when it comes to reporting crime.Originally Posted by houseman
In addition to that, criminals "break the law", so banning guns isn't going to deter many people who are commited to breaking the law.
04-04-2006, 09:35 PM
What country was that?Originally Posted by BioHazzard
04-04-2006, 10:29 PM
What? You don't believe me?Originally Posted by FredFlash
Malaysia, where the official religion is Islam. Bear in mind that it is one of the most tolerant Islamic countries. The political system is paliarmentary monarchy. Over there, you have constitutionally protected right to religious freedom. The rights of other religions are respected and protected, officially. But the official religion is Islam. Islam is sponsored by the state and supported with taxes. Mosques are built and operated with tax money. Anything related to Islam, is supported with tax money. Over there, you simply don't question the government using YOUR tax money to support Islam. That is a no-no!!
04-05-2006, 07:38 AM
I do not question your honestly. I am interested in the relationship of Religion and State in other nations.Originally Posted by BioHazzard
Are taxes collected from the non-Islamic population to support Mosques? How does the Malaysian government sponsor the offical religion without infringing on religious freedom?
Similar Forum Threads
- By mr athlete in forum General ChatReplies: 9Last Post: 03-16-2007, 06:44 PM
- By Jarconis in forum SupplementsReplies: 11Last Post: 03-30-2003, 11:18 AM
- By Dr of Golf in forum Exercise ScienceReplies: 4Last Post: 02-16-2003, 05:13 PM
- By Lifeguard in forum Weight LossReplies: 5Last Post: 02-13-2003, 11:43 PM
- By ironviking in forum Cycle InfoReplies: 13Last Post: 02-03-2003, 04:55 PM