Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[PoliticalChic]

1. There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.
This view is predominant among the most ignorant, the ‘low information voter.’

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’
Again…widely believed by ‘the low information voter.’






3. The conservative’s embrace of religious liberty is rooted in the values of the nation’s Founders, and a wish to preserve those principles. Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting. Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school, or the President’s reference to God in a national address, or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.

a. …in fact, all practices that do not violate, do not infringe on the unalienable rights or the liberties of another.

b. If one can simply turn off or ignore some advertisement that is annoying or offensive, the same options should apply here.

4. Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

c. “The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.” David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”






5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

 

[Avatar4321]

Yet, deny it they do.

Thank God for the First Amendment.

 

[t_polkow]

1. There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.
This view is predominant among the most ignorant, the ‘low information voter.’

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’
Again…widely believed by ‘the low information voter.’






3. The conservative’s embrace of religious liberty is rooted in the values of the nation’s Founders, and a wish to preserve those principles. Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting. Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school, or the President’s reference to God in a national address, or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.

a. …in fact, all practices that do not violate, do not infringe on the unalienable rights or the liberties of another.

b. If one can simply turn off or ignore some advertisement that is annoying or offensive, the same options should apply here.

4. Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

c. “The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.” David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”






5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

Low Information Voter:
in 1991 Linguist George Lakoff wrote that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters


Christian persecution
Christians cannot deal with the fact that people today aren't as gullible and ignorant as in the past and thus they can't push their outdated beliefs on others or use religion to control other people.And when spoiled,immature children can't have their way they scream persecution!


"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They declared that "all
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a
contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure
blasphemy a renunciation of the Deity. ...It was a notice to all churches and priests that
thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar
and denied the authority of every "sacred book" and appealed from the Providence of God to
the Providence of man.

 

[Mad Scientist]

Worship and Devotion of Deity interfere with Worship and Devotion of Government.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.
This view is predominant among the most ignorant, the ‘low information voter.’

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’
Again…widely believed by ‘the low information voter.’






3. The conservative’s embrace of religious liberty is rooted in the values of the nation’s Founders, and a wish to preserve those principles. Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting. Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school, or the President’s reference to God in a national address, or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.

a. …in fact, all practices that do not violate, do not infringe on the unalienable rights or the liberties of another.

b. If one can simply turn off or ignore some advertisement that is annoying or offensive, the same options should apply here.

4. Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

c. “The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.” David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”






5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

Low Information Voter:
in 1991 Linguist George Lakoff wrote that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters


Christian persecution
Christians cannot deal with the fact that people today aren't as gullible and ignorant as in the past and thus they can't push their outdated beliefs on others or use religion to control other people.And when spoiled,immature children can't have their way they scream persecution!


"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They declared that "all
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a
contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure
blasphemy a renunciation of the Deity. ...It was a notice to all churches and priests that
thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar
and denied the authority of every "sacred book" and appealed from the Providence of God to
the Providence of man.

1. You misunderstand the work of Lakoff.
His import is about controlling the language, not whether it is used for liberals or conservatives.

In his book 'Why We're Liberals," Eric Alterman says: "Of course, liberal linguist Professor George Lakoff compunds the problem, in his book “Don't Think of an Elephant!,” when he speaks of progressives framing policy in a ‘nurturing and cooperative” manner, as opposed to those mean conservatives who rely on a more competitive, ‘strict father’ rendition." See pages 73-74.

The the suprmemacy of the Liberals/Democrats/Progressives is because of the folks that control of education and media has been able to influence.....the 'low information voter.'


Judging by your post,.....that would include you.


2. Persecution?
The OP makes the case that secularists attack religion and religious folks.


3. Your quotes....?
How about this one:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Know it's source?
It's author?

Good.

 

[Hollie]

The OP'er is blathering on with the same nonsense about the US being a "Christian nation".

This thread is simply a reiteration of a similar nonsense thread making the same nonsense claims.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP'er is blathering on with the same nonsense about the US being a "Christian nation".

This thread is simply a reiteration of a similar nonsense thread making the same nonsense claims.

Hi, Collie!


Kinda knew you'd be stoppin' by.


Hey...if you have a mo.....did you get a chance to think about your post:

"But to claim that Christianity had anything to do with liberty is to fly in the face of the blueprint for Christianity -- the Bible. Please cite your references..."

…and I posted:


' The most quoted source was the Bible. Established in the original writings of our Founding Fathers we find that they discovered in Isaiah 33:22 the three branches of government: Isaiah 33:22 “For the LORD is our judge, the LORD is our lawgiver, the LORD is our king; he will save us.” Here we see the judicial, the legislative and the executive branches. In Ezra 7:24 we see where they established the tax exempt status of the church: Ezra 7:24 “Also we certify you, that touching any of the priests and Levites, singers, porters, Nethinims, or ministers of this house of God, it shall not be lawful to impose toll, tribute, or custom, upon them.”

When we look at our Constitution we see in Article 4 Section 4 that we are guaranteed a Republican form of government, that was found in Exodus 18 “Moreover thou shalt provide out of all the people able men, such as fear God, men of truth, hating covetousness; and place such over them, to be rulers of thousands, and rulers of hundreds, rulers of fifties, and rulers of tens:” This indicates that we are to choose, or elect God fearing men and women. Looking at Article 3 Section 3 we see almost word for word Deuteronomy 17:6: ‘No person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses. . .’ Deuteronomy 17:6 “At the mouth of two witnesses, or three witnesses. . .”. The next paragraph in Article 3 Section 3 refers to who should pay the price for treason. In England, they could punish the sons for the trespasses of the father, if the father died.'
Roger Anghis -- Bring America Back To Her Religious Roots, Part 7


….and you went ‘omminna…oommmmina…omminnnal….”
But no denial of the facts.You are so much fun!

Didn't we have a good ol' time?

 

[t_polkow]

1. There is a platitude voiced by the Left that conservatives oppose change, or are even reactionary and would like to see the return of eras which were hostile toward various segments of our population.
This view is predominant among the most ignorant, the ‘low information voter.’

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’
Again…widely believed by ‘the low information voter.’






3. The conservative’s embrace of religious liberty is rooted in the values of the nation’s Founders, and a wish to preserve those principles. Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting. Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school, or the President’s reference to God in a national address, or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.

a. …in fact, all practices that do not violate, do not infringe on the unalienable rights or the liberties of another.

b. If one can simply turn off or ignore some advertisement that is annoying or offensive, the same options should apply here.

4. Our approach rests on a literal constitutional interpretation. For conservatives, direct evidence of the actual use of a word is the most important source of the word’s meaning. It is more important than referring to the ‘broader context,’ or the ‘larger context,’ or the ‘underlying principles,’ which is the means by which some jurists are able to turn ‘black’ into ‘white’, and ‘up’ into ‘down.’

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

c. “The Bible is the wisdom of the West. It is from the precepts of the Bible that the legal systems of the West have been developed- systems, worked out over millennia, for dealing with inequality, with injustice, with greed, reducible t that which Christians call the Golden Rule, and the Jews had propounded as “That which is hateful to you, don not do to your neighbor.” It is these rules and laws which form a framework which allows the individual foreknowledge of that which is permitted and that which is forbidden.” David Mamet, “The Secret Knowledge.”






5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.



“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

Low Information Voter:
in 1991 Linguist George Lakoff wrote that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters


Christian persecution
Christians cannot deal with the fact that people today aren't as gullible and ignorant as in the past and thus they can't push their outdated beliefs on others or use religion to control other people.And when spoiled,immature children can't have their way they scream persecution!


"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They declared that "all
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a
contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure
blasphemy a renunciation of the Deity. ...It was a notice to all churches and priests that
thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar
and denied the authority of every "sacred book" and appealed from the Providence of God to
the Providence of man.

1. You misunderstand the work of Lakoff.
His import is about controlling the language, not whether it is used for liberals or conservatives.

In his book 'Why We're Liberals," Eric Alterman says: "Of course, liberal linguist Professor George Lakoff compunds the problem, in his book “Don't Think of an Elephant!,” when he speaks of progressives framing policy in a ‘nurturing and cooperative” manner, as opposed to those mean conservatives who rely on a more competitive, ‘strict father’ rendition." See pages 73-74.

The the suprmemacy of the Liberals/Democrats/Progressives is because of the folks that control of education and media has been able to influence.....the 'low information voter.'


Judging by your post,.....that would include you.


2. Persecution?
The OP makes the case that secularists attack religion and religious folks.


3. Your quotes....?
How about this one:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Know it's source?
It's author?

Good.

It should hardly come as a surprise that the more devout Christians in America (evangelicals and fundamentalists) want to claim religious freedom for themselves while denying it to all others. Many of the early settlers came here because they were persecuted in England, only to institute their own brand of religious persecution upon arrival or shortly thereafter. (Consider the history of the Quakers, and the biography of Roger Williams, that early advocate of religious freedom.)

If freedom of religion is threatened at all in the western world, the main threat comes not from outside the Christian religion. It comes from those who are convinced that their way of understanding the divine is the only correct way--a common ailment amongst pious people.

As to the creator most of the founding fathers were deists not christers. the deist view of a god is total different then yours

One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century
champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six
Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian.

Welcome To The Deism Site!

 

[Hollie]

The OP'er is blathering on with the same nonsense about the US being a "Christian nation".

This thread is simply a reiteration of a similar nonsense thread making the same nonsense claims.

Hi, Collie!


Kinda knew you'd be stoppin' by.

1. Hey goofy name-caller. I see you're cutting and pasting the same nonsense you have cut and pasted across multiple threads.

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

4. Kool-aid is being served.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Low Information Voter:
in 1991 Linguist George Lakoff wrote that the term is a pejorative mainly used by American liberals to refer to people who vote conservative against their own interests, and assumes they do it because they lack sufficient information. Liberals, attribute the problem in part to deliberate Republican efforts at misinforming voters


Christian persecution
Christians cannot deal with the fact that people today aren't as gullible and ignorant as in the past and thus they can't push their outdated beliefs on others or use religion to control other people.And when spoiled,immature children can't have their way they scream persecution!


"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

In 1776 our fathers endeavored to retire the gods from politics. They declared that "all
governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed." This was a
contradiction of the then political ideas of the world; it was, as many believed, an act of pure
blasphemy a renunciation of the Deity. ...It was a notice to all churches and priests that
thereafter mankind would govern and protect themselves. Politically it tore down every altar
and denied the authority of every "sacred book" and appealed from the Providence of God to
the Providence of man.

1. You misunderstand the work of Lakoff.
His import is about controlling the language, not whether it is used for liberals or conservatives.

In his book 'Why We're Liberals," Eric Alterman says: "Of course, liberal linguist Professor George Lakoff compunds the problem, in his book “Don't Think of an Elephant!,” when he speaks of progressives framing policy in a ‘nurturing and cooperative” manner, as opposed to those mean conservatives who rely on a more competitive, ‘strict father’ rendition." See pages 73-74.

The the suprmemacy of the Liberals/Democrats/Progressives is because of the folks that control of education and media has been able to influence.....the 'low information voter.'


Judging by your post,.....that would include you.


2. Persecution?
The OP makes the case that secularists attack religion and religious folks.


3. Your quotes....?
How about this one:
"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Know it's source?
It's author?

Good.

It should hardly come as a surprise that the more devout Christians in America (evangelicals and fundamentalists) want to claim religious freedom for themselves while denying it to all others. Many of the early settlers came here because they were persecuted in England, only to institute their own brand of religious persecution upon arrival or shortly thereafter. (Consider the history of the Quakers, and the biography of Roger Williams, that early advocate of religious freedom.)

If freedom of religion is threatened at all in the western world, the main threat comes not from outside the Christian religion. It comes from those who are convinced that their way of understanding the divine is the only correct way--a common ailment amongst pious people.

As to the creator most of the founding fathers were deists not christers. the deist view of a god is total different then yours

One of the embarrassing problems for the early nineteenth-century
champions of the Christian faith was that not one of the first six
Presidents of the United States was an orthodox Christian.

Welcome To The Deism Site!

Are you going to make a habit of not paying attention?


The OP is about religious liberty.

It states....clearly, I thought...that both religion and irreligion deserve equal place in the public square.
My objection is when attempts to remove the other.

Further...deism fits neatly with Judeo-Christian values.

"Religion is a subject on which I have ever been most scrupulously reserved. I have considered it as a matter between every man and his Maker in which no other, and far less the public, had a right to intermeddle.”
http://www.monticello.org/site/research-and-collections/jeffersons-religious-beliefs


The term Creator is capitalized.
As is Maker, from Jefferson's quote.

Your lack of capitalization speaks volumes....


Those of us who have studied Jefferson know that pretty much any position can be validated via a Jefferson quote.
Except, that there is no God.

 

[PoliticalChic]

The OP'er is blathering on with the same nonsense about the US being a "Christian nation".

This thread is simply a reiteration of a similar nonsense thread making the same nonsense claims.

Hi, Collie!


Kinda knew you'd be stoppin' by.

1. Hey goofy name-caller. I see you're cutting and pasting the same nonsense you have cut and pasted across multiple threads.

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

4. Kool-aid is being served.

Although the Constitution does mention 'our Lord'....doesn't it.

 

[Hollie]

Hi, Collie!


Kinda knew you'd be stoppin' by.

1. Hey goofy name-caller. I see you're cutting and pasting the same nonsense you have cut and pasted across multiple threads.

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

4. Kool-aid is being served.

Although the Constitution does mention 'our Lord'....doesn't it.

Not in the wording of the law.

Sorry, but your nonsense claim is pointless.

 

[t_polkow]

Hi, Collie!


Kinda knew you'd be stoppin' by.

1. Hey goofy name-caller. I see you're cutting and pasting the same nonsense you have cut and pasted across multiple threads.

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

4. Kool-aid is being served.

Although the Constitution does mention 'our Lord'....doesn't it.

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

If a Deist refers to "our lord" it doesn't mean the jesus or bible god

Thomas Jefferson: "When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all
religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes;
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816


"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious
societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall
make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133


"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the
Bible)."

Thomas Paine

Abe Lincoln

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to
the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human
origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I
see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."


Ben Franklin

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758


Get a clue

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Hey goofy name-caller. I see you're cutting and pasting the same nonsense you have cut and pasted across multiple threads.

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

4. Kool-aid is being served.

Although the Constitution does mention 'our Lord'....doesn't it.

Not in the wording of the law.

Sorry, but your nonsense claim is pointless.

I see you're searching for a way to quibble....


I wasn't asking for some spin....merely for a yes or no.



Let me help.


The United States Constitution does mention God. In Article VII, the Constitution states:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the twelfth....

 

[t_polkow]

Hi, Collie!


Kinda knew you'd be stoppin' by.

1. Hey goofy name-caller. I see you're cutting and pasting the same nonsense you have cut and pasted across multiple threads.

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

4. Kool-aid is being served.

Although the Constitution does mention 'our Lord'....doesn't it.

The most glaring conceptual flaw with any religion whatsoever, is the lack of any
rational evidence of its validity. The moral and spiritual aspects of Christianity, and all
other religions, and sects of religions, are entirely founded on stories from people who
claim that a god spoke to them and inspired them to write it all down. Isn't it strange that
the all powerful god talked to billions of different people and told each and every one of
them different things?

There is not even the most miniscule particle of evidence that any purported prophet has
actually spoken to any god and there is no rational reason to believe that the prophecies of
any one religion are any more accurate or based in reality than the purported prophecies
of any other religion. There is also no rational reason to believe that any one of the
hundreds of thousands of religious sects created in the history of mankind is more valid
than the others.

You will find that Christians will dismiss the Muslim religion outright, yet there exists
absolutely no rational reason to think the Christian prophecies are any more valid than
those of the Muslims, or the Jews, or the Norsemen, or the Greeks, or the Romans. One
person after another through time has said "God told me this..." and found people to
believe them, including Joe Magic Underwear Smith, Jesus H. Christ, Mohammed Don't
Draw A Picture Of Me Or I'll Kill You, Jim Guyana Punch Jones, David Krispy Kritter
Koresh, and Charlie Fucking Manson.

You can end all religious debates right there. Once you have established that no religion
has any more validity nor any more significant basis in fact, nor any reasonable evidence
to claim superiority over the world's countless other religions, then there is no point
debating anything else at all relating to any specific religion with the purpose of
supporting a claim that the religion is true or false.

You do NOT have the responsibility of proving their religion or their god as false or
nonexistent. They are the ones who make the positive assertion that it's true, so they are,
naturally, the ones who hold the responsibility of giving you good reason to believe that
what they propose has validity in the first place. Why should they expect you to believe
something without any just cause? Well, they do expect it, and they will frequently
become virulently petulant should you refuse to comply. If any person purports anything
to be true in this modern world, then that person is expected to provide not only
reasonable evidence of their claim, but results that can be recreated through scientific
experimentation by others using basic scientific scrutiny. Religion is, evidently, the only
exception to this rule, though it is, obviously, not a logically valid exception.

 

[PoliticalChic]

1. Hey goofy name-caller. I see you're cutting and pasting the same nonsense you have cut and pasted across multiple threads.

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

4. Kool-aid is being served.

Although the Constitution does mention 'our Lord'....doesn't it.

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

If a Deist refers to "our lord" it doesn't mean the jesus or bible god

Thomas Jefferson: "When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all
religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes;
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816


"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious
societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall
make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133


"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the
Bible)."

Thomas Paine

Abe Lincoln

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to
the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human
origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I
see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."


Ben Franklin

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758


Get a clue

Get a pair of specs.


This from the OP:


a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.



Now...specify what you are arguing with....if anything.

 

[Hollie]

a. So it appears you agree, in spite of your cutting and pasting the same nobsense across multiple threads, that the Christian gawds appear nowhere in the wording of the constitution.

b. Don't let that prevent you from spamming the thread with the same cut and paste nonsense you have cut and pasted before.

 

[t_polkow]

Although the Constitution does mention 'our Lord'....doesn't it.

"The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."
..........From the "Treaty of Tripoli" which was signed during the term of George Washington
and ratified by congress during the term of John Adams.

If a Deist refers to "our lord" it doesn't mean the jesus or bible god

Thomas Jefferson: "When we see religion split into so many thousands of sects, and I may say Christianity
itself divided into it's thousands also, who are disputing, anathematizing, and where the
laws permit, burning and torturing one another for abstractions which no one of them
understand, and which are indeed beyond the comprehension of the human mind, into
which of the chambers of this Bedlam would a man wish to thrust himself. The sum of all
religion as expressed by it's best preacher, "fear god and love thy neighbor,' contains
no mystery, needs no explanation - but this wont do. It gives no scope to make dupes;
priests could not live by it."
..........Letter to George Logan, November 12, 1816


"The appropriation of funds of the United States for the use and support of religious
societies, [is] contrary to the article of the Constitution which declares that 'Congress shall
make no law respecting a religious establishment'"
..........James Madison, 1811, Writings, 8:133


"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the
Bible)."

Thomas Paine

Abe Lincoln

"The bible is not my book and Christianity is not my religion. I could never give assent to
the long complicated statements of Christian dogma."

"My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human
origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I
see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them."


Ben Franklin

The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason.
-- Poor Richard's Almanack, 1758


Get a clue

Get a pair of specs.


This from the OP:


a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.



Now...specify what you are arguing with....if anything.

"Judeo-Christian" No such thing two opposed religions

The comments of Jewish author Mr. S. Levin may well explain the Christian's need for the Judeo-Christian myth. Writing in the Israeli journal Biblical Polemics, Levin concludes: "'After all, we worship the same God', the Christian always says to the Jew and the Jew never to the Christian. The Jew knows that he does not worship the Christ-God but the Christian orphan needs to worship the God of Israel and so, his standard gambit rolls easily and thoughtlessly from his lips. It is a strictly unilateral affirmation, limited to making a claim on the God of Israel but never invoked with reference to other gods. A Christian never confronts a Moslem or a Hindu with 'After all, we worship the same God'."

Back in 1992 both Newsweek magazine and the Israeli Jerusalem Post newspaper simultaneously printed extensive articles scrutinising the roots of the sacrosanct Judeo-Christian honeymoon!

The statement heading the Newsweek article read: "Politicians appeal to a Judeo-Christian tradition, but religious scholars say it no longer exists." The Jerusalem Post article's pull quote announced: "Antisemitism is a direct result of the Church's teachings, which Christians perhaps need to re-examine."

"For scholars of American religion," Newsweek states, "the idea of a single Judeo-Christian tradition is a made-in-America myth that many of them no longer regard as valid." It quotes eminent Talmudic scholar Jacob Neusner: "Theologically and historically, there is no such thing as the Judeo-Christian tradition. It's a myth

Newsweek cites authorities who indicate that "the idea of a common Judeo-Christian tradition first surfaced at the end of the 19th century but did not gain popular support until the 1940s, as part of an American reaction to Nazism . . ," and concludes that, "Since then, both Jewish and Christian scholars have come to recognize that -- geopolitics apart -- Judaism and Christianity are different, even rival religions."

The Jerusalem Post accused the Christian Church of being responsible for the Holocaust. The French Jewish scholar Jules Isaac was quoted as saying: "Without centuries of Christian catechism, preaching, and vituperation, the Hitlerian teachings, propaganda and vituperation would not have been possible."

"The problem," concludes the Jerusalem Post, "is not, as some assert, that certain Christian leaders deviated from Christian teachings and behaved in an un-Christian manner; it is the teachings themselves that are bent."

Joshua Jehouda, a prominent French Jewish leader, observed in the late 1950s: "The current expression 'Judaeo-Christian' is an error which has altered the course of universal history by the confusion it has sown in men's minds, if by it one is meant to understand the Jewish origin of Christianity . . . If the term 'Judaeo-Christian' does point to a common origin, there is no doubt that it is a most dangerous idea. It is based on a 'contradictio in abjecto' which has set the path of history on the wrong track. It links in one breath two ideas which are completely irreconcileable, it seeks to demonstrate that there is no difference between day and night or hot and cold or black and white, and thus introduces a fatal element of confusion to a basis on which some, nevertheless, are endeavouring to construct a civilisation." (l'Antisemitisme Miroir du Monde pp. 135-6).

 

[pinqy]

2. But, there is a ‘change’ that I would resist….The trend in our nation is toward a brand of secularization that promotes overt hostility toward religious institutions. Pop culture and many in the political sphere demonize and ridicule the religious in an attempt to remove any influence of religion from public life.

Yep, it's called freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Or would you prefer blasphemy laws?

a. People of faith are depicted as ignorant, intolerant, and behind the times on issues such as gay marriage, abortion, and stem cell research.

Because many consider that to be true.

b. Somehow, the Left’s attempts to eradicate religious views from the public arena comes out of progressive media as the exact opposite....such as ‘your attempts to force your religion down our throats.’

Please show examples where private religious views (not views or opinion supported or sponsored by government in any way) are under any kind of supression or where the government or its agents are promoting anti-religious views.

Our definition of religious liberty is to practice the religion of one’s choice, or none at all, in either a private or a public setting.

Weren't you just complaining about public expression of anti-religious ideas?

Children’s voluntary recital of prayer in public school,

Why should the school set up specific times to pray? Children are free to pray at school, alone or in groups (within standard rules of non-disruptive behavior). But the state writing a mandatory prayer teachers must say (whether or not children can opt out) is not religious freedom.

or the President’s reference to God in a national address,

I'm not aware of any real controversy over that.

[qutoe] or the use of federal funds of faith-based groups that aim to aid those less fortunate are all covered.[/qiuote] Would you support federal funds going to Muslim charities?

a. So, when President Obama goes to Europe and declares that the United States is not a Christian nation, he is correct: this is not a Christian theocracy, nor do I know of any movement to make it so.

Christianity and the State - Topics - Chalcedon
WallBuilders - Overview
Ruler of the Nations (Gary deMar)
Now you're aware.

b. But the most rabid proponent of secularization is hard-pressed to deny that this country was founded on Judeo-Christian ideals and values. The Founding Fathers were deeply religious, and invoked God numerous times in the founding documents.

But not the Constitution, which explicitly forbids religious tests for office.

5. And so, the argument comes down to the conservatives standing by what the Constitution actually says in the first amendment, and the spin of the secularist, attempting a colloquial argument based on wishes and interpretation.


“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;…”

The 14th ammendment applied the 1st ammendment to the states. And as Justice Black wrote in Everson v Board of Education (1947)

The 'establishment of religion' clause of the First Amendment means at least this: Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion over another. Neither can force nor influence a person to go to or to remain away from church against his will or force him to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion. No person can be punished for entertaining or professing religious beliefs or disbeliefs, for church attendance or non-attendance. No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever from they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between Church and State.' Reynolds v. United States, supra, 98 U.S. at page 164.

Freedom of religion does NOT mean government support for religious (or anti-religious) belief. The main problem comes when people think things, such as any religious mention in a public forum are government support for those beliefs or ideas such as Evolution taught in schools or same sex marriage being anti-religious.

 

[legaleagle_45]

2. Did you notice that the wording of the constitution contains not a single reference to the Christian gawds?

3. How strange that the foundational documents for a "Christian nation" would never mention the Christian gawds.

Done in convention by the unanimous consent of the states present the seventeenth day of September in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty seven and of the independence of the United States of America the twelfth.

Wanna try again?