Why do the God-haters persist?

[orogenicman]

I love it when anti-Christian goons maintain that anyone who says this country was founded on Christian principles (as it definitely was) or disagrees with their ridiculous contention that the founding fathers were LIBERALS as liberals are defined today...are FUNDIES.

Sorry, Southern Baptist isn't *fundy*. Nor is Catholic. Nor is whatever Boss is.

The real question is do Christians actually keep kosher?

 

[Boss]

no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.

 

[Hollie]

no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.

Clueless.

The Constitution is a secular document.

There is no way to have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion. If it were otherwise, then Moslems could argue that Christians are not permitted to have freedom from believing in Islam! Or Christians could claim that Moslems could not be permitted to have freedomfrom Christianity! Freedom from is part and parcel of freedom of.

The entire constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.

 

[orogenicman]

no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.

And that interpretation AND attitude is why you are a threat not only to the Constitution, but to future of this country.

 

[thebrucebeat]

no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.

Bing Dictionary
sec·u·lar[ sékyələr ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order

Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
Equal deference?
LOL!!!
That would equate to no deference at all.

 

[Boss]

no, Separation of Church and State defined by our Constitution by the Liberal theology of its text is not only secular but was the first of its kind in the history of mankind - it is your religious dishonesty that is appalling and you are the threat the Constitution was written for.

I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.

Bing Dictionary
sec·u·lar[ sékyələr ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order

Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
Equal deference?
LOL!!!
That would equate to no deference at all.

Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.

How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?

Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.

 

[thebrucebeat]

I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.

Bing Dictionary
sec·u·lar[ sékyələr ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order

Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
Equal deference?
LOL!!!
That would equate to no deference at all.

Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.

How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?

Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.

Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.
Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.
The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.
In 67 years, it has not been questioned.
There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.
The ONLY thing Justice Black and his court acknowledged is that those with no faith have the same equal protections.
Not exactly radical.

 

[Boss]

The Constitution is a secular document.

But it's not secular. It deals with religion and religious freedom in the First Amendment. If it were truly "secular" there would be no mention of religion or religious freedom. In so much that it's the establishment of law, it is "religion-neutral" and this is by design, we are not a theocracy. But "religion-neutral" doesn't mean "secular" which is to be completely devoid of anything religious.

As I said, it has been a gross misconception since 1947, and was not what the Founding Fathers ever intended or constructed. We're NOT a secular nation.

 

[Boss]

Bing Dictionary
sec·u·lar[ sékyələr ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order

Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
Equal deference?
LOL!!!
That would equate to no deference at all.

Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.

How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?

Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.

Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.
Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.
The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.
In 67 years, it has not been questioned.
There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.

Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.

Haven't argued otherwise, in fact, that was MY statement. Glad we could agree on it.

Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.

Never claimed it did.

The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.

Yup.

In 67 years, it has not been questioned.

Wrong. It has been controversial since 1947 when it was ruled. It has been widely questioned. It remains hotly contested and debated.

There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.

But it's being challenged all the time by constitutional originalists.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.

How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?

Equal deference to all does not equate to NO deference.

Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.
Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.
The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.
In 67 years, it has not been questioned.
There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.

Since 1947 it has been the standard of American jurisprudence.

Haven't argued otherwise, in fact, that was MY statement. Glad we could agree on it.

Your opinion fascinates you, I'm quite sure, but has no weight.

Never claimed it did.

The SCOTUS decision, on the other hand, does.

Yup.

In 67 years, it has not been questioned.

Wrong. It has been controversial since 1947 when it was ruled. It has been widely questioned. It remains hotly contested and debated.

There is no reason to think it will be any time soon.

But it's being challenged all the time by constitutional originalists.

And losing.
Every single time.

 

[ZenBubba]

"If ‘fulfilled prophecy’ is your criterion, why do you not believe in materialistic science, which has an unparalleled record of fulfilled prophecy? Consider, for example, eclipses.”

Fulfilled prophecy isn't the criterion of belief. The nature of being is and that isn't addressed by the physical sciences.

The idea that God is an oversized white male with a flowing beard who sits in the sky and tallies the fall of every sparrow is ludicrous.

Absolutely.

But if by God one means the set of physical laws that govern the universe, then clearly there is such a God. This God is emotionally unsatisfying... it does not make much sense to pray to the law of gravity.

The physical laws of the universe are the mechanism by which God governs the universe but not the agency.

 

[orogenicman]

I've not been dishonest, I've stated nothing but verifiable facts. Our nation is certainly NOT secular, nor is it a theocracy. We have freedom OF religion, not freedom FROM religion. There wasn't a problem with the understanding of this until 1947, when Hugo Black decided to misinterpret Jefferson's "wall of separation" to mean we're supposed to have a secular government. "Secular" means without deference to religion. Our nation was founded and constitution written to give equal deference to ALL religion.

Bing Dictionary
sec·u·lar[ sékyələr ]1.not concerned with religion: not controlled by a religious body or concerned with religious or spiritual matters
2.not religious: not religious or spiritual in nature
3.not monastic: not belonging to a monastic order

Gee, that sounds like our government, doesn't it?
Equal deference?
LOL!!!
That would equate to no deference at all.

Since 1947, that has been the understanding. It's incorrect.

How can a government that guarantees religious freedom NOT be concerned with religion?

It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain. You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause. You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.

 

[Boss]

It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Still, it concerns religion, therefore not "secular" by definition.

You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain.

I'm free to practice my religion ANYWHERE, or at least I was until 1947. The 1st makes no such restriction of religious freedom inside or outside government domain. It states Congress can't pass a law respecting establishment of religion. It also says it can't prohibit the free exercise of religion and doesn't specify it has this authority within the confines of government domain.

You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause.

Only since 1947 when Jefferson's "wall of separation" was misinterpreted to mean this.

You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.

Agreed, but of ALL places this should surely apply, 'government domain' should certainly be included. It's like saying "here's our set of rules and laws, but they don't apply if you're in a government building!" Of all places they should apply, that would seem to be the foremost.

Again... Not arguing they DO... Since 1947, the constitutional understanding has been otherwise. But 67 years of the Constitution being interpreted wrong doesn't mean it's right. For 87 years, the Constitution was interpreted to make black people property. Things can change.

 

[thebrucebeat]

It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion.

Still, it concerns religion, therefore not "secular" by definition.

You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain.

I'm free to practice my religion ANYWHERE, or at least I was until 1947. The 1st makes no such restriction of religious freedom inside or outside government domain. It states Congress can't pass a law respecting establishment of religion. It also says it can't prohibit the free exercise of religion and doesn't specify it has this authority within the confines of government domain.

You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause.

Only since 1947 when Jefferson's "wall of separation" was misinterpreted to mean this.

You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.

Agreed, but of ALL places this should surely apply, 'government domain' should certainly be included. It's like saying "here's our set of rules and laws, but they don't apply if you're in a government building!" Of all places they should apply, that would seem to be the foremost.

Again... Not arguing they DO... Since 1947, the constitutional understanding has been otherwise. But 67 years of the Constitution being interpreted wrong doesn't mean it's right. For 87 years, the Constitution was interpreted to make black people property. Things can change.

Yes they can change.
That's why the originalist movement being heralded by a black man is such an anomaly.
You are in Alabama, right?
What would your status be right now under an originalist understanding of the COTUS?
Since Justice Black's court ruled, it is understood that the establishment clause prevents the government or its institutions to give the implication of support for any faith tradition.
The fact that the COTUS states its neutrality toward religion doesn't mean it is "concerned" with religion. It means it is specifically and clearly stating it is not concerned with it. To not state it clearly, as it does, would leave the issue of religious influence on government an open question. They categorically stated otherwise and closed the question with a slam.
Justice Black merely stated the obvious.

 

[BreezeWood]

Everson v. Board of Education - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Everson v. Board of Education

Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947)[1][2] was a landmark decision of the United States Supreme Court which applied the Establishment Clause in the country's Bill of Rights to State law. Prior to this decision the First Amendment words, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion"[3] imposed limits only on the federal government, while many states continued to grant certain religious denominations legislative or effective privileges.[4] This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The decision in Everson marked a turning point in the interpretation and application of disestablishment law in the modern era.[5]

..................


Perhaps as important as the actual outcome, though, was the interpretation given by the entire Court to the Establishment Clause. It reflected a broad interpretation of the Clause that was to guide the Court's decisions for decades to come. Black's language was sweeping:

"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 form 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.'" 330 U.S. 1, 15-16.

... the interpretation given by the entire Court to the Establishment Clause.

Boss, was Hugo Black the entire court ?


This was the first Supreme Court case incorporating the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment as binding upon the states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

and who would have guessed, 1947 to be a banner year for Liberal Theocracy.

.

 

[MrMax]

Hey Boss, I've been trying to do this magic trick for 3 days now and can't seem to get it. Do I not have any Spiritual Nature?

 

[holston]

Clueless.

The Constitution is a secular document.

There is no way to have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion. If it were otherwise, then Moslems could argue that Christians are not permitted to have freedom from believing in Islam! Or Christians could claim that Moslems could not be permitted to have freedomfrom Christianity! Freedom from is part and parcel of freedom of.

The entire constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.

This is what we've gotten for allowing the Jews to muck with immigration and anything else.

 

[holston]

The real question is do Christians actually keep kosher?

Whenever you people can't think of a rebuttal you always resort to flaming.

 

[orogenicman]

Clueless.

The Constitution is a secular document.

There is no way to have freedom of religion without also having freedom from religion. If it were otherwise, then Moslems could argue that Christians are not permitted to have freedom from believing in Islam! Or Christians could claim that Moslems could not be permitted to have freedomfrom Christianity! Freedom from is part and parcel of freedom of.

The entire constitution is rules that limit the government's involvement in the citizen's lives. It is clearly a muzzle on the state's ability to dictate to the citizenry what it can and cannot do within the paradigm of the federal mandate. Certainly rule of law is to be enforced, but that is also controlled at the local level. So it is not any news that government is restrained from interfering with religion.

This is what we've gotten for allowing the Jews to muck with immigration and anything else.

I'm pretty sure that this kind of bigotry is against the forum rules. Please stop.

 

[holston]

It's only concern is that it prohibits the making of any law respecting an establishment of religion, or impeding the free exercise of religion. You are free to practice your religion outside of the government domain. You are not free to use government to further a religious cause, belief, or sect because that would violate the establishment clause. You are not free to use government to impede the free exercise of religious practices by others because that would violate the religious freedom clause.

I take it you are not the least bit concerned with the House Resolution declaring Judaism's "Noahide Laws" the foundation of law?