O'Donnell questions separation of church, state

[2Parties]

I'd love to see the separation of the religion of state worship, and state, but alas that'd be defeating the purpose.

 

[Liability]

Oh, and just to make note of it, to address the silly sig line offered by Micky Jagger:

The government of the United States is, in reality, a government of general and unlimited powers.

--Joseph Story (1833)

Story is and was wrong. In reality, the Federal government of the United States of America is, by design , intent and purpose, a government of specific and precisely limited powers. To the extent that it has gone in a different direction, it has done so illegitimately, which is exactly why the Tea Party is reacting as powerfully has it has so far.

And this is just the beginning.

The Statists -- such as the liberal Democratics and the established lard-ass RINO portion of the GOP -- just do not appreciate what is now under way. They don't get it.

But they will.

 

[2Parties]

If the US Government isn't free to take over banks and plan massive warfare, are any of us truly free?

 

[Liability]

If the US Government isn't free to take over banks and plan massive warfare, are any of us truly free?

Yes! In fact, the less "free" the Federal Government is (or feels) to do such crap as taking over banks, the free-er all of us will be.

I am not sure what YOU may intend by the phrase "plan massive warfare," but I certainly WANT the Federal Government to plan any warfare that may have to be undertaken and plan it as well as humanly possible. Planning warfare (massive or otherwise) is not necessarily wrong just because war is a horror. Sometimes, fighting a war is actually necessary and, in the grand scheme of things, a net benefit for humankind.

 

[2Parties]

That's what Al-Qaeda wants you to think...

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

If the "offense" you seemingly dread is that any mention of the Divine Creator by the Secular government somehow "establishes" an official State religion (which, by the way, just to be clear, it obviously does not), then whether or not the Chaplains open the festivities each day in the Senate (or the House) with a prayer is irrelevant.

The offense I am concerned with is civil authority over region, the duty we owe to our Creator and the manner and method of discharging it. Mentioning the Creator is no offense. But, it is an offense for a civil magistrate to suggest or advise us to believe in the existence of God.

The mere fact that the Senate CREATED -- by official act -- the Senate Chaplain position would be the thing that presumably would constitute the "establishment" of a State religion.

It would depend on the facts of the case. The two Chaplaincies set up by the First U. S. Congress were illegal establishments of religion. That may be why Congress paid the Chaplains less than it paid the janitors, and elected two rich and powerful clergymen to be first two Chaplains to the U. S. Congress, but never even establish duties for them, like it did for every other employee of Congress.

 

[Liability]

That's what Al-Qaeda wants you to think...

What is?

You shouldn't start a sentence (or in your case, a sentence fragment) with an indefinite pronoun. Your lack of clarity undercuts your purpose.

 

[Liability]

If the "offense" you seemingly dread is that any mention of the Divine Creator by the Secular government somehow "establishes" an official State religion (which, by the way, just to be clear, it obviously does not), then whether or not the Chaplains open the festivities each day in the Senate (or the House) with a prayer is irrelevant.

The offense I am concerned with is civil authority over region, the duty we owe to our Creator and the manner and method of discharging it. Mentioning the Creator is no offense. But, it is an offense for a civil magistrate to suggest or advise us to believe in the existence of God.

Nonsense. Above the Court bench in countless courtrooms and on our coinage, the National Motto intones the phrase, "In God we trust." And every one of us is free to accept or reject that as we deem appropriate. No "offense" whatsoever and no violation of the First Amendment.

The mere fact that the Senate CREATED -- by official act -- the Senate Chaplain position would be the thing that presumably would constitute the "establishment" of a State religion.

It would depend on the facts of the case. The Chaplaincies set up by the
First U. S. Congress were illegal establishments of religion. That is probably why Congress paid the Chaplains less than it paid the janitors, and why it elected two rich and powerful clergymen to be first two Chaplains to the U. S. Congress, but never even establish duties for them, like it did for every other employee of Congress.

You saying so doesn't make it so. The Chaplaincies (if that's a word) that were set up did absolutely NOT constitute (as you pretend) " illegal establishments of religion. "

They didn't establish jack or shit. Why not? Because it required nobody to accept the religion nor did it interfere with the beliefs of anybody in any contrary religion or no religion at all.

Why would they seek to establish "duties?" The clergy already had jobs. When they got called upon to lead Congress in prayer, the nature of their "duties" was already well known to them and to Congress. Thus, for example, when the Congress and the newly inaugurated President Washington retired from the hallowed halls of Congress in New York City that day, they went directly to Church where the Congressional Chaplain officiated. No act of Congress would have been considered necessary to tell the chaplain how to perform his religious duties.

 

[Ravi]

Exactly.

The point is at the point where you teach Christian creation theory...or have a Muslim prayer in school...you are ESTABLISHING...that that religion represents, or is more valid, or should be a part of...the government.

Unless you can incorporate all religions equally and without discrimination...which you CANT (since atheism is valid as well, among other reasons)....you must separate church and state.

No. When you teach something, you are not necessarily putting the State imprimatur on it. When I was in junior high, they taught us how some native American Indians believed that the world was placed on the back of a tortoise or turtle. Somehow, I got by without concluding that this was the official State religious view of creation.

There is a difference between teaching that something is true and teaching that something is a belief of a group.

 

[Liability]

Exactly.

The point is at the point where you teach Christian creation theory...or have a Muslim prayer in school...you are ESTABLISHING...that that religion represents, or is more valid, or should be a part of...the government.

Unless you can incorporate all religions equally and without discrimination...which you CANT (since atheism is valid as well, among other reasons)....you must separate church and state.

No. When you teach something, you are not necessarily putting the State imprimatur on it. When I was in junior high, they taught us how some native American Indians believed that the world was placed on the back of a tortoise or turtle. Somehow, I got by without concluding that this was the official State religious view of creation.

There is a difference between teaching that something is true and teaching that something is a belief of a group.

The "difference" is often just one of preference.

We BELIEVE we understand something about evolution, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

We BELIEVE we understand something about the big-bang creation of the Universe, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

 

[Ravi]

No. When you teach something, you are not necessarily putting the State imprimatur on it. When I was in junior high, they taught us how some native American Indians believed that the world was placed on the back of a tortoise or turtle. Somehow, I got by without concluding that this was the official State religious view of creation.

There is a difference between teaching that something is true and teaching that something is a belief of a group.

The "difference" is often just one of preference.

We BELIEVE we understand something about evolution, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

We BELIEVE we understand something about the big-bang creation of the Universe, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

Evolution is no taught as fact...rather it is taught as what we surmise so far.

 

[Liability]

There is a difference between teaching that something is true and teaching that something is a belief of a group.

The "difference" is often just one of preference.

We BELIEVE we understand something about evolution, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

We BELIEVE we understand something about the big-bang creation of the Universe, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

Evolution is no taught as fact...rather it is taught as what we surmise so far.

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

 

[Big Fitz]

The Pilgrims were never persecuted for their religion and their leader said they immigrated to America for economic reasons.

Wow. That lie goes against all history taught about the Pilgrims.

Although not actively persecuted, the Pilgrims were subjected to ecclesiastical investigation and to the mockery, criticism, and disfavor of their neighbors.

William Bradford, leader of the Pilgrims, wrote that finding "a better, and easier place of living" was the reason the group immigrated to America.

Whattever. Revisionist fail.

 

[Ravi]

The "difference" is often just one of preference.

We BELIEVE we understand something about evolution, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

We BELIEVE we understand something about the big-bang creation of the Universe, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

Evolution is no taught as fact...rather it is taught as what we surmise so far.

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

Riiight...that's why it's called the Big Bang Theory.

 

[Micky G. Jagger]

Above the Court bench in countless courtrooms and on our coinage, the National Motto intones the phrase, "In God we trust."

By allowing Congress to assume the power to advise us to trust God, we have granted it the power to advise us not to trust him. Also, by allow the Congress to assume advisory power over our duty to trust God, we open the door to advisory civil power over all of the other duties we owe to our Creator.

And every one of us is free to accept or reject that as we deem appropriate.

We shouldn't even have to consider advice from the government regarding the duties we owe to our Creator, because God has absolute and exclusive authority over the duties we owe him.

No "offense" whatsoever and no violation of the First Amendment.

If the Constitution grants only the powers enumerated and if Congress is not granted power to provide for the general welfare, the Constitution, even without the First Amendment, totally excludes religion from the cognizance of civil authority.

The Chaplaincies (if that's a word) that were set up did absolutely NOT constitute (as you pretend) " illegal establishments of religion. "

Are you familiar with James Madison's argument that the establishment of the chaplainships to Congress was a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles?

They didn't establish jack or shit. Why not? Because it required nobody to accept the religion nor did it interfere with the beliefs of anybody in any contrary religion or no religion at all.

Suggesting or advising someone that he should trust God, assumes that he has a duty to trust God, which is an establishment religion. Only God has the authority to advise us with respect to the duties we owe to him.

No act of Congress would have been considered necessary to tell the chaplain how to perform his religious duties.

The First U. S. Congress passed a resolution directing the Chaplains of Congress to perform the divine service in Saint Paul's Chapel. However, Congress never passed a resolution directing the Chaplains to open each session of Congress with prayer. Congress didn't want prayer in its chambers during an official session.

 

[Intense]

Evolution is no taught as fact...rather it is taught as what we surmise so far.

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

Riiight...that's why it's called the Big Bang Theory.

Just remember, on both sides of the argument, "Theory" is not silent.

 

[Liability]

Evolution is no taught as fact...rather it is taught as what we surmise so far.

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

Riiight...that's why it's called the Big Bang Theory.

The problem is not that it's named properly. The problem under discussion is how it's TAUGHT. And it is often TAUGHT as a fact regardless of the fact that it's actually a theory.

 

[Liability]

Above the Court bench in countless courtrooms and on our coinage, the National Motto intones the phrase, "In God we trust."

By allowing Congress to assume the power to advise us to trust God, we have granted it the power to advise us not to trust him.

Poppycock.

Also, by allow[ing] the Congress to assume advisory power over our duty to trust God, we open the door to advisory civil power over all of the other duties we owe to our Creator.

Rubbish.

And every one of us is free to accept or reject that as we deem appropriate.

We shouldn't even have to consider advice from the government regarding the duties we owe to our Creator, because God has absolute and exclusive authority over the duties we owe him.

Irrelevant. If you are totally free to accept or reject any comment of this kind (and you ARE totally free to accept it or reject it) then the Government has neither created a State religion or impeded your right to believe/worship (or not) as you deem fit.

If the Constitution grants only the powers enumerated and if Congress is not granted power to provide for the general welfare, the Constitution, even without the First Amendment, totally excludes religion from the cognizance of civil authority.

The POWER the AWESOME POWER of the Federal Government to place a motto on our coins -- <<shudder>> -- makes me tremble. Oh wait. No. It doesn't. Congress has not violated any enumerated power by crafting a national motto, and since it neither creates a State religion nor does it impede your right to believe/worship (or not) as YOU deem fit, then it has not violated the First Amendment.

Are you familiar with James Madison's argument that the establishment of the chaplainships to Congress was a palpable violation of equal rights, as well as of Constitutional principles?

And while I respect the words of Madison in many many things, I disagree with any such concern in this matter. ALSO, Madison was ACTUALLY fairly AMBIVALENT on the topic. HE was, after all, one of the members appointed to the Committee of the First Congress to establish the rules for the appointment of Chaplains. And he was one of the men voted FOR the bill that provided for the PAYMENT of Chaplains. (As to both of those last facts, see: Powered by Google Docs )

They didn't establish jack or shit. Why not? Because it required nobody to accept the religion nor did it interfere with the beliefs of anybody in any contrary religion or no religion at all.

Suggesting or advising someone that he should trust God, assumes that he has a duty to trust God, which is an establishment religion.

No. It isn't.

Only God has the authority to advise us with respect to the duties we owe to him.

Wrong. ANYbody has the authority to give such advice and everyone has the authority to accept it or reject free of Earthly consequence.

No act of Congress would have been considered necessary to tell the chaplain how to perform his religious duties.

The First U. S. Congress passed a resolution directing the Chaplains of Congress to perform the divine service in Saint Paul's Chapel. However, Congress never passed a resolution directing the Chaplains to open each session of Congress with prayer. Congress didn't want prayer in its chambers during an official session.

And yet Chaplains have opened lots of sessions of the Senate and of the House. And no State religion was thereby created. And nobody was denied to the freedom of worship/belief thereby.

 

[bodecea]

The "difference" is often just one of preference.

We BELIEVE we understand something about evolution, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

We BELIEVE we understand something about the big-bang creation of the Universe, but it is still just a theory. What we don't "know" according to you, we ought to not teach?

Evolution is no taught as fact...rather it is taught as what we surmise so far.

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

I would like to see a link to a textbook or school curriculum or state framework that teaches Evolution as "fact". They are pretty much all available on line for you.

 

[mal]

Evolution is no taught as fact...rather it is taught as what we surmise so far.

That's not true. It is very often taught as "fact."

Same with the Big Bang.

School texts are often not as subtle and nuanced as you give them credit for.

I would like to see a link to a textbook or school curriculum or state framework that teaches Evolution as "fact". They are pretty much all available on line for you.

Do all Teachers follow the Textbook word for word?...

Obviously it's a Theory, but most Teachers Believe it is Fact and Teach with that Tone... While saying "Theory".

Creationism is also a "Theory", but it won't get the same Tone if it's Mentioned at all.



peace...