WTF, This is what we believe?

[Procrustes Stretched]

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state clause. And please be specific.

clause?


go back to school.

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke,[1] the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[2] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's NOT in the Constitution!?!?! The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

Metaphor? Jefferson and Madison were not speaking in metaphors when they discussed a wall of separation between the state and the church.

you have a sophomoric habit of putting words into the mouths of those who challenge you -- as if you have pigeon-holed everyone. It's a kneejerk reaction that takes maturity and a desire for truth, to shed.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It doesn't matter the fact remains. God is specifically mentioned in the National Anthem and clearly marked on our currency.

Every single State preamble recognizes a Supreme Being most mentions God specifically.

Because the Constitution was meant to be a secular document. Giving each citizen the right to worship or not to worship. That's called FREEDOM of religion.

So what? Well it kind of throws your argument that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles out the window.

I never argued here that America "was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles" as I said America was never founded on Judeo-Christian principles alone.

Freedom of religion vs freedom from religion is a right wing talking point, a rephrasing of a strawman argument, meant to confuse the issue of Separation of Church and State.

The majority in each colony, wrote the individual state Constitutions. Many believed in God. So what? They did not demand we all do so when they ratified the national Constitution...and they could have. .


here is a pretty factual listing of things. Original and Early State Constitutions

I said State's Preambles, not State Constitutions.

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

I said you mentioned Preambles. I also gave a link to state constitutions because I never said states did not mention god. I've argued that states demanded religious support and more.

what are you arguing?

thank you for the link. The opponents of the rulings regarding support of the idea of separation of state and church seem to belittle it as merely a metaphor. So what? What I say is that it was not, and is not, merely a metaphor.

 

[ConHog]

I never argued here that America "was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles" as I said America was never founded on Judeo-Christian principles alone.

Freedom of religion vs freedom from religion is a right wing talking point, a rephrasing of a strawman argument, meant to confuse the issue of Separation of Church and State.

The majority in each colony, wrote the individual state Constitutions. Many believed in God. So what? They did not demand we all do so when they ratified the national Constitution...and they could have. .


here is a pretty factual listing of things. Original and Early State Constitutions

I said State's Preambles, not State Constitutions.

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

I said you mentioned Preambles. I also gave a link to state constitutions because I never said states did not mention god. I've argued that states demanded religious support and more.

what are you arguing?

thank you for the link. The opponents of the rulings regarding support of the idea of separation of state and church seem to belittle it as merely a metaphor. So what? What I say is that it was not, and is not, merely a metaphor.

That is true, some do act as if it is a metaphor, which it is not. It is also true that some anti Christian people and groups misinterpret the Amendment to mean that no sign of Christianity may EVER be seen in any government function (ie no public prayer at a high school ball game etc etc) when that is in fact not the case either. Agree, or disagree?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Again, you are confusing the issue. I don not contend that we were meant to be a Christian nation. We are obviously not, in fact we were specifically meant NOT to be a nation that officially espoused any official religion.

I am arguing that we were founded as a nation underpinned by Judea/Christian principles, and what's more I am correct.

You seem like a smart person, surely you can recognize the two separate stances.

You did not argue alone that we, America "were founded as a nation underpinned by Judea/Christian principles" because if you did there would be no argument.

That is precisely what I argued, read my very first post on the matter, I said Christian ideals, I did NOT say our government was intended to be a Christian gov't.

So, we agree. No need to go further?



Yes they did, at the state level, at the federal level they were unanimously in agreement that the federal gov't should stay out of religion. The very beginning of state's rights really.

Judea/Christian principles, have other influences. They did not spring up in a void. If Judea/Christian principles get credit, their influences do too.

Well since I personally believe that the first two people put on this earth were in fact Jews, I do not agree that Jewish principles are based off older principles. That however is a matter of belief and there is no point in you and I debating it here.

America was not founded as a Christian nation.

America was not founded by Christians (depending on how one defines Christian...and even Christians disagree there) -- ALONE.

America has always had a majority comprised of varying types and degrees of Christians/Christianity.

Well of course it wasn't founded by ONLY Christians, only a simpleton would argue such, just as only a simpleton would argue that the overwhelming majority of our founding fathers were not Christians, they were and it can't be debated.

Now back to Christian ideals. I'm assuming you are not a Christian (please correct me if I'm wrong?) But wouldn't you agree that the morals espoused by Christians are a good thing? (Note let's be clear that Christians do not always follow those morals themselves and that that should in no way dilute the ideal behind the moral.) I mean I have known, do know, and probably always will know good honorable people who are not Christians, but they live their lives (pretty much ) by what would be considered Christian values, they just don't believe in the Christian God.

The first two people cannot be Jews. According to the stories, Adam and Eve predate religious faith. Unless of course the Hebrew Bible is the last word on things and all other faiths are quite simply wrong-- that and where the fuck did all the other people come from? who did Cain marry? who were the....

quote: "Yes they did, at the state level, at the federal level they were unanimously in agreement that the federal gov't should stay out of religion. The very beginning of state's rights really."

answer: not quite. not just the federal government, but the state. It was not to be a states right issue , whether states could support religion vs the national government. states soon and later, amended their constitutions not as a way of establishing a state right, but as a way of falling into line behind federal laws.

a state could not have a right to force religious instruction or attendance while belonging to a national government that guaranteed freedom of religion.

--


quote: "I mean I have known, do know, and probably always will know good honorable people who are not Christians, but they live their lives (pretty much ) by what would be considered Christian values, they just don't believe in the Christian God."

answer: here's where you fail. what you consider lives lived by what "would be considered Christian values" can be, and are considered, to be lives lived with Buddhist,and other values.

I have studied a little bit of early Christianity. Specifically the writings of some of the early Church Fathers. I did not get a biased education in this area -- biased by Jesuits and others with an agenda. I fully understand what you mean by Christian values. I simply do not consider the values Christians share to be Christian in nature.

 

[ConHog]

You did not argue alone that we, America "were founded as a nation underpinned by Judea/Christian principles" because if you did there would be no argument.

That is precisely what I argued, read my very first post on the matter, I said Christian ideals, I did NOT say our government was intended to be a Christian gov't.

So, we agree. No need to go further?



Yes they did, at the state level, at the federal level they were unanimously in agreement that the federal gov't should stay out of religion. The very beginning of state's rights really.

Well since I personally believe that the first two people put on this earth were in fact Jews, I do not agree that Jewish principles are based off older principles. That however is a matter of belief and there is no point in you and I debating it here.

America was not founded as a Christian nation.

America was not founded by Christians (depending on how one defines Christian...and even Christians disagree there) -- ALONE.

America has always had a majority comprised of varying types and degrees of Christians/Christianity.

Well of course it wasn't founded by ONLY Christians, only a simpleton would argue such, just as only a simpleton would argue that the overwhelming majority of our founding fathers were not Christians, they were and it can't be debated.

Now back to Christian ideals. I'm assuming you are not a Christian (please correct me if I'm wrong?) But wouldn't you agree that the morals espoused by Christians are a good thing? (Note let's be clear that Christians do not always follow those morals themselves and that that should in no way dilute the ideal behind the moral.) I mean I have known, do know, and probably always will know good honorable people who are not Christians, but they live their lives (pretty much ) by what would be considered Christian values, they just don't believe in the Christian God.

The first two people cannot be Jews. According to the stories, Adam and Eve predate religious faith. Unless of course the Hebrew Bible is the last word on things and all other faiths are quite simply wrong-- that and where the fuck did all the other people come from? who did Cain marry? who were the....

quote: "Yes they did, at the state level, at the federal level they were unanimously in agreement that the federal gov't should stay out of religion. The very beginning of state's rights really."

answer: not quite. not just the federal government, but the state. It was not to be a states right issue , whether states could support religion vs the national government. states soon and later, amended their constitutions not as a way of establishing a state right, but as a way of falling into line behind federal laws.

a state could not have a right to force religious instruction or attendance while belonging to a national government that guaranteed freedom of religion.

--


quote: "I mean I have known, do know, and probably always will know good honorable people who are not Christians, but they live their lives (pretty much ) by what would be considered Christian values, they just don't believe in the Christian God."

answer: here's where you fail. what you consider lives lived by what "would be considered Christian values" can be, and are considered, to be lives lived with Buddhist,and other values.

I have studied a little bit of early Christianity. Specifically the writings of some of the early Church Fathers. I did not get a biased education in this area -- biased by Jesuits and others with an agenda. I fully understand what you mean by Christian values. I simply do not consider the values Christians share to be Christian in nature.

I was dead serious when I said I wouldn't get in a debate with you on whether my religion was correct or not.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I said State's Preambles, not State Constitutions.

'A Wall of Separation' (June 1998) - Library of Congress Information Bulletin

I said you mentioned Preambles. I also gave a link to state constitutions because I never said states did not mention god. I've argued that states demanded religious support and more.

what are you arguing?

thank you for the link. The opponents of the rulings regarding support of the idea of separation of state and church seem to belittle it as merely a metaphor. So what? What I say is that it was not, and is not, merely a metaphor.

That is true, some do act as if it is a metaphor, which it is not. It is also true that some anti Christian people and groups misinterpret the Amendment to mean that no sign of Christianity may EVER be seen in any government function (ie no public prayer at a high school ball game etc etc) when that is in fact not the case either. Agree, or disagree?

I see very few people taking that view. I do see many people misinterpret court cases as being decided on the arguments of those few. Just because a handful of people spouse a certain view and they support court decisions does not mean the court decided on those views. Read the judgments in the court cases and the arguments of the few.

Your opinions of what the few are saying are themselves deceitful and/or deceptive. The argument is that public prayer should not be supported by public dollars and at the same time seem to be coercive. I know the goal of a few is to ban all prayer in and around government sponsored events, but that is not the argument many use in court.

one can differentiate between the goals of a group and their arguments, without leaving behind the principles involved.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I was dead serious when I said I wouldn't get in a debate with you on whether my religion was correct or not.

there is a debate, in that what is debatable involves arguments that need support in order to be considered truthful/factual. Stating a belief is a challenge to others. Stating a belief invites arguing what you believe vs what others believe, because beliefs by themselves are not facts/truths.

 

[The T]

The problem is now one wants to be *gasp* offensive. We are moving into this area of hell called political correctness.

Here is my problem. If you think the constitution is offensive, LEAVE.

Agreed. the PC nonsense is tearing this Republic asunder. These people won't leave this nation...they wish to stay put and wreck it so we look like the EU or some turd-world place.

American Exceptionalism is something they have a very low regard for.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The problem is now one wants to be *gasp* offensive. We are moving into this area of hell called political correctness.

Here is my problem. If you think the constitution is offensive, LEAVE.

Agreed. the PC nonsense is tearing this Republic asunder. These people won't leave this nation...they wish to stay put and wreck it so we look like the EU or some turd-world place.

American Exceptionalism is something they have a very low regard for.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Okay......but what about the 10 Commandments? Those are Jewish.

So? What does it matter if they are buddhist, christian, muslim or jewish? We have the freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion .

Seperation of church and state doesn't mean you cant talk about religion or display religious stuff in public places it just means that you can not establish a state religion or discriminate against a group of individuals based on their religion.

and there is a valid argument that when the state sponsors or pays in any way, for Church activities, it is supporting an establishment of religion.

State Constitutions used to demand religion...the national Constitution disregarded that idiocy.

----.

States can sponsor prayer without making whatever religion(s) are praying an established religion. My state constitution establishes a state religion which violates the first ammendment.

The national constitution does not include a seperation of church and state it only includes the freedom of religion and the freedom from the government establishing a national religion like they had in England. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Seperation of church and state is an idea garnered from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Lets get to the context and content of that letter which was a response to concerns by the Danbury Baptists. In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, they fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

As you can see his letter explained that they (the baptists he was responding to) need not fear the establishment of a national denomination. That while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control, there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices. True religious expression of all orthodox religious practices was protected for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government.

The government would interfere with a religious activity if it was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later the Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" without either the context or the explanation given in the letter Its application by earlier courts is also now ignored. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.

And there is your american history lesson of the day.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

So? What does it matter if they are buddhist, christian, muslim or jewish? We have the freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion .

Seperation of church and state doesn't mean you cant talk about religion or display religious stuff in public places it just means that you can not establish a state religion or discriminate against a group of individuals based on their religion.

and there is a valid argument that when the state sponsors or pays in any way, for Church activities, it is supporting an establishment of religion.

State Constitutions used to demand religion...the national Constitution disregarded that idiocy.

----.

States can sponsor prayer without making whatever religion(s) are praying an established religion. My state constitution establishes a state religion which violates the first ammendment.

If it is MA. I already stated that it was amended and why. try to keep up

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

States can sponsor prayer without making whatever religion(s) are praying an established religion. My state constitution establishes a state religion which violates the first ammendment.

{{{ already addressed }}}

The national constitution does not include a seperation of church and state it only includes the freedom of religion and the freedom from the government establishing a national religion like they had in England. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

Seperation of church and state is an idea garnered from a letter written by Thomas Jefferson. Lets get to the context and content of that letter which was a response to concerns by the Danbury Baptists. In 1801, the Danbury Baptist Association of Danbury, Connecticut, heard a rumor that the Congregationalist denomination was about to be made the national denomination. That rumor distressed the Danbury Baptists, as it should have. Consequently, they fired off a litter to President Thomas Jefferson voicing their concern. On January 1, 1802 Jefferson wrote the Danbury Baptists, assuring them that "the First Amendment has erected a wall of separation between church and state."

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State. Congress thus inhibited from acts respecting religion, and the Executive authorised only to execute their acts, I have refrained from prescribing even those occasional performances of devotion, practiced indeed by the Executive of another nation as the legal head of its church, but subject here, as religious exercises only to the voluntary regulations and discipline of each respective sect. 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 to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties."

As you can see his letter explained that they (the baptists he was responding to) need not fear the establishment of a national denomination. That while the wall of the First Amendment would protect the church from government control, there always would be open and free religious expression of all orthodox religious practices. True religious expression of all orthodox religious practices was protected for true religious duties would never threaten the purpose of government.

The government would interfere with a religious activity if it was a direct menace to the government or to the overall peace and good order of society. (Later the Supreme Court identified potential "religious" activities in which the government might interfere: things like human sacrifice, bigamy or polygamy, the advocation of immorality or licentiousness, etc. If any of these activities were to occur in the name of "religion," then the government would interfere, for these were activities which threaten public peace and safety; but with orthodox religious practices, the government would not interfere).

Today, all that is heard of Jefferson’s letter is the phrase "a wall of separation between church and state" without either the context or the explanation given in the letter Its application by earlier courts is also now ignored. The clear understanding of the First Amendment for a century-and-a-half was that it prohibited the establishment of a single national denomination. National policies and rulings in that century-and-a-half always reflected that interpretation.

And there is your american history lesson of the day.

lesson? this was all addressed earlier. try to read what you are replying to. it might save us all having to suffer the indignity of watching you crawl around in your swamp.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Dante you did not include the history nor the proper context.

It has now been provided so that you can make more roundly educated responses in this arena in the future.

I hope you do check into it yourself and don't continue to comment on the subject without the full context and history of what your discussing.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dante you did not include the history nor the proper context.

It has now been provided so that you can make more roundly educated responses in this arena in the future.

I hope you do check into it yourself and don't continue to comment on the subject without the full context and history of what your discussing.

the thread is not very long. the posts with their links, the ones I've followe3d, have covered it all.

thank you for being consistent

 

[ABikerSailor]

The problem is now one wants to be *gasp* offensive. We are moving into this area of hell called political correctness.

Here is my problem. If you think the constitution is offensive, LEAVE.

Agreed. the PC nonsense is tearing this Republic asunder. These people won't leave this nation...they wish to stay put and wreck it so we look like the EU or some turd-world place.

American Exceptionalism is something they have a very low regard for.

Hey douchenozzle, ever been outside of the US? American "exceptionalism"? You've gotta be fucking kidding me............on occasion, this country is full of a bunch of whiny shits that think the whole world should kow-tow to them.

Trust me.............I've been to over 26 different countries with my fellow Americans. In many cases they are much less than exceptional.

Why? Simple........most Americans think that everyone speaks English if you shout it loud enough.

They also think that we're responsible for all the great advances in the world. Yes, we have a few, but no, we're not the only ones.

Some countries have us beat in being civilized.

 

[ConHog]

The problem is now one wants to be *gasp* offensive. We are moving into this area of hell called political correctness.

Here is my problem. If you think the constitution is offensive, LEAVE.

Agreed. the PC nonsense is tearing this Republic asunder. These people won't leave this nation...they wish to stay put and wreck it so we look like the EU or some turd-world place.

American Exceptionalism is something they have a very low regard for.

Hey douchenozzle, ever been outside of the US? American "exceptionalism"? You've gotta be fucking kidding me............on occasion, this country is full of a bunch of whiny shits that think the whole world should kow-tow to them.

Trust me.............I've been to over 26 different countries with my fellow Americans. In many cases they are much less than exceptional.

Why? Simple........most Americans think that everyone speaks English if you shout it loud enough.

They also think that we're responsible for all the great advances in the world. Yes, we have a few, but no, we're not the only ones.

Some countries have us beat in being civilized.

Based off some of your posts I've read, I'd classify you as a lying sack of shit. I certainly don't trust you.

That being said, you pick one of the 26 countries you've been to that you feel is better than the US, turn your US citizenship in, agree to never return and I will pick up all moving costs , including first class flight for you to get there.

 

[FA_Q2]

It is a private publisher and is their right to include the warning, which i find ridiculous, with their product.

I don't find the changes to the textbooks inaccurate or wrong.

Seriously, you are going to defend that crap! Writing out JEFFERSON!!!! He is most likely the framer that I hold the closest because of his MANY writings on what our government is supposed to be. He is being removed for PURELY POLITICAL HACK REASONS. They don't like the fact he coined the term separation of church and state... SO WHAT, that is what we have and that is what the framers had set up. There are a few changes that I can agree with but the majority are done with a political agenda and that is completely wrong. Attempting to indoctrinate children into your agenda by warping history is plain wrong and I cannot see how you can support that.

The Framers of our constitution never set up any separation of church and state. You will not find this term in the Constitution or any other official Government Document of the time. Cousin Jefferson wrote those words in a letter to a church. I suggest you read the first amendment and understand exactly what it does say. That is what should be taught in our schools.

The term separation of church and state may not be there but the concept certainly is in the first amendment...

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.

NO law respecting an establishment of religion. It is not stated as THE establishment but an establishment and it is clear with the statement NO law. What that says to me is that there is a clear separation between the state and religion. I have no idea what the contention is in that regular, it is crystal clear. Making decisions about school texts based on a specific religion IS establishing a religious practice and that is a nono. If it was a MUSLIM board making Islamic slanted changes to text books you would all be up in arms. That is the test for me, if it not all right for it to happen against me then it is not all right for it to happen for me.

Where in the Constitution is the separation of church and state clause. And please be specific.

clause?


go back to school.

Reflecting a concept often credited in its original form to the English political philosopher John Locke,[1] the phrase separation of church and state is generally traced to the letter written by Thomas Jefferson in 1802 to the Danbury Baptists, in which he referred to the First Amendment to the United States Constitution as creating a "wall of separation" between church and state.[2] The phrase was quoted by the United States Supreme Court first in 1878, and then in a series of cases starting in 1947. This led to increased popular and political discussion of the concept.

Separation of church and state - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's NOT in the Constitution!?!?! The metaphor was used exclusively to keep the state out of the church's business, not to keep the church out of the state's business.

The constitution states, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Both the free exercise clause and the establishment clause place restrictions on the government concerning laws they pass or interfering with religion. No restrictions are placed on religions except perhaps that a religious denomination cannot become the state religion.

Of course, that is why religious groups can and are politically active. There is nothing wrong with that nor is there anything wrong with bible studies and other such groups being organized by students though the ACLU believes that there is. That does not give the government the go ahead to skew history toward a religion.


How is it difficult to see the hypocrisy here? Jefferson was written out SPECIFICALLY FOR HIS STATEMENT 'SEPARATION OF CHURCH AND STATE.' That is a clear changing in the books specifically pushing a political viewpoint NOT a historical one. No matter what you believe in this regard, the change is STILL politically motivated. If you agree with that then you MUST agree with a liberal slanting of the education system as well or you are a hypocrite. I guess that many of you will not own up to that and treat these things as a one way street.


IMHO, school books are not written with a liberal slant. It is not the BOOKS that I read in school that were slanted, it was the TEACHERS as most of academia is liberal. Changing the books will only make it WORSE as they will feel attacked and take proper steps to fight it.

 

[FA_Q2]

That's why the Declaration of Independence, The National Anthem, The Preamble to the Constitution, the Constitution, and every State Preamble mentions God. Not to mention our National motto which is clearly printed on every piece of American currency.

The National Anthem, and American currency, came later.

Almost every State Preamble (maybe every) mentions God, but many State Preambles also mention what Church would be the state Church, and many State Preambles demanded public support (demanded, no vote here) of Churches.

The founders of the USA chose to keep that shit out of the national Constitution.

Superstitious beliefs in a higher power are written into almost every document. So what?

It doesn't matter the fact remains. God is specifically mentioned in the National Anthem and clearly marked on our currency.

Every single State preamble recognizes a Supreme Being most mentions God specifically.

Because the Constitution was meant to be a secular document. Giving each citizen the right to worship or not to worship. That's called FREEDOM of religion.

So what? Well it kind of throws your argument that this country was not founded upon Judeo-Christian principles out the window.

This country WAS founded Judeo-Christian principles. The crux of the issue is that DOES NOT MATTER. Yes, there is a clear Christian influence in this nation but it was founded on the ideal that everyone should be free and that is the most basic and important value we have as a nation. THAT value is attacked when the state begins to sponsor any religion and political viewpoint. Just because were founded under Judeo-Christian principles does not make us a Christian nation. We are a FREE nation.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The problem is now one wants to be *gasp* offensive. We are moving into this area of hell called political correctness.

Here is my problem. If you think the constitution is offensive, LEAVE.

Agreed. the PC nonsense is tearing this Republic asunder. These people won't leave this nation...they wish to stay put and wreck it so we look like the EU or some turd-world place.

American Exceptionalism is something they have a very low regard for.

Hey douchenozzle, ever been outside of the US? American "exceptionalism"? You've gotta be fucking kidding me............on occasion, this country is full of a bunch of whiny shits that think the whole world should kow-tow to them.

Trust me.............I've been to over 26 different countries with my fellow Americans. In many cases they are much less than exceptional.

Why? Simple........most Americans think that everyone speaks English if you shout it loud enough.

They also think that we're responsible for all the great advances in the world. Yes, we have a few, but no, we're not the only ones.

Some countries have us beat in being civilized.

Whoopty fucking doo ass clown...you and your drunk, irresponsible shipmates is what made your port visits so shitty. Grow the fuck up whiner!!!!

 

[skookerasbil]

i got an email about this today and thought i would easily disprove it. I have friends who send me stuff and ask if it's for real. People this is for real. Here is a disclaimer copied from a book being sold on amazon:

"2008 wilder publications

this book is a product of it's time and does not reflect the same values
as it would if it were written today. Parents might wish to discuss with
their children how views on race, gender, sexuality, ethnicity, and
interpersonal relations have changed since this book was written before
allowing them to read this classic work."

the name of the book?

the constitution
the declaration of independence and
the articles of confederation

now i understand that yes we have changed the way we think about many things, but this is taught in history classes. Anyone who wants to warn my kids about the constitution of the united states won't see any dollars from my wallet.

Oh and here is the page on amazon:

amazon.com: The constitution, the declaration of independence, and the articles of confederation (9781604592689): Books

read it for yourself. I still can't believe it.

holy mother of God!!!!!!!