Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[legaleagle_45]

That saliva-slinging tirade won't save your failed argument..

And lying aboout it does not save yours... next.

As I noted, a closing salutation that fundamentalists use in a failed attempt to insert christianity into the constitution is pitiable. The closing salutation appears as customary closing to documents of the time. Fundamentalists are never able to address why the Founding Fathers were neutral on religion because that would conflict their need to revise the clear intent of the legal document establishing the founding of the U.S.

Irrelevant, you claim is that

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

The fact is, whether you term it "closing salutation" or not, it is in the Constitution and it is a reference to the Christian Deity... so guess what?

You were wrong.

LOL

BTW, I am not a fundie... in fact the last time I attended church was for a wedding more than 10 years ago. What I am is a Constitution Nerd.

The primary reason the framers were "neutral" on religion within the Constitution was due primarily to the diverse number of different sects across all regions of the country. Although some of the "founding fathers" believed religion had no place in government (amongst these would be Madison, Jefferson and Franklin) some were quite religious and fundamentalist in nature (Sam Adams is oftentimes termed the last Puritan). Most were concerned that a regional dominance within the federal government would lead to the imposition of the dominant religion of that region. This is the primary reason religious neutrality is found in the Constitution. At the time of the formation of the Constitution some states had official state religions and this was unaffected by either the Constitution or the 1st Amend. Madison tried to include a proposed amendment in the Bill of Rights which would have prevented states from infringing upon "freedom of conscience", however (and even though it was Madison's favorite of all the proposed amendments) it was rejected by Congress and was not even sent to the states for ratification.

 

[oldfart]

4. Kool-aid is being served.

Can I get extra drivel with my kool-aid?

 

[Hollie]

That saliva-slinging tirade won't save your failed argument..

And lying aboout it does not save yours... next.

As I noted, a closing salutation that fundamentalists use in a failed attempt to insert christianity into the constitution is pitiable. The closing salutation appears as customary closing to documents of the time. Fundamentalists are never able to address why the Founding Fathers were neutral on religion because that would conflict their need to revise the clear intent of the legal document establishing the founding of the U.S.

Irrelevant, you claim is that

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

The fact is, whether you term it "closing salutation" or not, it is in the Constitution and it is a reference to the Christian Deity... so guess what?

You were wrong.

LOL

BTW, I am not a fundie... in fact the last time I attended church was for a wedding more than 10 years ago. What I am is a Constitution Nerd.

The primary reason the framers were "neutral" on religion within the Constitution was due primarily to the diverse number of different sects across all regions of the country. Although some of the "founding fathers" believed religion had no place in government (amongst these would be Madison, Jefferson and Franklin) some were quite religious and fundamentalist in nature (Sam Adams is oftentimes termed the last Puritan). Most were concerned that a regional dominance within the federal government would lead to the imposition of the dominant religion of that region. This is the primary reason religious neutrality is found in the Constitution. At the time of the formation of the Constitution some states had official state religions and this was unaffected by either the Constitution or the 1st Amend. Madison tried to include a proposed amendment in the Bill of Rights which would have prevented states from infringing upon "freedom of conscience", however (and even though it was Madison's favorite of all the proposed amendments) it was rejected by Congress and was not even sent to the states for ratification.

What really is funny is your acknowledgement that the FF's knew the dangers of religious tyranny which is why they chose to frame a constitution that was entirely neutral regarding religion. It makes your insistence on forcing christianity into the constitution such an irony.

 

[oldfart]

Stop squawking, you moron. You were lying when you wrote it the first time, and you're still lying now that you've said it 389 times.

Why is it so difficult for angry fundies to string words together into meaningful sentences?

{Yawn} Isn't the Mothership supposed to come down and pick them up soon or something?

 

[legaleagle_45]

What really is funny is your acknowledgement that the FF's knew the dangers of religious tyranny which is why they chose to frame a constitution that was entirely neutral regarding religion. It makes your insistence on forcing christianity into the constitution such an irony.

What is really funny is your continued state of denial and your total inability to understand the written word.

 

[koshergrl]

What really is funny is your acknowledgement that the FF's knew the dangers of religious tyranny which is why they chose to frame a constitution that was entirely neutral regarding religion. It makes your insistence on forcing christianity into the constitution such an irony.

What is really funny is your continued state of denial and your total inability to understand the written word.

Exactly.

 

[Hollie]

What really is funny is your acknowledgement that the FF's knew the dangers of religious tyranny which is why they chose to frame a constitution that was entirely neutral regarding religion. It makes your insistence on forcing christianity into the constitution such an irony.

What is really funny is your continued state of denial and your total inability to understand the written word.

I understand the written word (of the FF's), quite well. In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists --they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered. Instead, they needed a "supreme author" of existence but not one who necessarily was involved in the day to day requirements or needs of humanity. Deism was very popular at the time, and waned when Darwin's Origin's of Life made it clear that a creator was not necessarily required.

Suggesting that a closing salutation in the constitution somehow invokes christianity is ludicrous. The Constitution, quite literally and plainly leaves out any mentioning of gods and such (and it is this obvious deletion that caused the Danbury Baptists to argue in favor of incorporating some mention of the Christian gods in the document that would define the nation's fundamental laws). The colonies of the time were models of religious intolerance, This is completely unworkable and the FF's knew it. The separation of state and church does not mean ignoring the church or faith. It means the state cannot legislate religious belief upon the populace -- and by definition, the only way to achieve that is for the state to be neutral on all matters of religion. It is the obvious understanding that the only way to be fair to all religions is to be 100% neutral on the matter, which is precisely what the FF's expected and desired.

The solution as framed by the FF's is really easy -- by constitutional decree, no one is forced to kowtow to gods they don't believe in. The constitution forbids government from favoring one religion over another for the benefit of all religions and no religion.

We are by definition a secular nation -- there was considerable debate about the entire god issue--and the constitution is quite secular.

One can argue far better that having come from theocracies themselves The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers of blending religion and government even if they personally believed -- they purposely ratified a constitution that was totally secular in nature (and intent). They clearly did not wish to eradicate religion which is why they enacted a muzzle on government to keep religious expression free. However, the result of this means the gov't cannot exalt one religion over another. Keep Christianity in culture, whether or not Christianity is dominant or not, but do not allow the government to assert it or any other religion over the other. The only way to do that is to be neutral on the issue of religion at all. As the country does become more diversified and embraces more religious beliefs (including none) the Constitution is designed to evolve to include those concerns. The Founding Fathers would, I believe, note their legal design has worked quite successfully -- despite your attempt to force christianity into the constitution.

The FF's believed in a long flourishing, pluralistic nation. Their writings indicates they did not think such a growth would ever end (and 240 some years later, it still has not) and so the fundamental documents of law restricting the government's rights to the liberty and freedom of conscience of the people was worded to ensure neutrality regardless of which religious belief is in the majority.

Could the FF's have envisioned Scientology? Or Mormonism? Or Christian Science? Yes and no. They knew that religions propagate and they knew that once in control, religious tenets are biased towards themselves and poorly disposed towards competitive beliefs systems. We don't have to assume their intent -- even if they were Christians (and some of 'em were), the intent is clear: the state is precluded from dictating any and all religious conscience to any free people. Hence, the First Amendment.

 

[koshergrl]

Omg.

O.M.G.

lololololl....

 

[legaleagle_45]

I understand the written word (of the FF's), quite well. In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists --they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered.

Ho Hum... Indeed some of the founding fathers were Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Cornelius Harnett were.. which amounts to a total of 1.9% of the 204 unique individuals which can be called FF. Thats it... 54.7% were Episcopalian/Anglican, 18.6% were Presbyterian, 16.8% were Congregationalist, 4.3% were Quaker, 3.7% were Dutch Reformed/German Reformed, 3.1% were Lutheran, 1.9% Catholic, 1.9% were Hugenot,... You are not too good at this, huh?

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

Suggesting that a closing salutation in the constitution somehow invokes christianity is ludicrous.

Only because it destroys your argument. LOL.. I never said it "invoked christianity" what I claim is that contrary to your claim there is a reference to the christian diety in the Constitution.

The Founding Fathers were very much aware of the dangers of blending religion and government even if they personally believed -- they purposely ratified a constitution that was totally secular in nature (and intent).

Which is why they specifically rejected a freedom of conscience amendment and allowed states to have government sponsored religions, huh?

despite your attempt to force christianity into the constitution.

Nice try to accuse me of doing something I have not done. Do you pride yourself on false accusations? The only thing that I have pointed out (and properly so and despite your repeated denials) is that there is in fact a specific reference in the Constitution to the Christian diety. There is and you lose.

The FF's believed in a long flourishing, pluralistic nation. Their writings indicates they did not think such a growth would ever end (and 240 some years later, it still has not) and so the fundamental documents of law restricting the government's rights to the liberty and freedom of conscience of the people was worded to ensure neutrality regardless of which religious belief is in the majority.

Which explains why they specifically rejected the following amendment proffered by Madison:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience

You really are doing poorly Hollie...

Hence, the First Amendment.

Why did Hamilton, Madison, Jay and many other "federalists" oppose the inclusion of a bill of rights? Do you know? Why did anti federalist campaign so hard for a bill of rights? Do you know? If you are really up on the the founding fathers, then this should be a snap.... and of course, if I were to mention Elliot's you would know exactly what I was talking about, huh?

See Hollie, my personal opinion is that I kinda like both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. I am opposed to state sponsored religion and would be opposed to governmental led prayer in public school. Where I object is in the professed idea of some ani-religion nuts that the 1st amendment somehow protects a right to be free from religion. It does not and was never intended as such .

One more question for you..

Would you oppose the placement of a cross (having religious significance of course and not merely a cross by geometric happenstance) on federal property?

 

[Hollie]

I understand the written word (of the FF's), quite well. In almost all of their writings, it is evident that many of the founding fathers were Deists --they believed in a creator, but not such that Christianity or the bible offered.

Ho Hum... Indeed some of the founding fathers were Deists. Thomas Jefferson, Ben Franklin and Cornelius Harnett were.. which amounts to a total of 1.9% of the 204 unique individuals which can be called FF. Thats it... 54.7% were Episcopalian/Anglican, 18.6% were Presbyterian, 16.8% were Congregationalist, 4.3% were Quaker, 3.7% were Dutch Reformed/German Reformed, 3.1% were Lutheran, 1.9% Catholic, 1.9% were Hugenot,... You are not too good at this, huh?

Religion of the Founding Fathers of America

Suggesting that a closing salutation in the constitution somehow invokes christianity is ludicrous.

Only because it destroys your argument. LOL.. I never said it "invoked christianity" what I claim is that contrary to your claim there is a reference to the christian diety in the Constitution.



Which is why they specifically rejected a freedom of conscience amendment and allowed states to have government sponsored religions, huh?




Nice try to accuse me of doing something I have not done. Do you pride yourself on false accusations? The only thing that I have pointed out (and properly so and despite your repeated denials) is that there is in fact a specific reference in the Constitution to the Christian diety. There is and you lose.



Which explains why they specifically rejected the following amendment proffered by Madison:

No State shall violate the equal rights of conscience

You really are doing poorly Hollie...

Hence, the First Amendment.

Why did Hamilton, Madison, Jay and many other "federalists" oppose the inclusion of a bill of rights? Do you know? Why did anti federalist campaign so hard for a bill of rights? Do you know? If you are really up on the the founding fathers, then this should be a snap.... and of course, if I were to mention Elliot's you would know exactly what I was talking about, huh?

See Hollie, my personal opinion is that I kinda like both the establishment clause and the free exercise clause. I am opposed to state sponsored religion and would be opposed to governmental led prayer in public school. Where I object is in the professed idea of some ani-religion nuts that the 1st amendment somehow protects a right to be free from religion. It does not and was never intended as such .

One more question for you..

Would you oppose the placement of a cross (having religious significance of course and not merely a cross by geometric happenstance) on federal property?

You seem confused regarding the Bill of Rights vs, the Constitution. You know they are different documents, right?

Secondly, freedom of religion is absolutely freedon from religion. That is a pretty basic concept so I'm concerned that you're having such difficulty with it.

Lastly, the closing salutation containing "lord" has nothing whatsoever to do with the language and intent of the Constitution. It's always interesting that there are those who wish to re-write the Constitution to siut their partisan gawds. So which "lord" do you think it is?

 

[koshergrl]

No, it doesn't mean freedom from religion, you nitwit. It's freedom to practice religion as you see fit without state interference.

Surprise, surprise, another site fascist argues that the state must intervene to protect us from *religion*. Lol....

 

[koshergrl]

"Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities. "

That is not freedom FROM religion, freak.

The Virginia Act For Establishing Religious Freedom - Religious Freedom Page

 

[Avatar4321]

There's no reason to. A closing salutation has no relevance regarding the wording of the constitution.

Wanna try again?

So quoting the Constitution has nothing to do with the wording of the Constitution?

Sheesh, you could argue that it's not a big deal, but you can't honestly deny that the Christian Lord is mentioned in the Constitution.

 

[Avatar4321]

Identity where the Christian gawds are mentioned in the constitution.

Here:

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

Anything else?

Yeah. Where is the reference to the Christian gawds you keep claiming appears in the constitution?

What "lord" would a Deist refer to?

I see nothing that references the Christian gawds. You seem to be presuming lord means something in relation to christianity. I see nothing that references Christian gawds,

You have nothing, right?

You are seriously losing this argument Hollie.

1) They werent Deists - they were Christians
2) What other Lord came 1787 years before they wrote the Constitution? Please. Name a single one.

 

[Avatar4321]

You seem confused regarding the Bill of Rights vs, the Constitution. You know they are different documents, right?

Secondly, freedom of religion is absolutely freedon from religion. That is a pretty basic concept so I'm concerned that you're having such difficulty with it.

Lastly, the closing salutation containing "lord" has nothing whatsoever to do with the language and intent of the Constitution. It's always interesting that there are those who wish to re-write the Constitution to siut their partisan gawds. So which "lord" do you think it is?

No. The Bill of Rights is not a different document than the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. All of the Bill of Rights are in the Constitution. Not all of the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a subset of the Constitution, not a different document.

And no, you have no freedom from religion. You don't have to practice religion, but you have no right to keep anyone else from PUBLICLY practicing their faith or sharing their faith with you.

 

[Hollie]

There's no reason to. A closing salutation has no relevance regarding the wording of the constitution.

Wanna try again?

So quoting the Constitution has nothing to do with the wording of the Constitution?

Sheesh, you could argue that it's not a big deal, but you can't honestly deny that the Christian Lord is mentioned in the Constitution.

Try and follow – the closing salutation is not a part of the framework of law that forms the constitution.

Is Christianity really so weak that you believe it must be propped up by law?

This country was built to be as tolerant of all points of view as was possible under the strictures of society in those days, and of course this evolves with time. And the genius of the constitution -- and the clearest proof that it was not meant to be religious in nature -- is the Founding Fathers acknowledgement that religions are dogmatic and secular models are flexible. The FF's envisioned a social construct that evolves as it progresses into the future.

A religious paradigm simply doesn't function that way.

It has already been argued and long ago acknowledged by me that the concept of men's religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording of the Constitution is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?

So again, we’re left with Christians arguing that the Christian gawds are “referenced” in the constitution when quite clearly, any mention of those gawds simply doesn’t exist I the wording or intent of that document.

 

[Hollie]

Here:



Anything else?

Yeah. Where is the reference to the Christian gawds you keep claiming appears in the constitution?

What "lord" would a Deist refer to?

I see nothing that references the Christian gawds. You seem to be presuming lord means something in relation to christianity. I see nothing that references Christian gawds,

You have nothing, right?

You are seriously losing this argument Hollie.

1) They werent Deists - they were Christians
2) What other Lord came 1787 years before they wrote the Constitution? Please. Name a single one.

1. You are clearly not versed with the writings of the Founding Fathers. Many were christian, (some version of christianity), some were Deists, some were secular.

2. You're making the assumption of your lords (Hey-zeus / Yahweh). Identify for us what lord is being referred to.

 

[Avatar4321]

Yeah. Where is the reference to the Christian gawds you keep claiming appears in the constitution?

What "lord" would a Deist refer to?

I see nothing that references the Christian gawds. You seem to be presuming lord means something in relation to christianity. I see nothing that references Christian gawds,

You have nothing, right?

You are seriously losing this argument Hollie.

1) They werent Deists - they were Christians
2) What other Lord came 1787 years before they wrote the Constitution? Please. Name a single one.

1. You are clearly not versed with the writings of the Founding Fathers. Many were christian, (some version of christianity), some were Deists, some were secular.

2. You're making the assumption of your lords (Hey-zeus / Yahweh). Identify for us what lord is being referred to.

Jesus Christ. You know, the only one that was traditionally born 1787 years earlier. Which is why I asked you to provide a name another one.

And Im well versed with the writings of the Founders. That's why Im aware that your arguments are bogused. They were Christians.

 

[Avatar4321]

There's no reason to. A closing salutation has no relevance regarding the wording of the constitution.

Wanna try again?

So quoting the Constitution has nothing to do with the wording of the Constitution?

Sheesh, you could argue that it's not a big deal, but you can't honestly deny that the Christian Lord is mentioned in the Constitution.

Try and follow – the closing salutation is not a part of the framework of law that forms the constitution.

Is Christianity really so weak that you believe it must be propped up by law?

This country was built to be as tolerant of all points of view as was possible under the strictures of society in those days, and of course this evolves with time. And the genius of the constitution -- and the clearest proof that it was not meant to be religious in nature -- is the Founding Fathers acknowledgement that religions are dogmatic and secular models are flexible. The FF's envisioned a social construct that evolves as it progresses into the future.

A religious paradigm simply doesn't function that way.

It has already been argued and long ago acknowledged by me that the concept of men's religious beliefs were part and parcel of the founding of the country. However, the wording of the Constitution is clearly meant to encompass numerous beliefs, extant at the time, to cover the general consensus of beliefs. Hence, deistic terms like "Creator" and "Nature's God", "divine Providence" and the quite evident lack of reference to Jesus and Yahweh (despite robust debate to include them). The closest reference is to a "Supreme Judge", but of course that could be Amun Ra, couldn't it?

So again, we’re left with Christians arguing that the Christian gawds are “referenced” in the constitution when quite clearly, any mention of those gawds simply doesn’t exist I the wording or intent of that document.

Dont need Christianity propped up by the law. The law needs to propped up by Judeo Christian culture.

 

[Hollie]

You seem confused regarding the Bill of Rights vs, the Constitution. You know they are different documents, right?

Secondly, freedom of religion is absolutely freedon from religion. That is a pretty basic concept so I'm concerned that you're having such difficulty with it.

Lastly, the closing salutation containing "lord" has nothing whatsoever to do with the language and intent of the Constitution. It's always interesting that there are those who wish to re-write the Constitution to siut their partisan gawds. So which "lord" do you think it is?

No. The Bill of Rights is not a different document than the Constitution. The Bill of Rights is a part of the Constitution. All of the Bill of Rights are in the Constitution. Not all of the Constitution is in the Bill of Rights. The Bill of Rights is a subset of the Constitution, not a different document.

And no, you have no freedom from religion. You don't have to practice religion, but you have no right to keep anyone else from PUBLICLY practicing their faith or sharing their faith with you.

You don't understand the intent of the framework of the constitution by not understanding freedom from religion.

In the case of the U.S. Constitution, for example, freedom of religion is default freedom from religion, else there is a legal precedence to force you to adhere to the "majority religion" (i.e., Christians are free from believing in competitive religions. Let me repeat that: free from believing in or be forced to comply with practices of competitive religions.

In other words, one is free to believe and to practice the religion of their choosing without government mandate or interference.

The bottom line is very common-sense related: if the government is free to exalt any one religion over another, then what do you do if someday that religion is not the one you believe in? What is the only way to ensure this does not happen? the only way I can see it is if the government is silent about all religious issues. That doesn't make the individuals in government atheists or irreligious -- they can believe whatever they wish. What it means is they are prevented from forcing their beliefs on me or you.

That was not the case with the British theocracy which resulted in the formation of (eventually), the U.S.

Did you know that the FF's were fleeing from an oppressive christian theocracy? That's why the insistence of christians in this thread that the constitution "references" the christian gawds is so ridiculous. The christian "Lord(s)" do not/does not appear in the wording or intent of the constitution.