Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
acludem said:Read the Constitution and outside of the words "In the year of our Lord" I defy you to find one single solitary reference to God in any of the text that shapes our government. It ain't there. It's not there for a very good reason. It's not there because our founders wanted a secular government, not a religious government. They wanted this to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. The right simply refusing to acknowledge that this is fact. If they had wanted a religious government they would've put it in with the rest of what they wanted in government.
As for the separation of powers and the power of checks and balances, overriding a veto is not tantamount to saying the President simply cannot veto a law. THis is exactly what Congress is trying to do to the Supreme Court. If they pass this legislation, it will be deemed unConstitutional faster than you can say Zig Zag Zell.
acludem
acludem said:Read the Constitution and outside of the words "In the year of our Lord" I defy you to find one single solitary reference to God in any of the text that shapes our government. It ain't there. It's not there for a very good reason. It's not there because our founders wanted a secular government, not a religious government. They wanted this to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. The right simply refusing to acknowledge that this is fact. If they had wanted a religious government they would've put it in with the rest of what they wanted in government.
As for the separation of powers and the power of checks and balances, overriding a veto is not tantamount to saying the President simply cannot veto a law. THis is exactly what Congress is trying to do to the Supreme Court. If they pass this legislation, it will be deemed unConstitutional faster than you can say Zig Zag Zell.
acludem
acludem said:The extreme right of the Republican Party does want a theocracy. Many in the mainstream do want to use the power of government to at least advocate for their religion if not impose it. That's a fact. Look at the GOP platform - gay marriage bans based on religious dogma, support for faith-based groups to get federal money with no strings attached, etc.
The Constitution is our governing document, not the Declaration of Independence which was a brilliant piece of propaganda designed to gain popular support for separation from England. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison who are more responsible for the end product of the Constitution then just about anyone else were both Deists and both were adamantly in favor of strict separation of church and state. Even John Adams, a devoutly religious man believed strong in keeping church and state separate.
acludem said:Read the Constitution and outside of the words "In the year of our Lord" I defy you to find one single solitary reference to God in any of the text that shapes our government. It ain't there. It's not there for a very good reason. It's not there because our founders wanted a secular government, not a religious government. They wanted this to protect the state from the church and the church from the state. The right simply refusing to acknowledge that this is fact. If they had wanted a religious government they would've put it in with the rest of what they wanted in government.
acludem
acludem said:Separation of Church and state was implicit in the Constitution...because God wasn't included in the governmening structure.
acludem
ScreamingEagle said:How about the word "blessings"? Definitely a reference to God...or not, if you're an atheist. It's all in the interpretation...
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
acludem said:The extreme right of the Republican Party does want a theocracy. Many in the mainstream do want to use the power of government to at least advocate for their religion if not impose it. That's a fact. Look at the GOP platform - gay marriage bans based on religious dogma, support for faith-based groups to get federal money with no strings attached, etc.
The Constitution is our governing document, not the Declaration of Independence which was a brilliant piece of propaganda designed to gain popular support for separation from England. Benjamin Franklin and James Madison who are more responsible for the end product of the Constitution then just about anyone else were both Deists and both were adamantly in favor of strict separation of church and state. Even John Adams, a devoutly religious man believed strong in keeping church and state separate.
acludem
CivilLiberty said:Here, it is "BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY", not "Blessings of the lord".
I think that's pretty clear. The term "blessing" has many secular meanings:
---
blessing
n 1: the formal act of giving approval; "he gave the project his blessing"; "his decision merited the approval of any sensible person" [syn: approval, approving] [ant: disapproval]
2: a desirable state; "enjoy the blessings of peace"
3: To confer well-being or prosperity on.
4: To endow, as with talent.
---
I really wish you people would stop trying to fit "God" into the constitution. God's not there, and neither is religion, except in the first amendment, wherein the law is written that the government shall make no establishment of any religion. The single mention of religion in the supreme law of that land is a mention forbidding governmental involvement in either establishing religion, or preventing the free exercise thereof.
Hey folks, it's a secular government, separated from religion - get over it!
Regards,
Andy
ScreamingEagle said:You conveniently left out another meaning of the word blessing: it also means "the gift of divine favor" which does reference a God.
I am so sick and tired of you liberals playing word games with us. Yes, we know our government is "secular" in the sense that it is not "religious" and not a theocracy. It was the intent of our founders to make sure that everybody had freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. It is the intent of the ACLU and other liberals and communists to make our government totally free FROM religion, except for the "religion" of secularism.
Since you want to play word games, secularism means according to Webster:
1. worldly spirit, views, or the like; esp., a system of doctrines and practices that disregards or rejects any form of religious faith or worship.
2. the belief that religion and ecclesiatical affairrs should not enter into the functions of the state, esp. into public education.
I know that it is the second definition that you think is what is being promoted by the left. However, I disagree. What is REALLY being promoted is the first definition. You will note that the first meaning says that secularism is a SYSTEM OF DOCTRINES AND PRACTICES. Sounds pretty much like a "belief system" or a "religion" to me!
Our government was NOT set up to disregard or reject any form of religious faith or worship. However, this is exactly what the ACLU and others are trying to do - to eliminate any form of religion except what they are pushing: secularism.
Our Constitution allows for the EXPRESSION of all religions. In other words, our government is all INCLUSIVE OF ALL RELIGIONS. The only caveat is that no religion can take over the government. It appears to me that the belief system of secularism is attempting to take over the government today which is in complete disregard of what our Constitution says. You know, what you guys call "separation of church and state".
acludem said:Actually the exact language is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or abridging the free exercise thereof".
That sentence means that Congress shall not recognize any religion as "official" or "preferred" by the government. It also means that Congress shall not ban or interfere with the free practice of religion, in other words, the church and state are to be entirely separate.
The ACLU has, on many, many occassions expressly defended the rights of Christians. I have, on several occassions in the past, posted specific links to cases proving this.
acludem
Hobbit said:The bolded statement is what I disagree with. It's too much of a stretch for my tast. Congress can avoid endorsing or oppressing a religion without completely seperating itself from it. Basically, religious groups should be treated as all other independant, non-profit groups (like the ACLU). It should be given political clout according to the number of influenced voters, should be given a public voice, and should not be completely discounted when making policy (not because it's 'higher law,' but because it's what some of the voting public would like). If Congress made it against the law to wear Muslim garb in public, or required anybody to engage in a minister led prayer, I'd be the first one up in arms about it. However, I think it's bullcrap to kick the church off all public lands. Other groups are allowed their use, so why not the church, as long as they don't get any better deal than other non-profit organizations. If there's something religious on public property, let it be, unless they refuse to allow something from another religion. You can't just sever the church from anything public. What you have to do is just make sure that they get no more clout or priveledges than anybody else.
However, I think it's bullcrap to kick the church off all public lands. Other groups are allowed their use, so why not the church, as long as they don't get any better deal than other non-profit organizations.