Why do the God-haters persist?

[Hollie]

Did you know that congress is the law-making body of the government?

Yes. Did you know that a kid saying a prayer in a state-operated school is not Congress passing a law?

Kids can say their prayers in public school.

You watch a lot of the 700 club, right?

 

[BreezeWood]

An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America

The year is 1774. American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments. Also in 1774 in Northampton, Massachusetts, eighteen Baptists are sitting in jail. Their crime? Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the town’s Congregational minister.

Also in 1774, down South in Virginia, James Madison declared, "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must beg you to . . . pray for liberty of conscience for all."

The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century. Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.

.

 

[thebrucebeat]

An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America

The year is 1774. American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments. Also in 1774 in Northampton, Massachusetts, eighteen Baptists are sitting in jail. Their crime? Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the town’s Congregational minister.

Also in 1774, down South in Virginia, James Madison declared, "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must beg you to . . . pray for liberty of conscience for all."

The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century. Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.

.

That is the irony.
The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.

 

[thebrucebeat]

well, every time they touch a dollar bill they are forced to utter a prayer....

Does that "attack" your faith or support it?
I don't think I'm getting your point?

 

[BreezeWood]

thebrucebeat: In the meantime, a hit-and-run does not make an argument and is one example of the poor argumentation I referred to.

speaking of the devil ...

.

 

[Uncensored2008]

You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.

Maybe, but then there are those like duhs, who are absolutely anti-Christian. With Atheist leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho, et al. out there, you can see where Christians would have a healthy fear of hate-filled Atheists spouting what duhs spouts.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief, Atheism is an evangelical movement to proselytize that lack of belief - often through force and murder.

 

[koshergrl]

An Outline of Baptist Persecution in Colonial America

The year is 1774. American colonists are strongly protesting British invasions of their rights, and in September the first Continental Congress is convened as a response British encroachments. Also in 1774 in Northampton, Massachusetts, eighteen Baptists are sitting in jail. Their crime? Refusing to pay taxes for the support of the town’s Congregational minister.

Also in 1774, down South in Virginia, James Madison declared, "That diabolical, hell-conceived principle of persecution rages among some. . . . There are at this time in the adjacent county not less than five or six well-meaning men in close jail for publishing their religious sentiments, which in the main are very orthodox. . . . So I must beg you to . . . pray for liberty of conscience for all."

The fight for religious liberty in America extended from the early 17th century to the early 19th century. Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.

.

That is the irony.
The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.

No, they don't. They are exactly where they have always been...staunchly against state interference or obstruction when it comes to matters of faith.

We are allowed to vote our consciences and declare our faith, even when our consciences are steered by our faith, and even when our faith is attacked. And we will (and do) die to defend that freedom.

 

[koshergrl]

Anabaptists have a fine tradition of speaking out against state interference...and they have been persecuted heavily because of it.

"Another defining characteristic of Anabaptists is their belief in the separation of church and state, and the concept that the church represents the community of saved."

"The movement’s most distinctive tenet was adult baptism. In its first generation, converts submitted to a second baptism, which was a crime punishable by death under the legal codes of the time."

"The vehemence and intransigence of the Anabaptist leaders and the revolutionary implications of their teaching led to their expulsion from one city after another. .....Soon civil magistrates took sterner measures, and most of the early Anabaptist leaders died in prison or were executed."

Progressive wetdream ^^^^^

http://www.patheos.com/Library/Anabaptist.html

 

[thebrucebeat]

All of them.

As I thought, your reactionary, paranoid claims are absent support.

There is nothing reactionary or paranoid in my claim. Since 1947 and a controversial ruling by Justice Hugo Black, we've had a de facto persecution of religious freedom in America. We are NOT able to exercise our religious freedom because at every turn we are met by some moron chortling "wall of separation!"

Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc. What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
Seems simple enough to me.
As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
You lost that one.

 

[Boss]

Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc. What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
Seems simple enough to me.
As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
You lost that one.

But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not Congress making a law... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.

Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.

.

That is the irony.
The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.

No, they don't. They are exactly where they have always been...staunchly against state interference or obstruction when it comes to matters of faith.

We are allowed to vote our consciences and declare our faith, even when our consciences are steered by our faith, and even when our faith is attacked. And we will (and do) die to defend that freedom.

On the contrary.
Falwell and Robertson led the charge in the attempt to usurp the power of government to direct social policy in the name of Jesus and the Baptists.
There is a great book by Cal Thomas called "Blinded by Might". Cal was, and is, a very conservative evangelical Christian and syndicated columnist. He was tapped to be communications director, Falwell's right hand man. It was a very prestigious position at the time.
He quit.
The book tells why. The Moral Majority was an organization with power, not freedom in mind, and Cal ultimately could not support it as it left the faith in a background position.
Cal is still a very well known conservative voice.
He just put his faith first.

 

[thebrucebeat]

Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc. What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
Seems simple enough to me.
As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
You lost that one.

But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not Congress making a law... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.

Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.

Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
Jefferson is not infallible.

 

[orogenicman]

You confuse being an atheist with being anti-Christian. Not true. We treat all religions with equal disbelief. But don't confuse disbelief with evil intent. Believe whatever you choose. It is nothing personal. We simply choose not to believe as you do, that's all. Get over yourself, already.

Maybe, but then there are those like duhs, who are absolutely anti-Christian. With Atheist leaders like Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Ho, et al. out there, you can see where Christians would have a healthy fear of hate-filled Atheists spouting what duhs spouts.

Agnosticism is a lack of belief, Atheism is an evangelical movement to proselytize that lack of belief - often through force and murder.

Erm, last time I checked my history, those guys were dead (though I can't speak for et. al. He might still be alive). So they can hardly be described as being "out there". Moreover, though they may have been atheists, they were, above all, communists and maniacal dictators with delusions of grandeur. I am certainly not a communist, nor do I have delusions of grandeur. Your attempts to vilify atheists only make you appear cowardly and incapable of reasoning with those who see things differently than you do. That's on you and no one else.

 

[orogenicman]

Of the various religious sects in America, Baptists were the most persecuted, and thus became the most vocal advocates of religious liberty and separation of church and state, taking the lead in the establishment of religious liberty and separation of church and state first in Virginia, and then at the federal level.

the fundies have it backwards, the American Revolution was fought for the seperation not against it ... they were the recipients of State / Church persecution in Europa.

.

That is the irony.
The Baptists now lead the charge for infiltration into government by the church.

No, they don't. They are exactly where they have always been...staunchly against state interference or obstruction when it comes to matters of faith.

We are allowed to vote our consciences and declare our faith, even when our consciences are steered by our faith, and even when our faith is attacked. And we will (and do) die to defend that freedom.

I'm just curious. Do Baptists keep kosher these days?

 

[orogenicman]

Well, not under YOUR interpretation of this "wall" which supposedly separates religion from state. It seems to be in direct contradiction to that interpretation. A point that obviously escaped Hugo Black in 1947 when he perverted Jefferson's words and re-wrote the 1st Amendment.

And neither is a student leading a prayer in a state-owned schoolhouse.

It is when the laws regulating that state-run school is promulgated by the state legislature. It is when the taxpayer is paying for the said school. But you're (allegedly) not a Christian anyway, so why do you give a damn?

Well hold on a second, you just said the criteria was what Congress does. Last I checked, the taxpayers also pay the salary of the President. And how did we suddenly jump from what Congress is able to do to what states are able to do? Have you read the 10th Amendment?

My religious affiliation has nothing to do with this argument. Sorry.

The states must abide by the Constitution of the United States. The 1st amendment applies to every state, and every citizen. Have you even read the document?

I dare say your religious affiliation is an issue here since you are defending, above all, Christianity, and yet have repeated told us that you are not one. So the question still stands. Why do you care?

 

[Boss]

Only when the exercise implies a tacit approval from the state, like when the childs prayer is leading the entire class at a commencement. They are acting as a representative of the school in that capacity.
The ACLU has repeatedly defended kids rights to carry and study their bibles in school, to meet in prayer at school, etc. What they have fought is the school proper being the catalyst for such activities.
I never understand why this difference is so confusing.
Seems simple enough to me.
As to the Justice Black opinion, that is their job, to interpret the constitutionality of laws and decisions. His way of thinking has been upheld ever since, regardless of the makeup of the court.
Sorry they didn't agree with you, that the document should be frozen in a time capsule.
You lost that one.

But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not Congress making a law... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.

Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.

Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
Jefferson is not infallible.

LOL... So now, Jefferson was "wrong" to violate his very own "wall of separation" in the same letter in which he articulated it? That's rich!

"Congress shall pass no law" does not translate to "students shall say no prayer on government property." Nor does it translate to "process of making official policy." Nor does it have beans to do with what the States can do under the 10th Amendment.

You can also argue that a particular Supreme Court Justice (Hugo Black) was wrong in 1947, when he made the ruling that solidified this idiotic interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

 

[orogenicman]

But I presented the example earlier to refute this interpretation. The President of the United States is most certainly representing "the state" in his official capacity as President, is he not? We, the taxpayers are paying his salary, correct? So when I point out that in the very letter where (then President) Jefferson used the words "wall of separation between church and state" actually concludes with a prayer and respectful and esteemed reciprocation to the Danbury Baptists, it seems to completely contradict the modern interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

Oromoron chimes in that this doesn't violate it because it's not Congress making a law... well, kids leading a prayer is also not Congress making a law. A Ten Commandments monument in a statehouse building is not Congress making a law. A nativity scene in front of the courthouse is not Congress making a law.

Supreme Court rulings are not forever carved in granite, else slaves would still be property! Women would still be unable to vote! Schools would still be segregated! The list goes on and on. So I wouldn't get too cocky about a 1947 ruling which changed the original intent of the 1st Amendment.

Nor should you be upset by it. It is the normal course of events.
As far as Jefferson is concerned, you could argue that he was not in the process of making official policy, but describing what his personal beliefs were regarding the issue, or you can argue that based on today's understanding he was simply wrong.
Jefferson is not infallible.

LOL... So now, Jefferson was "wrong" to violate his very own "wall of separation" in the same letter in which he articulated it? That's rich!

"Congress shall pass no law" does not translate to "students shall say no prayer on government property." Nor does it translate to "process of making official policy." Nor does it have beans to do with what the States can do under the 10th Amendment.

You can also argue that a particular Supreme Court Justice (Hugo Black) was wrong in 1947, when he made the ruling that solidified this idiotic interpretation of the Establishment Clause.

There are 650,000 churches, synagogues, temples, and mosques in this country. Pick one and be done with it.

 

[Boss]

The states must abide by the Constitution of the United States. The 1st amendment applies to every state, and every citizen. Have you even read the document?

I have. But you pointed out the 1st Amendment is about what Congress can do. Remember that? It was only a few posts back, go refresh your memory! How is any state action related to what the US Congress does or doesn't do?

 

[GISMYS]

Why do GOD haters persist??? SIMPLE!!! BELIEVERS! know and expect to be attacked if you post GOD'S WORD=ETERNAL TRUTH. Unbelievers and false religious minions of satan hate GOD and GOD'S WORD = ETERNAL TRUTH. Against JESUS They screamed and gnashed their teeth crying ban him from the temple,then CRUCIFY HIM!!! CRUCIFY HIM!! Pilate knew JESUS was inocent but he wanted to please the people,so he washed his hands and said ," you crucify him but I find him inocent"!!! ==The world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. 19"If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, because of this the world hates you.. John 15:18 SAD!! But most GOD haters will not wise up until they feel the flames!!!and you??

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There goes the neighborhood.