The liberals' official hostility to religion takes a strange new turn

[PredFan]

We the subscribers, citizens of the said Commonwealth, having taken into serious consideration, a Bill printed by order of the last Session of General Assembly, entitled "A Bill establishing a provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion," and conceiving that the same if finally armed with the sanctions of a law, will be a dangerous abuse of power, are bound as faithful members of a free State to remonstrate against it, and to declare the reasons by which we are determined.

You should check into the highlighted. You won't appear so thoroughly ignorant of what you post.

Explain in detail how you think it doesnt say what I said it says?

Already did.

 

[The T]

those who claim the separation of church and state was NOT part of the founders intentions.

BEFORE she hit the "submit" button, does anybody here think that TDM realized that she had written only the introductory PORTION of a sentence but not a whole sentence?

by the way, the "separation of church and state" was ABSOLUTELY a part of the Founders' and Framers' intentions.

But what they specifically intended is clearly NOT what YOU imagine it to have been.

YOUR "understanding" of the meaning of "separation of church and state" is a piss-poor example of your liberal education.

It is wrong.

You are wrong.

If but for one word...and that would be from as the Statist distances themselves from religious practices of religion...and more toward Religion of Government of men and robbing of Liberty on every front.

 

[Katzndogz]

This is what happens when we don't teach history any more.

 

[Avatar4321]

The founders would not have wanted the peoples money spent on a religious endevor.

Madison himself said it in that letter.

It was to protect BOTH church and state.

Sending out a political mailing is a religious endevour now?

 

[Truthmatters]

then why do you think the founders would cheer the public paying for a religious message from the government?

They would not like it one bit.

You will lie about this of course

 

[Avatar4321]

This is what happens when we don't teach history any more.

which is why those who love truth need to study it and share it with whomever will listen.

 

[Liability]

Apparently YOU haven't.

Why dont you tell us what you think it says then?

I already have but it's worth repeating.

It's an objection based on the constitution to a bill proposed that would tax the people in order to pay for people to teach Christianity. The bill was a direct government sponsorship of a religion.

It sure was.

Of course, as I understand it, it was a bill proposed in Virginia in 1784.

A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion

And by its very terms it would be a tax on citizens to support CHRISTIAN teachers. That SOUNDS at least somewhat akin to the government endorsement of and establishment of a particular religion.

Opposition to it is therefore perfectly appropriate.

 

[Truthmatters]

If it has to do with ONE religion then its not what the founders wanted

 

[The T]

This is what happens when we don't teach history any more.

And revise it for thier power over others.

 

[Avatar4321]

then why do you think the founders would cheer the public paying for a religious message from the government?

They would not like it one bit.

You will lie about this of course

you do realize that one of the first acts of Congress was to publish Bibles for missionary work right?

I think they would have more of a problem with public money going for political matters than this.

 

[Truthmatters]

Madision's Memorial and Remonstrance

For example this reference. Madison wrote this to try to stop a bill that was going to tax people to support Christian teachers. Clearly a violation of the Constitution. this is not in any way the same as a congressman saying "Merry Christmas" in a letter to a constituent. Only in the twisted liberal mind would the two be the same.

It is forcing the tax payer to pay for a religious message from the government.


Same stuff and only a partisan hack would stand there and stomp his feet to pretend its not.

 

[Truthmatters]

then why do you think the founders would cheer the public paying for a religious message from the government?

They would not like it one bit.

You will lie about this of course

you do realize that one of the first acts of Congress was to publish Bibles for missionary work right?

I think they would have more of a problem with public money going for political matters than this.

Go get your proof.

I have been providing QUOTES right from the mouth of the father of our constitution.

 

[PredFan]

then why do you think the founders would cheer the public paying for a religious message from the government?

They would not like it one bit.

You will lie about this of course

A Congressman wishing a constituent a Merry Christmas at the end of a letter is not in any way a promotion of a religion.

If the letter was asking for money to be donated for a religion, or if it was a letter attempting to recruit the constituent to a particular religion, you would have a point. No taxpayer wants to pay for a congresscritter's Christmas cards to be sent out. but if I ask a Congressman to vote aginst something that is ruinous for the country, say like Obamacare, and he sends me a letter back with his response and at the end he signs off: "Merry Christmas: Congressman So-and-so", that is NOT in any way a government sponsorship of religion.

 

[The T]

If it has to do with ONE religion then its not what the founders wanted

What are YOU babbling about? The Founders only contention was that you are free to worship as you saw fit...there was to be no State Religion as there was in Britain...and you could abstain from it as well and prosper as an individual American Citizen.

And it isn't freedom FROM religion.

You need to go back to school and learn real history and shy away from revised form.

 

[Truthmatters]

James Madison's Veto Messages by Gene Garman





June 3, 1811



I have recd. fellow Citizens your address, approving my Objection to the Bill contain[in]g a grant of public land, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House Missippi Terry. Having always regarded the practical distinction between Religion & Civil Govt as essential to the purity of both, and as guaranteed by the Constn: of the U.S. I could not have otherwise discharged my duty on the occasion which presented itself. Among the various religious Societies in our Country, none have been more vigilant or constant in maintain[in]g that distinction, than the Society of which you make a part, and it is an honourable proof of your sincerity & integrity, that you are as ready to do so, in a case favoring the interest of your brethren, as in other cases. It is but just, at the same time, to the Baptist Church at Salem Meeting House, to remark that their application to the Natl. Legislature does not appear to have contemplated a grant of the Land in question, but on terms that might be equitable to the public as well as to themselves. Accept my friendly respects


------------------------------

President Madison's letter as quoted above is located in The Papers of James Madison: Presidential Series, 3:323-324

Why do you deny what the father of the constitution had to say on the matter?

This is cold hard undeniable evidence

 

[PredFan]

Why dont you tell us what you think it says then?

I already have but it's worth repeating.

It's an objection based on the constitution to a bill proposed that would tax the people in order to pay for people to teach Christianity. The bill was a direct government sponsorship of a religion.

It sure was.

Of course, as I understand it, it was a bill proposed in Virginia in 1784.

A Bill Establishing a Provision for Teachers of the Christian Religion

And by its very terms it would be a tax on citizens to support CHRISTIAN teachers. That SOUNDS at least somewhat akin to the government endorsement of and establishment of a particular religion.

Opposition to it is therefore perfectly appropriate.

Yup. Seems pretty cut and dried to me.

 

[PredFan]

Madision's Memorial and Remonstrance

For example this reference. Madison wrote this to try to stop a bill that was going to tax people to support Christian teachers. Clearly a violation of the Constitution. this is not in any way the same as a congressman saying "Merry Christmas" in a letter to a constituent. Only in the twisted liberal mind would the two be the same.

It is forcing the tax payer to pay for a religious message from the government.


Same stuff and only a partisan hack would stand there and stomp his feet to pretend its not.

Ok, well, this explains all I need to know about you. You cannot even admit when you are wrong. Not really any point in arguing any more.

 

[SillyWabbit]

I don't know, but it sounds like a lot of arguing over nothing. Congress is mailing out crap at our expense. That's news? Pretty much everyone who gets any of this shit will throw it into the trash without a second glance. The only people who'd bitch about seeing "Merry Christmas" on some crappy mailer are weirdos anyway. Fuck 'em.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

 

[PredFan]

If it has to do with ONE religion then its not what the founders wanted

What are YOU babbling about? The Founders only contention was that you are free to worship as you saw fit...there was to be no State Religion as there was in Britain...and you could abstain from it as well and prosper as an individual American Citizen.

And it isn't freedom FROM religion.

You need to go back to school and learn real history and shy away from revised form.

Unfortunately, it was the schools that did that to her.