Next time some idiot says "Our forefathers didn't base this country on God".....

[musicman]

Now that you understand the question, go back and read my comment about Ford. My point is that just because something is designed by a Christian, that in itself, does not constitute a basis in Christianity. Yes, the founders were Christian, but they created a form of government that has nothing to do with religion other than guaranteeing it's free practice.

Which is - UNIQUELY in history - a bedrock principle of Christianity!

 

[MissileMan]

Upon further reflection, I think I can give you an answer here - at least in a broad sense.

What does a 3-branch government with a system of checks and balances suggest to you? To me, it suggests DISTRUST - distrust of governments which, being the creations of imperfect, corruptible men, must degenerate into tyranny if left unchecked. This is a unique outlook in the history of governments; no fond notions of a utopia being created by men whose natures have been elevated above the mundane; no divinely appointed royalty; our founders saw government as a necessary evil, to be kept on a short, jealously guarded leash.

This pessimistic view of human nature is VERY MUCH biblical in nature. "All men fall short of the glory".

That's a stretch to rival Reed Richards...you're gonna have to do better than that.

 

[MissileMan]

Which is - UNIQUELY in history - a bedrock principle of Christianity!

Being bereft of religion equals religious? This from the same group who are commanded to spread the word? Someone fetch my hip boots.

 

[musicman]

That's a stretch to rival Reed Richards...you're gonna have to do better than that.

Please elaborate. Which part is a stretch? I believe our founders' bleak - and therefore realistic - appraisal of human nature is A) proof that Christian beliefs produce a Christian mindset, and B) the primary reason for America's continued success. Look at Europe, spinning down the toilet. They've abandoned God.

 

[musicman]

Being bereft of religion equals religious? This from the same group who are commanded to spread the word? Someone fetch my hip boots.

Guaranteeing the free practice of religion equals being bereft of religion???!!!

Someone fetch my meds!

 

[MissileMan]

Please elaborate. Which part is a stretch? I believe our founders' bleak - and therefore realistic - appraisal of human nature is A) proof that Christian beliefs produce a Christian mindset, and B) the primary reason for America's continued success. Look at Europe, spinning down the toilet. They've abandoned God.

They had just finished winning a war against a world super-power. I find your assessment of bleakness unlikely.

 

[MissileMan]

Guaranteeing the free practice of religion equals being bereft of religion???!!!

Someone fetch my meds!

Put down the cap and step away from the bottle! You've already taken too many...you're having trouble keeping up with the rest of the class. The constitution and government is bereft of religion.

 

[musicman]

They had just finished winning a war against a world super-power. I find your assessment of bleakness unlikely.

Their distrust of powerful, centralized government is the thread running through the entire Constitution. They understood history; they understood human nature. Man, grown too powerful, will aspire to tyranny; he must. This is the sane, proven assessment of humanity which is seen through the Word of God.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I find it amazing how many of you seem to think that the Declaration of Independence was meant to be anything other than a call to arms against the King. The Declaration was never meant to be a governing document. It wasn't anything but a laundry list of complaints against the King written in such a way as to arouse revolution in the colonies. It was designed to be published and read and/or distributed in towns throughout the colonies.

The founders believed that the Declaration of Independence was the foundation of our Constitutional form of government, not just a "laundry list", as you so flippantly put it. All governmental acts were dated from the year of the Declaration, not the year of the Constitution. In fact, the Constitution itself is dated from the year of the Declaration, and never was interpreted as apart from the same values. The words of Samuel Adams still ring true, "Before the formation of this Constitution...this Declaration of Independence was received and ratified by all the States in the Union and has NEVER been disannulled."

The Declaration of Independence and the Constitution were seen as inseparable and interdependent. To refer to the Declaration as a "laundry list of complaints" is inaccurate and reprehensible.

I do believe the founders intended everyone to be free from religious persecution, which would include those who chose not to practice any religion. Wouldn't foisting religion of any sort on them be religious persecution? Those who would argue that "it's freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion" play a false game of semantics. Freedom of Religion must include freedom from religion. You can't have one without the other. To argue otherwise would be like saying that when someone exercises their freedom speech that the rest of us have to sit and listen. Part of our freedom of speech is get up and walk out of the room if we want.

acludem

What do you mean "foisting religion" on someone? Has anyone from the government knocked on your door and forced you to join a church? Do you know anyone that was tortured or killed by the government because they refused to recognize themselves as a member of a Christian church? If your answer is no, which it would be, then my answer would be no as well, it is not religious persecution. If you are talking about things like "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance, then I would have to say you are overreacting. How can you compare that to what was going on in Europe in the 1700s?

You seem to be the one playing a game of semantics. In the end, you wrap up my argument rather than your own. We do have freedom of speech, but nobody is forced to stand and listen. So, don't stand there and listen. If you don't want to say "under God", then don't. If you don't want to join a church, then don't. What you shouldn't do, however, is revise history or refuse to recognize facts. That's nothing to do with the Constitution or any other document, that's just using your brain for something more than making points you know are not valid.

 

[musicman]

Put down the cap and step away from the bottle! You've already taken too many...you're having trouble keeping up with the rest of the class. The constitution and government is bereft of religion.

No, my under-medicated friend : - the Constitution and government are not bereft of religion - they have simply taken themselves out of the business of sponsoring one or the other. There's a huge difference.

 

[acludem]

I can't just walk out of a courthouse with the Ten Commandments posted on the door if I have business there. Yes, there are people, including this President, who would like to use the police power of government to foist their religious beliefs on people. Don't believe me? I have two words for you: Terri Schiavo.

I never once said that some of the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence didn't find their way into the Constitution, of course they did. That does not, however, mean that we should view the Declaration as a governing document.

acludem

 

[acludem]

The three branch system was designed because of distrust of a singular authority - i.e. a King.

acludem

 

[Hobbit]

I can't just walk out of a courthouse with the Ten Commandments posted on the door if I have business there. Yes, there are people, including this President, who would like to use the police power of government to foist their religious beliefs on people. Don't believe me? I have two words for you: Terri Schiavo.

I never once said that some of the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence didn't find their way into the Constitution, of course they did. That does not, however, mean that we should view the Declaration as a governing document.

acludem

You think Terri Schiavo was about religion? Are you so blinded by your own self-righteousness that you think the only causes you don't believe in must be the work of religious zealots? Lemme tell you why I, for one, cared about Terri Shiavo.

I believed Terri was recoverable. She was responding to stimuli and it was unknown whether she'd respond to therapy as she'd never been given any.

I didn't believe Terri asked to die. That whole issue didn't come up until 5 years after she went into that state.

I think Michael abused here. There's too many unanswered questions that only Michael knows the answer to, leading me to believe he's hiding something.

Michael fought against his wife's parents on this. This shows extreme lack of respect. I don't care who the legal guardian is, the parents should have quite a bit of say in what happens to their own child unless they are unavailable or found to be unfit parents.

If Terri Shiavo had had a living will that stated she didn't want to be kept alive by feeding tube, I wouldn't have cared. That's her right. If therapy had been tried, but failed, I wouldn't have cared. I don't believe in giving up, but I don't hold others to the same standard. If the Schindlers had been behind Michael, I wouldn't have cared. If all family members can agree on something like that, maybe it's for the best. If Michael Shiavo had not been so secretive, I wouldn't have cared as much. Without him eerily appearing to have a horrible secret to hide, I would have been much more likely to believe his stated intentions. If Michael Shiavo had requested that the feeding tube be removed when it first started, same thing there. It would make his statements more believable.

 

[Jimmyeatworld]

I can't just walk out of a courthouse with the Ten Commandments posted on the door if I have business there. Yes, there are people, including this President, who would like to use the police power of government to foist their religious beliefs on people. Don't believe me? I have two words for you: Terri Schiavo.

Hobbit pretty much beat me to the punch on this. I'll just add that my position on the Shiavo case had nothing to do with religious beliefs. As for the Ten Commandments posted on the door, I can see a point to not wanting them actually in the courthouse. Still, while you may not be able to walk out, you aren't being forced to read it either. As long as decisions made in the courtroom aren't any different, it really doesn't matter what is posted on the door.

I never once said that some of the ideas expressed in the Declaration of Independence didn't find their way into the Constitution, of course they did. That does not, however, mean that we should view the Declaration as a governing document.

acludem

Again, you're arguing a point that isn't being made. Nobody said it was a governing document, but it's certainly more than a "laundry list". What did we celebrate yesterday? Independence Day. The 229th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, not the anniversary of the Constitution. Without the Declaration of Independence, there is no Constitution.

In the end, we go back to what the point actually is, which is the founding fathers were heavily influenced by their religious beliefs, which was a belief in God.

 

[musicman]

The three branch system was designed because of distrust of a singular authority - i.e. a King.

acludem

What's your point? You're not getting ready to treat us to some more of your insight, a la "Jefferson only mentioned God as a propoganda device", are you? I've got to tell you, I'm not impressed.

Distrust of a singular authority would come naturally to men who understood the essential corruptness of human nature - men like the wide-awake Christians who founded this nation. Strange, isn't it, that this lesson was lost on the founders of every other movement since - the bloodthirsty, envious French revolutionaries, Marx, Lenin, Hitler, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, the American left - and ALL of them dismal failures.

 

[musicman]

Man's downfall always has been - and always will be - arrogance. And yet, a people who humbled themselves before God and obeyed his laws progressed farther, faster, and accompllished more good than all the other great civilizations of history combined. I don't know what is so hard to understand here. Arrogance must blind its victims to the obvious.

 

[acludem]

I am a religious person, but I'm not Christian. My religion does not involve a "God". Do you think the founders meant that I could not freely and peacefully practice my religion because I do not pray to a "God"?

The Schiavo case was used and continues to be used by the religious right as a political battering ram. That's why Jeb Bush won't let it go, even though the autopsy proved Michael and the doctors right.

acludem

 

[Gunny]

I am a religious person, but I'm not Christian. My religion does not involve a "God". Do you think the founders meant that I could not freely and peacefully practice my religion because I do not pray to a "God"?

The Schiavo case was used and continues to be used by the religious right as a political battering ram. That's why Jeb Bush won't let it go, even though the autopsy proved Michael and the doctors right.

acludem

What if they'd been WRONG? You were going to say "oops, screwed up," and bring her back to life? I guess it's easy to play draw with someone else's life.

 

[musicman]

I am a religious person, but I'm not Christian. My religion does not involve a "God". Do you think the founders meant that I could not freely and peacefully practice my religion because I do not pray to a "God"?

Who's stopping you? The only people in this country being thwarted in their attempt to freely and peacefully practice their religion are CHRISTIANS - and the ACLU is leading the charge.

The Schiavo case was used and continues to be used by the religious right as a political battering ram. That's why Jeb Bush won't let it go, even though the autopsy proved Michael and the doctors right.

I don't know what this has to do with the price of tires - or the topic at hand, for that matter. However, since you brought it up, I hate to be the one to break this to you, but A) Christians are stlill (so far) allowed to participate in the political process, B) part of Congess' constitutional scope of powers is the setting of jurisdictions, and C) Congress is supposed to pass laws; it's what's known as "legislating from (GASP)...THE LEGISLATURE"! I know that's a tough concept for you to get your mind around, but do try, won't you? It's the wave of the future.

 

[-Cp]

There is no constitutional restriction on a local community from "endorsing" religious expression with its governmental institutions. The U.S. Constitution only prohibits the U.S. Congress from writing law "establish[ing]" a national religion or denomination. The restriction does not extend beyond the U.S. Congress. Yet the U.S. Supreme Court has trampled upon the 1st Amendment and denied the right of religious expression.