Religious Liberty or Secularism?

[Hollie]

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.

Why not just add "because I say so" to your comments. We're all impressed with that.

Identify for us the christianity that Thomas Jefferson embraced. Have you ever heard of the "Jefferson Bible".

 

[Hollie]

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.

Oh, good gawd, I hope not.

I have read the Bibles, many times-- each time cover to cover. Not just selective passages, which most theists do (if they even bother to read it at all). I have even read the endless "begats". If anything on earth convinced me that gawds (if they existed) had nothing at all to do with the Bibles, it was reading the Bibles themselves. It is interesting mythology, and it has the greatest, most evil villain of all time in it. His name is Jehovah.

 

[koshergrl]

yes, please allow Hollie to educate you about things like *intent* and what the founding fathers REALLY meant...and whether or not "gawd" is mentioned in the Constitution...

 

[Hollie]

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.

So... are we to assume that the FF's just forgot to add "in the year of our lord hey-zeus H. christ..."?

 

[legaleagle_45]

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

I assure you Hollie, I am quite aware that they are 2 different documents. The Constitution came out of convention on September 17, 1787. The Constitution became a legal document upon the ratification by the 9th state, New Hampshire on June 21, 1788. Said Constitution was without a Bill of Rights and prominent Federalists, including Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued against their inclusion. Do you know why? However something changed... and at the 1st Congress Madison was tasked with drafting a proposal for a Bill of Rights and on June 8, 1789 he presented his proposals to the 1st Congress. Congress edited these proposals and that edit was completed on September 25, 1789 when they were sent on to the states. On December 15, 1791 enough states had ratified 10 of the 12 proposals made by Congress for amendment made and they are now termed the Bill of Rights. One of the original 12 was subsequently ratified relatively recently, bonus points if you can describe it. Anything else you wish to know as I am quite well versed in the subject.

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.

Incorrect, freedom from religion implies the ability to exclude religion from the public square, which is obviously an incorrect formulation of the 1st Amend. You are really not good at this Hollie.

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?

I never said it did Hollie. What I said was that the Constitution does have a reference to the Christian diety... you claimed it did not. It does, you lose... Simple as that.. Now if you wish to change the argument to one wherein there is no substantive or legally binding employment of the Chritian diety in the Constitution, then we would have a totally different issue, but you did not limit yourself to such, now did you?

You did not answer my question about the placement of a religious cross on federal property. Why is that Hollie? ... don't you believe you can exclude religion from the public square? Freedom from religion and all that jazz...

 

[koshergrl]

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.

She does. She denies it consistently. She maintains we don't know what "lord" the founding fathers were referring to...and it doesn't matter anyway cuz they didn't mean anything by it...so it doesn't COUNT as a true reference to God.

 

[Dot Com]

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.

ever heard the phrase "nature and nature's god"? You prolly don't know what a Deist is as well You people & your christian thuggery will have to do better than that.

> > > > > Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < < < < <​

 

[koshergrl]

Many were educated at seminary.

Ministers.

 

[t_polkow]

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.

ever heard the phrase "nature and nature's god"? You prolly don't know what a Deist is as well You people & your christian thuggery will have to do better than that.

> > > > > Deism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia < < < < <​

Thomas Jefferson:

"Is uniformity attainable? Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the
introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined, imprisoned; yet we have not
advanced an inch towards uniformity. What has been the effect of coercion? To make one
half the world fools, and the other half hypocrites. To support roguery and error all over

"The Christian god is a three headed monster, cruel, vengeful, and capricious. If one wishes
to know more of this raging, three headed beast-like god, one only needs to look at the
caliber of people who say they serve him. They are always of two classes: fools and
hypocrites."
the earth."
.........."Notes on Virginia"


Jon Adams...
"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of
grief which the history of mankind has preserved--the Cross. Consider what calamities
that engine of grief has produced!"
..........To Thomas Jefferson

James Madison
"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some
instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil
authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political
tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers
who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient
auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."
.........."A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785


"Experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity
and efficacy of religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has
the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What has been its fruits? More or less,
in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in the laity; in both,
superstition, bigotry and persecution."
..........."A Memorial and Remonstrance", 1785


"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

 

[koshergrl]

Link that, einstein. Not that it matters...he still maintained that men must have freedom of religion.

 

[legaleagle_45]

ever heard the phrase "nature and nature's god"?

Yep, ever hear of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

You prolly don't know what a Deist is as well You people & your christian thuggery will have to do better than that.

I am quite familiar with it. You familar with natural rights theory espoused by Giovanni da Legnano, Francisco de Victoria, Hugo Grotius, Samuel Pufendorf, Thomas Hobbes, John Locke and Jean-Jacques Rousseau?

 

[koshergrl]

He was all excited over "christian thuggery", lol....don't go burst his bubble.

 

[t_polkow]

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.

She does. She denies it consistently. She maintains we don't know what "lord" the founding fathers were referring to...and it doesn't matter anyway cuz they didn't mean anything by it...so it doesn't COUNT as a true reference to God.

After reading the Bible, many people are mystified as to why grown, otherwise intelligent adults would believe that it is the direct communication or the "inspired Word" of an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good being. To many people, it seems absolutely incredible that any reasonable person could maintain this belief in the face of our current scientific knowledge and the contemporary understanding of history, religion and mythology. To outsiders, the phenomenon of Christian belief is a puzzlement.
However, after a bit of research and reflection, the mystery is resolved. It soon becomes apparent that the whole bizarre Christian belief system is predicated, to a large degree, on two compelling ideas. The first idea is that maintaining faith in Bible claims is the most morally virtuous act one can perform and will be rewarded with an eternal life of bliss. The second belief is that doubting biblical claims represents the greatest evil imaginable and will be punished with an eternity of torture. These linchpin beliefs make it possible for Christians to accept thoroughly ridiculous biblical assertions not merely in the absence of evidence, but against the evidence-against reason.
The sanctification of "faith" and demonization of doubt short-circuits the thinking process. Since it is continually drilled into Christians' brains that faith must be maintained at all costs, anything which contradicts a Bible claim is automatically rationalized away as the arrogance of the "wise," as a ploy of Satan, or as a test of faith from God himself. So when it is explained and demonstrated to a Christian that the Bible is simply a collection of ancient writings masquerading as the "Word of God," this is dismissed as the delusion of unbelievers blinded by their sin. (See the wisdom of the world) When scientific discoveries are shown to clearly, directly and unambiguously contradict biblical pronouncements, these scientific discoveries are interpreted by the Christian as satanic trickery. If it is patiently and painstakingly evinced to the Christian that the Bible is filled from one end to the other with obscene cruelty and violence, pagan mythology and superstition, blatant contradictions, ludicrous claims and outrageous, blithering idiocy, the Christian smiles in the face of this, confident that his faith is being tested by God and that he will be rewarded accordingly in the Age To Come.
It must be understood that in the Alice-in-Wonderland Christian world view, the more difficult it is to believe in a biblical claim, the more one is glorified for believing it. Faith, believing no matter what the facts say, is the highest manifestation of moral righteousness. Developing and maintaining one's faith in the preposterous and the incomprehensible becomes the ultimate purpose of life. Tertullian's declaration, "I believe because it is impossible," is the boast of a man who celebrates his irrationality. While liberal Christians today may pay lip service to the notion of a reasonable faith, the sentiment of Tertullin's inane "I believe because it is impossible" is alive and well and continues to be spouted from church pulpits on Sunday mornings: "Brethren, did not Paul say that God will make foolish the wisdom of the world, and choose that which is foolish to shame the wise of the world? Brothers and Sisters, did not JEEEZ-ZUSS tell us that unless we become as little children we will never enter the kingdom of heaven, that God has chosen to hide his light from the eyes of the wise and reveal himself to babes?" Reason and knowledge are ridiculed while biblical absurdities are held aloft as bless-ed revelation. This is how Christianity sustains itself. It is the only way that it can.
Thus the Christian faith's invisible attributes are now clearly to be seen. Behind all the sacraments and the rituals, the organ music and the angelic choirs, the praying lips and the arms thrust heavenward, behind all this, propping it all up, is the monstrous doctrine that gullibility and ignorance are divine.
Please don't try to explain this to a Christian though, for it has been most assuredly foretold that he would be mocked and persecuted for Jesus' sake by the "wise" of a fallen, perishing world. Yea, lo, verily, for it has been written...

 

[koshergrl]

Did you say something?

I couldn't hear through all the pontificated blathering.

 

[Hollie]

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

I assure you Hollie, I am quite aware that they are 2 different documents. The Constitution came out of convention on September 17, 1787. The Constitution became a legal document upon the ratification by the 9th state, New Hampshire on June 21, 1788. Said Constitution was without a Bill of Rights and prominent Federalists, including Hamilton, Jay and Madison argued against their inclusion. Do you know why? However something changed... and at the 1st Congress Madison was tasked with drafting a proposal for a Bill of Rights and on June 8, 1789 he presented his proposals to the 1st Congress. Congress edited these proposals and that edit was completed on September 25, 1789 when they were sent on to the states. On December 15, 1791 enough states had ratified 10 of the 12 proposals made by Congress for amendment made and they are now termed the Bill of Rights. One of the original 12 was subsequently ratified relatively recently, bonus points if you can describe it. Anything else you wish to know as I am quite well versed in the subject.

You confuse rote memorization / cuting and pasting of history gleaned from the web with an understanding of American history.

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.

Incorrect, freedom from religion implies the ability to exclude religion from the public square, which is obviously an incorrect formulation of the 1st Amend. You are really not good at this Hollie.

You are incorrect. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Otherwise, how is it the Christian cannot be forced by law to believe in Islam or Judaism? Clearly, the Christian is free from believing in the State religion. This is a fundamental point of the freedom of religion issue. Your inability to see this is coloring your post, as it is the keystone upon which your entire argument seems to rest.

Try practicing christianity in a place such as the KSA where it is reported that 100% of the population is islamist. It will be an object lesson in freedom from religion.

You are really not at al knowledgable regarding these issues.

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?

I never said it did Hollie. What I said was that the Constitution does have a reference to the Christian diety... you claimed it did not. It does, you lose... Simple as that.. Now if you wish to change the argument to one wherein there is no substantive or legally binding employment of the Chritian diety in the Constitution, then we would have a totally different issue, but you did not limit yourself to such, now did you?

You're still having difficulty with this. As we know, none of the christian gawds are mentioned in the constitution. You seem stuck on maintaining that a closing salutation (not actually in the text of the constitution) somehow lays claim to the gawds being a part of the constitution. Insisting that the christian gawds are "referenced" in the constitution is simply false. You claim otherwise, so, show us where in the constitution the christian gawds are referenced.

You did not answer my question about the placement of a religious cross on federal property. Why is that Hollie? ... don't you believe you can exclude religion from the public square? Freedom from religion and all that jazz...

You did not answer my question regarding where in the constitution the christian gawds are referenced.

Why is that?

 

[Hollie]

ever heard the phrase "nature and nature's god"?

Yep, ever hear of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

And yet, for all the assignmet of christianty being placed on the FF's (many of whom were not christians), nowhere in the constitution do we find the words God, Yahweh, Jehovah, The "Big Cheese", etc.

How strange that a "christian nation", allegedly formed by christians was framed without a single reference in the framing documents to christianity.

I guess they just forgot.

 

[legaleagle_45]

ever heard the phrase "nature and nature's god"?

Yep, ever hear of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

And yet, for all the assignmet of christianty being placed on the FF's (many of whom were not christians), nowhere in the constitution do we find the words God, Yahweh, Jehovah, The "Big Cheese", etc.

How strange that a "christian nation", allegedly formed by christians was framed without a single reference in the framing documents to christianity.

I guess they just forgot.

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.

I guess they did not forget, huh?

LOL

BTW. almost all of them were Christian.

 

[Hollie]

Yep, ever hear of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

And yet, for all the assignmet of christianty being placed on the FF's (many of whom were not christians), nowhere in the constitution do we find the words God, Yahweh, Jehovah, The "Big Cheese", etc.

How strange that a "christian nation", allegedly formed by christians was framed without a single reference in the framing documents to christianity.

I guess they just forgot.

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.

I guess they did not forget, huh?

LOL

BTW. almost all of them were Christian.

I couldn't help but notice that you have modified your position from "they were christian" to now, "almost all of them were Christian".

I guess, "almost all of them were Christian", except for the ones who were not.

Thomas Jefferson's Bible ends with Jesus crucified and nothing more. He does not return from the dead, which is quite essential from a Christian perspective. Jefferson "believed in Jesus Christ" as a philosopher, but not as a god incarnate. Thomas Paine, of whom it was said, "Without Paine's pen, Washington's sword would never have been wielded", was a thorough-going Deist who's "Age of Reason" deconstructed the bible completely. Notice Franklin also uses very deist terminology, although Franklin did waver back and forth and his autobiography clearly depicts this.

 

[legaleagle_45]

You confuse rote memorization / cuting and pasting of history gleaned from the web with an understanding of American history.

You mightnot know the difference I most certainly do. I know this area of US History better than you can even imagine Hollie.

You are incorrect. Freedom of religion includes freedom from religion.

Otherwise, how is it the Christian cannot be forced by law to believe in Islam or Judaism? Clearly, the Christian is free from believing in the State religion. This is a fundamental point of the freedom of religion issue. Your inability to see this is coloring your post, as it is the keystone upon which your entire argument seems to rest.

Incorrect. Freedom from religion implies the right to prevent religion in the public square, to avoid even the exposure to same.. Governmental coercion involves the unpermitted establishment of religion.. You should know the difference Hollie.

Try practicing christianity in a place such as the KSA where it is reported that 100% of the population is islamist. It will be an object lesson in freedom from religion.

Why, since I do not practice christianity here.?
You are really not at al knowledgable regarding these issues.

You're still having difficulty with this. As we know, none of the christian gawds are mentioned in the constitution. You seem stuck on maintaining that a closing salutation (not actually in the text of the constitution) somehow lays claim to the gawds being a part of the constitution. Insisting that the christian gawds are "referenced" in the constitution is simply false. You claim otherwise, so, show us where in the constitution the christian gawds are referenced.

I have done so on numerous occasions... once more:

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.

Clear and unequivocable reference to the Christian diety.

You did not answer my question regarding where in the constitution the christian gawds are referenced.

You really should quit lying Hollie, it weakens your credibility. Now, are you going to answer my question about a religious cross placed erected (permanently I might add) on federal property? If you have freedom of religion such symbol should be removed from your sight, right?

 

[Hollie]

Yep, ever hear of "they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness...."

And yet, for all the assignmet of christianty being placed on the FF's (many of whom were not christians), nowhere in the constitution do we find the words God, Yahweh, Jehovah, The "Big Cheese", etc.

How strange that a "christian nation", allegedly formed by christians was framed without a single reference in the framing documents to christianity.

I guess they just forgot.

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.

I guess they did not forget, huh?

LOL

BTW. almost all of them were Christian.

"in the year of our Lord" was a common salutation for legal documents of the time.

And yet, your "lord" never appears in the wording of the constitution.

How strange that those christians managed to forget including any mention of god, christian gods or hay-zeus in the wording of the document that formed this nation.

How strange.