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.
You know, you really need to research the first amendment a bit more dear.
It is not even debatable that the purpose of the first amendment was that CONGRESS, as in the FEDERAL CONGRESS, shall make no law establishing a religion. THEY WANTED THAT POWER RESERVED FOR THE STATES. Thats what the Constitution was mainly about, STATE POWERS VS CENTRAL GOVT POWERS. The founding fathers feared too powerful of a central govt. thats why the original doc's had to be revised to come to our current constitution which wasnt ratified until, what? 1789? because the old govt wasnt working because there wasnt ENOUGH power to the federal govt and it wasnt working too well.
In fact, those guys didnt even consider themselves Americans. They presented themselves as Virginians, New Yorkers and the like, declaring themselves according to the STATE they came from.
Now, again, the simple proof is that the States did have legal, official STATE sponsored religions.
IV. Religion and the Congress of the Confederation, 1774-89
The Continental-Confederation Congress, a legislative body that governed the United States from 1774 to 1789, contained an extraordinary number of deeply religious men. The amount of energy that Congress invested in encouraging the practice of religion in the new nation exceeded that expended by any subsequent American national government. Although the Articles of Confederation did not officially authorize Congress to concern itself with religion, the citizenry did not object to such activities. This lack of objection suggests that both the legislators and the public considered it appropriate for the national government to promote a nondenominational, nonpolemical Christianity.
Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war. Congress was guided by "covenant theology," a Reformation doctrine especially dear to New England Puritans, which held that God bound himself in an agreement with a nation and its people. This agreement stipulated that they "should be prosperous or afflicted, according as their general Obedience or Disobedience thereto appears." Wars and revolutions were, accordingly, considered afflictions, as divine punishments for sin, from which a nation could rescue itself by repentance and reformation.
The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people."
What laws based soley on religion do you fear will be enacted ? Don't you think this "theocracy" hyperbole makes you sound a bit hysterical. I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that we have a State that is controlled by any type of clergy and cannot imagine religions agreeing on anything long enough to sustain one.
What laws based soley on religion do you fear will be enacted ? Don't you think this "theocracy" hyperbole makes you sound a bit hysterical. I have never heard anyone seriously suggest that we have a State that is controlled by any type of clergy and cannot imagine religions agreeing on anything long enough to sustain one.
Like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan?Dunno what laws might be enacted. Why take the chance? Any religious-based laws you would like to see enacted? And I'm hardly hysterical about it. Just jawing on a messageboard about an interesting subject. I dunno how you hear my "voice" when reading my posts, but I can assure you, 99.9% of the time it's very calm. I don't think the US is controlled by the clergy, although they certainly have influence. I don't want to see any country controlled by clergy.
Like Iran, Syria, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan?
Pakistan is extreme, with a 'friendly to US' leader. Pakistan is right there with SA. Lebanon is more diverse, but under control of Iran via its proxy, Syria. Thus what I said.Absolutely. Although I can see the Iran and maybe the SA analogy, dunno about Syria, Lebanon and Pakistan. Are you talking the here and now with regard to those three, or what they could become. I see Pakistan as a more or less benevolent dictatorship with a little religion thrown in, Syria as a dictatorship period, and Lebanon as a mish mash of all sorts - but hardly any religious influence.
Pakistan is extreme, with a 'friendly to US' leader. Pakistan is right there with SA. Lebanon is more diverse, but under control of Iran via its proxy, Syria. Thus what I said.
Not really:Pakistan is only extreme in its border/country areas. The city's are reasonably secular. Syria is a proxy to Iran, but not a religious one, just anti-American. Assad has never been religious, which makes the Lebanon question redundant IMO. SA is interesting in that it's leaders rarely practice what they preach. What I will say is there are elements within Pakistan and SA that are very extreme - ie madrasses etc.
Ok, try this:Nice link. Doesn't disprove my assertion. Karachi is a bit of a strange place. It is mainly full of Muslims who left India when India was partitioned in 1948. Since then there has always been ructions between the original inhabitants and those from India. Quite a violent city, but a lot of it is due to different factions not getting along as opposed to Islam/religion. One kidnapping doesn't make a place the epitome of religious fundamentalism. Not a place I would choose to live,,,,,
Dunno what laws might be enacted. Why take the chance? Any religious-based laws you would like to see enacted? And I'm hardly hysterical about it. Just jawing on a messageboard about an interesting subject. I dunno how you hear my "voice" when reading my posts, but I can assure you, 99.9% of the time it's very calm. I don't think the US is controlled by the clergy, although they certainly have influence. I don't want to see any country controlled by clergy.
I get it. A pre-emptive strike against the "church"--just in case. We certainly wouldn't want them to-----now what is it that we're afraid of them doing again ? I'm mistaken----it's not hysteria--it's paranoia. And now you want to see the "church" banned from governments all over the world?
Answer the question Dillo. Do you wish to see any laws that have a religious slant passed? And don't answer a question with a question - bad form...
http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/rel04.html
Like Jillian, I'm confused. I thought perhaps I forgot somehow that the Articles of Confederation established a state church, but no:
I know some of the colonies did, but to what are you referring?
Answer the question Dillo. Do you wish to see any laws that have a religious slant passed? And don't answer a question with a question - bad form...
What Gunny said ! Religious slant is in the eye of the beholder. Your MO is to take an issue you don't like, find a way to give it a religious label and trash it as an attempt to create a theocracy. Your little game of "saving the US from the theocrats" maybe fun for you but you're tilting at windmills. If anything, the trend has been to pass laws that serve to erase Christian tradition in America.
Oh poppycock re issues I don't like. The only real issue as far as law and religion go is abortion and you wouldn't be so naive/disingenuous to say that anti-abortion is not driven by Chrisitians? Outsida that the only other contentious issues seems to be things like the ten commandments on the courthouse door. C'mon Dillo, point out other "issues I don't like" where I have given it a religious label. And Gunny is right and you'd be hardpressed to find someone to argue the point. Most of those laws are just common sense anyway...
Well, I see we've all come full circle. We're right back to the basic argument about abortion which is also the same basic argument about ESCR.
Since we know scientifically that conception is the beginning of a human life, isn't it also just common sense not to kill that human life? Nothing religious or extremist about it. Just because Christians tend to side with this argument does not necessarily mean it is a form of establishing religion in our laws. Just common sense...
Oh poppycock re issues I don't like. The only real issue as far as law and religion go is abortion and you wouldn't be so naive/disingenuous to say that anti-abortion is not driven by Chrisitians? Outsida that the only other contentious issues seems to be things like the ten commandments on the courthouse door. C'mon Dillo, point out other "issues I don't like" where I have given it a religious label. And Gunny is right and you'd be hardpressed to find someone to argue the point. Most of those laws are just common sense anyway...[/QUOTE]
Yes, I used the term. But I'd like to hear YOU define it. What is common sense? My definition is a belief held by the society in general. Our society is based on Judeo-Christian ethic. It is the basis of what we believe, and are taught is "common sense" and what is "right and wrong" from Day One.
Moral relativism is the direct result of removing the origin/meaning/context of what we as a society believe. What we believe to be right and wrong is right and wrong in origin because our God said so. When you take the reason for being right or wrong/good or bad out of it, then there is no motivation to be righteous and good.
Liberals have decided that any law that infringes on your personal desires is "unconstitutional." They have attempted to remove right or wrong/good or bad out of Promethian experimentation with a variety of excuses, moral relativism and/or literalism. For instance, calling an unborn human being everything BUT what it is. Euthenizing persons deemed unworthy of life. Creating human life to perform Mengele-like experiments.
Perhaps you can enlighten me as to when and where the destruction of our society ends? Misinterpreting the Constitution to suit your own agenda where separation of church and state are concerned is just step one to destroying the meaning behind our laws. The law itself will be next.
