Separation of church and state.

Ralph Stewart
Silver Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Separation of church and state.

I could use some assistance with a project right here in Johnson County, Tennessee.

There is a display of the Ten Commandments in the court house. The legal effort to remove is in a quiescent stage and will be for several months. The county is going to try and keep the plaque by calling it a free history of law display area.

There is a forum: Mountain City Forum – Topix, that has two threads. 'Ten Commandments in Court House' and '10 Commandments in Court House.'

I am very confident that local teens hangout on the forums. So every now and then I would like to post absurdities and other oddities from the bible on these threads. No long quotes of scripture. Hopefully raising a question in a mind.

I found a forum with god killings. Is there a collection bible silly stuff? (Other than the whole thing.)

 

 

 

 


Jeffrick
High Level DonorRational VIP!SuperfanGold Member
Jeffrick's picture
Posts: 2399
Joined: 2008-03-25
User is offlineOffline
First.

 

   Start with the first commandment;" Thou shalt have no God before me."   the literate form is plural,  so  ask the true believers what other Gods there are before their god?  

    The second says something about false gods and false prophets; don't let the true believers confuse the two. It also say their god is a jelious god, a direct contridiction to the tenth commandment "...do not covet..."

     You might try the -skeptics annotated bible for further absurdities.

"Very funny Scotty; now beam down our clothes."

VEGETARIAN: Ancient Hindu word for "lousy hunter"

If man was formed from dirt, why is there still dirt?


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
You do realize that your

You do realize that your flawed view of "Separation of Church and State" has nothing, let me repeate, absolutetly nothing to do with what the founding fathers originally meant by that right? 

It means, basically, that the state is not allowed to set up a state church or a law restricting religion and the free practice thereof. It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

I'm not surprised that your view of "Separation of Church and State" is what it is, especially considering how liberal our country has been getting. But I think the biggest factor is the fact that no one is interested in even considering what the founding fathers meant by anything they wrote. If you do some research on what they actually meant to say, than you would not be thinking this way.

Now onto this post...

Jeffrick wrote:

   Start with the first commandment;" Thou shalt have no God before me."   the literate form is plural,  so  ask the true believers what other Gods there are before their god? 

How does this invalidate what is written in the Bible? All this proves is that hypocrites exist. \

Jeffrick wrote:

    The second says something about false gods and false prophets; don't let the true believers confuse the two. It also say their god is a jelious god, a direct contridiction to the tenth commandment "...do not covet..."

     You might try the -skeptics annotated bible for further absurdities.

The command, "Thou shall not covet" does not contradict God's jealousness for His people. When He says "do not covet" He is talking about wanting things from others for the wrong reasons. God, however, rightfully deserves the worship of His people/creation.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
OK, first off, if you

OK, first off, if you want to get rid of the monument I would try to find out where it came from in the first place. Many of the court house versions were erected by Cecil B. DeMille to promote his movie by the same name. If it was set up by the Fraternal order of Eagles in the late 50's, the you probably have one of those. Establishing that the reason for the monument was to promote a movie starring Charleton Heston could be an angle worth pursuing.

 

Past that, if you want a pretty decent list of the silly and tragic stuff in the bible, check the skeptic's bible here:

 

http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Dancinglizard
Posts: 1
Joined: 2008-12-29
User is offlineOffline
I hope you do realise that

I hope you do realise that Jeffrick's meaning of "Seperation of Church and State" is right. After all where did the founding fathers come from? A State that was corrupted by the Church. They did not want to be in that position again. And if you're trying to suggest that the founding fathers were in fact Christians then youre wrong again.

Thomas Jefferson - "The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter."

"Religions are all alike - founded upon fables and mythologies."

"I do not find in orthodox Christianity one redeeming feature."

"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

James Madison - "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise."

Also the 10 Commandments all came from Egyptian religion, much like most everything else in Christianity. From the Book of the Dead, "I have not told lies" became "Thou shall not bear false witness". "I have not killed" became "Thou shall not kill".  "I have not stolen" became "Thou shall not steal". The parallels go on and on.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

You do realize that your flawed view of "Separation of Church and State" has nothing, let me repeate, absolutetly nothing to do with what the founding fathers originally meant by that right? 

It means, basically, that the state is not allowed to set up a state church or a law restricting religion and the free practice thereof. It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

I'm not surprised that your view of "Separation of Church and State" is what it is, especially considering how liberal our country has been getting. But I think the biggest factor is the fact that no one is interested in even considering what the founding fathers meant by anything they wrote. If you do some research on what they actually meant to say, than you would not be thinking this way.

Now onto this post...

Jeffrick wrote:

   Start with the first commandment;" Thou shalt have no God before me."   the literate form is plural,  so  ask the true believers what other Gods there are before their god? 

How does this invalidate what is written in the Bible? All this proves is that hypocrites exist. \

Jeffrick wrote:

    The second says something about false gods and false prophets; don't let the true believers confuse the two. It also say their god is a jelious god, a direct contridiction to the tenth commandment "...do not covet..."

     You might try the -skeptics annotated bible for further absurdities.

The command, "Thou shall not covet" does not contradict God's jealousness for His people. When He says "do not covet" He is talking about wanting things from others for the wrong reasons. God, however, rightfully deserves the worship of His people/creation.

"Liberal", how? That more and more people see all citizens as equal? Or that more and more people don't hold a theocratic view of the Constitution?

It's not that our country is more liberal as much as it is less xenophobic.

You do realize that "so help me God" is NOT MANDITORY, in fact it is forbiden to demand a religious test to hold public office. ANYONE born in this country who is of Constitutional age, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof can run for office.

Plastering God on the money, in the pledge, and attempting to gang tag government property witht he Ten Commandments is not an issue of free speech. It was perpitrated by Christians as a symbol to others, even citizens, to not dare compete for political office in this country.

Let me set you streight. CHRISTIANS do not own our government. There is nothing intitling Christians to hold a monopoly on public office. "NO RELIGIOUS TEST", and as such OUR public buildings and symbols should be as neutral as our flag. 

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", artical 11 Barbary Treaty "Treaty of Tripoly, signed by both houses of Congress WITHOUT DISSENT, and signed into LAW by President John Adams, June 10th 1797.

Far too many people either confuse or diliberately twist "freedom of speech" as a license to tell others they have no right to compete politically. If you piss on a tree long enough the other lions know it is your teritory. Your problem is that you think you are a lion and anyone outside your label is merely weclome to be a guest, maybe own a business, pay taxes, but cant expect any shot at public office.

HERE ARE THE FACTS. Obama, or any president for that matter can swear on a Koran, or Torah or Hindu book, or nothing at all. NO RELIGIOUS TEST.

The only reason you want the Ten Commandments on public property is to let other non-Christian citizens to "know their place".

It is not my government or your government IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT.

You do have the right to freedom of religion, but you DO NOT have the right to gang tag government property and use government to favor your Christianity over all others.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:"Liberal",

Brian37 wrote:

"Liberal", how? That more and more people see all citizens as equal? Or that more and more people don't hold a theocratic view of the Constitution?

Did I say that we should hold a theocratic view of the Constitution? No sir. What I meant is that people are taking what was originally written for a specific purpose and changing its meaning so it can fit what they want now. This whole "Separation of Church and State" issue does not mean take church out of everything. It means that the government cannot set up a state church or prohibit the free practice of religion. However, people are not interested in what was actually written and for what purpose, so this kind of redefinition comes in.

I'm just tired of seeing this type of mindset when it comes to the Constitution and what it says.

Brian37 wrote:

It's not that our country is more liberal as much as it is less xenophobic.

You do realize that "so help me God" is NOT MANDITORY, in fact it is forbiden to demand a religious test to hold public office. ANYONE born in this country who is of Constitutional age, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof can run for office.

Plastering God on the money, in the pledge, and attempting to gang tag government property witht he Ten Commandments is not an issue of free speech. It was perpitrated by Christians as a symbol to others, even citizens, to not dare compete for political office in this country.

First off, when I did talk about the Bible in my post, I was defending the blatant misunderstanding that Jeffrick showed. That is all. Assuming that I am trying to push my religion on anyone just shows that you are simply looking for confrontation.

Brian37 wrote:

Let me set you streight. CHRISTIANS do not own our government. There is nothing intitling Christians to hold a monopoly on public office. "NO RELIGIOUS TEST", and as such OUR public buildings and symbols should be as neutral as our flag. 

What are you talking about?

Brian37 wrote:

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", artical 11 Barbary Treaty "Treaty of Tripoly, signed by both houses of Congress WITHOUT DISSENT, and signed into LAW by President John Adams, June 10th 1797.

You are right, we were not founded on "Christian religion," but there were many Christian founding fathers. Likewise, there were many founding fathers who were deists and they firmly believed in Biblical teachings of morality and ethics. So I don't see what your point is here.

Brian37 wrote:

Far too many people either confuse or diliberately twist "freedom of speech" as a license to tell others they have no right to compete politically. If you piss on a tree long enough the other lions know it is your teritory. Your problem is that you think you are a lion and anyone outside your label is merely weclome to be a guest, maybe own a business, pay taxes, but cant expect any shot at public office.

Where did freedom of speech come into this discussion? Was this not about "Separation of Church and State"? Stay on track, sir. And by the way, freedom of speech gives me the right to say whatever I want to whom ever I want. It is only getting out of control nowadays because people are so fast to get offended that speaking out is becoming a negative thing.

Brian37 wrote:

HERE ARE THE FACTS. Obama, or any president for that matter can swear on a Koran, or Torah or Hindu book, or nothing at all. NO RELIGIOUS TEST.

The only reason you want the Ten Commandments on public property is to let other non-Christian citizens to "know their place".

It is not my government or your government IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT.

You do have the right to freedom of religion, but you DO NOT have the right to gang tag government property and use government to favor your Christianity over all others.

Again, why are you misunderstanding what I said? Are you simply looking for a debate and confrontation with a theist? All I said is that "Separation of Church and State" is not what people make it out to be today. And then I defended what the Bible actuall taught on the two things that Jeffrick said and misunderstood.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Did I say that we should hold a theocratic view of the Constitution? No sir. What I meant is that people are taking what was originally written for a specific purpose and changing its meaning so it can fit what they want now. This whole "Separation of Church and State" issue does not mean take church out of everything. It means that the government cannot set up a state church or prohibit the free practice of religion. However, people are not interested in what was actually written and for what purpose, so this kind of redefinition comes in.

I'm just tired of seeing this type of mindset when it comes to the Constitution and what it says.

I'm tired of hearing this BS from people who slept through civics.

The First Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's all the constitution itself has to say. And as the motives of the individual founding fathers are pure conjecture, save for quite a bit of anti-religion and anti-Christian rhetoric, we can't let them color our view of that clause.

The constitution was never intended to be an absolute document. You can gather this from the fact that it can be amended.

The government it describes is also not intended to be more than the basic framework. You can tell this from the powers granted each branch to define new services and departments.

Since the establishment clause has been written, there have been quite a number of judgments from the federal judicial branch that form case law that refine the meaning of establishment - and that includes government giving special voice to any religion or lack thereof.

So, I'm afraid that the great wall of seperation between church and state is exactly what people make it out to be: Religion does not get special voice in any form from government.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
Maybe you can propose a

Maybe you can propose a smiliar plaque with 10 antitheism quotes. Seems fair to me.


Ralph Stewart
Silver Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
some background

A little background.

The plaque was put up in 1999. I have been told that the ceremony accepting it was video taped and a church was selling copies.

The man leading the defense of the display wants to run for county mayor in the next election. The group he formed is called the Ten Commandment Warriors. (Using religion to try and get elected? Who has ever heard of such?)

The Lane leading to my place is about three quarters of a mile long. At last count there were twenty-three 10 C signs on it. Around here we do take comfort in the second amendment.

I believe the posts on the threads are read. Hopefully a rational thought or two will sink in.

Thanks for the inputs.


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:I'm tired of

JillSwift wrote:

I'm tired of hearing this BS from people who slept through civics.

The First Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's all the constitution itself has to say. And as the motives of the individual founding fathers are pure conjecture, save for quite a bit of anti-religion and anti-Christian rhetoric, we can't let them color our view of that clause.

The constitution was never intended to be an absolute document. You can gather this from the fact that it can be amended.

The government it describes is also not intended to be more than the basic framework. You can tell this from the powers granted each branch to define new services and departments.

Since the establishment clause has been written, there have been quite a number of judgments from the federal judicial branch that form case law that refine the meaning of establishment - and that includes government giving special voice to any religion or lack thereof.

So, I'm afraid that the great wall of seperation between church and state is exactly what people make it out to be: Religion does not get special voice in any form from government.

Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics." All I said, at least twice (quite possibly three times) is that the state cannot establish any law prohibiting the free practice of religion. Setting up a church state by law would be restricting free practice of religion.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


RatDog
atheistSilver Member
Posts: 562
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
Stosis wrote:Maybe you can

Stosis wrote:

Maybe you can propose a smiliar plaque with 10 antitheism quotes. Seems fair to me.

Why can't the government just be neutral?  Is that so much to ask?


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice?
Happily:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


Stosis
Posts: 327
Joined: 2008-10-21
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Stosis

RatDog wrote:

Stosis wrote:

Maybe you can propose a smiliar plaque with 10 anti-theism quotes. Seems fair to me.

Why can't the government just be neutral?  Is that so much to ask?

Yes, that would be ideal. I only said this as a joke mostly to see how The Atheist Delusion would react if there were something distinctly atheist set up on government/public property.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

"Liberal", how? That more and more people see all citizens as equal? Or that more and more people don't hold a theocratic view of the Constitution?

Did I say that we should hold a theocratic view of the Constitution? No sir. What I meant is that people are taking what was originally written for a specific purpose and changing its meaning so it can fit what they want now. This whole "Separation of Church and State" issue does not mean take church out of everything. It means that the government cannot set up a state church or prohibit the free practice of religion. However, people are not interested in what was actually written and for what purpose, so this kind of redefinition comes in.

I'm just tired of seeing this type of mindset when it comes to the Constitution and what it says.

Brian37 wrote:

It's not that our country is more liberal as much as it is less xenophobic.

You do realize that "so help me God" is NOT MANDITORY, in fact it is forbiden to demand a religious test to hold public office. ANYONE born in this country who is of Constitutional age, regardless of religious belief or lack thereof can run for office.

Plastering God on the money, in the pledge, and attempting to gang tag government property witht he Ten Commandments is not an issue of free speech. It was perpitrated by Christians as a symbol to others, even citizens, to not dare compete for political office in this country.

First off, when I did talk about the Bible in my post, I was defending the blatant misunderstanding that Jeffrick showed. That is all. Assuming that I am trying to push my religion on anyone just shows that you are simply looking for confrontation.

Brian37 wrote:

Let me set you streight. CHRISTIANS do not own our government. There is nothing intitling Christians to hold a monopoly on public office. "NO RELIGIOUS TEST", and as such OUR public buildings and symbols should be as neutral as our flag. 

What are you talking about?

Brian37 wrote:

"As the government of the United States is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion", artical 11 Barbary Treaty "Treaty of Tripoly, signed by both houses of Congress WITHOUT DISSENT, and signed into LAW by President John Adams, June 10th 1797.

You are right, we were not founded on "Christian religion," but there were many Christian founding fathers. Likewise, there were many founding fathers who were deists and they firmly believed in Biblical teachings of morality and ethics. So I don't see what your point is here.

Brian37 wrote:

Far too many people either confuse or diliberately twist "freedom of speech" as a license to tell others they have no right to compete politically. If you piss on a tree long enough the other lions know it is your teritory. Your problem is that you think you are a lion and anyone outside your label is merely weclome to be a guest, maybe own a business, pay taxes, but cant expect any shot at public office.

Where did freedom of speech come into this discussion? Was this not about "Separation of Church and State"? Stay on track, sir. And by the way, freedom of speech gives me the right to say whatever I want to whom ever I want. It is only getting out of control nowadays because people are so fast to get offended that speaking out is becoming a negative thing.

Brian37 wrote:

HERE ARE THE FACTS. Obama, or any president for that matter can swear on a Koran, or Torah or Hindu book, or nothing at all. NO RELIGIOUS TEST.

The only reason you want the Ten Commandments on public property is to let other non-Christian citizens to "know their place".

It is not my government or your government IT IS OUR GOVERNMENT.

You do have the right to freedom of religion, but you DO NOT have the right to gang tag government property and use government to favor your Christianity over all others.

Again, why are you misunderstanding what I said? Are you simply looking for a debate and confrontation with a theist? All I said is that "Separation of Church and State" is not what people make it out to be today. And then I defended what the Bible actuall taught on the two things that Jeffrick said and misunderstood.

Quote:
Did I say that we should hold a theocratic view of the Constitution? No sir. What I meant is that people are taking what was originally written for a specific purpose and changing its meaning so it can fit what they want now.

By who? Certainly by Fundy Christian revisionists who think they and they alone are intitled to the drivers seat while all others are mere guests and that the "unoffical" "wink wink" religion that government (does not promote) "wink wink" is Christianity.

There is no dispute between secularists(who can be religious) and theocrats, that our Constitution DOES protect freedom of religion.

BUT our government should not be in the business of gang taging government property to "WINK WINK" promote "God" and pretend that it is generic "WINK WINK".

It wasnt Jews who promoted the Motto "In God We Trust", it wasn't Muslims or Buddhists who promoted "Under God". Those are Christian corperate logos put there by Christians like a lion peeing on a bush to remind all others that they are merely guests, EVEN IF THEY ARE FULL CITIZENS.

THAT crappy attitude is negated by several points that demand government neutrality in that government has to leave that issue up to the individual.

1. CONGRESS SHALL MAKE NO LAW RESPECTING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A RELIGION

2. NO RELIGIOUS TEST

3. NO MANDITORY SWEARING IN TO ANY DEITY OF ANY LABEL IN THE OATH OF OFFICE.

If our government were supposed only be controled by Christianity then the founders should have made that clear by mentioning the Christian god. THEY DID NOT DO THAT!

As such our national symbols and government property should do one of two things, stop plastering Christian gang symbols on government property, or allow other religions to do the same, including printing it on our money and in our pledge. OTHERWISE, we call should do the right thing and deal with that issue on our own time with our own resources(WHICH IS WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT SAYS)

You cannot be arrested for your religion or your dissent on any issue, but our government will not favor you over all others. THAT IS WHAT THE FIRST AMENDMENT MEANS.

It is an anti-trust law preventing monopolies of power. Christians have created loopholes by "winking at each other" by trying to claim that "God" is generic, but no other groups were backing up their gang symbols being displayed PERMENANTLY on government property.

The founders NEVER intended on government being used as a billboard for Christianity. They intended that issue to be one delt with by the individual on their own time. Neither for or against, simply neutral.

No one, left or right, has a problem with the flag lacking a mention of a deity or lacking a religious symbol. That is what our money once reflected and what our oath of office has always relfected. NEUTRALITY is not a demand for Christianity to be silenced, it merely means that our government should not favor them over all others.

What is wrong with private media, radio, tv, websites, books, private stadiums, 360,000 private houses of worship? Christians have all that and still insist that government make statements about which God owns our government, and then tries to lie and say that is not what they are doing.

Christians do not own our government any more than Jews or atheists do. Our personal beliefs should not be gang symbols used by government to tell others with a wink and a nod who will always be in charge. You are lying to yourself and to me if think I am fooled by what Christians for far too long have been getting away with.

I have read enough of what the founders intended to know what Christian revisionists have falsely sold is a lie. And not even the most religious of the founders would agree with the theocratic hijacking of our government that has taken place. All of them agreed to keep Jefferson's "wall" in place. Something that has been lost and needs to be put back in place.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

I'm tired of hearing this BS from people who slept through civics.

The First Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's all the constitution itself has to say. And as the motives of the individual founding fathers are pure conjecture, save for quite a bit of anti-religion and anti-Christian rhetoric, we can't let them color our view of that clause.

The constitution was never intended to be an absolute document. You can gather this from the fact that it can be amended.

The government it describes is also not intended to be more than the basic framework. You can tell this from the powers granted each branch to define new services and departments.

Since the establishment clause has been written, there have been quite a number of judgments from the federal judicial branch that form case law that refine the meaning of establishment - and that includes government giving special voice to any religion or lack thereof.

So, I'm afraid that the great wall of seperation between church and state is exactly what people make it out to be: Religion does not get special voice in any form from government.

Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics." All I said, at least twice (quite possibly three times) is that the state cannot establish any law prohibiting the free practice of religion. Setting up a church state by law would be restricting free practice of religion.

Quote:
]Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics.

You don't have to say a thing. We already know the bullcrap you have been indoctrinated with in order to blindly and falsely defend the gang tagging by Christianity of government symbols such as our money and our pledge.

The intent of putting those slogans in sponsored by government is not to symbolize equality but is nothing but Christianity hijacking government and demanding it play favorites to them. OTHERWISE if it were truely a symbol of freedom, then any citizen petitioning government to do the same thing for others at the same scale, we would see "In Allah We Trust" on some money. We would have our children take turns each day incerting a different deity into the pledge.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE SEE, our government almost emediately after the last of the founders died decided they didn't like the neutrality the founders set up and looked for ways around that concept of neutrality.

Our government plays favorites to Christianty and you are lying saying that is not what is going on. AND we get falsely accused when we point this out, of wanting to use government to forcably end Christianity when all we want is for government to stop offering itself up as a billboard to Christianity.

I've pointed out all the private media available to everyone of every stripe and that should be good enough for you. But make no mistake about it, YOU have missunderstood the Constitution. AND there are religious people who agree with us.

DO NOT try to make this out to be atheist vs theist. This is secularism vs revisionism. The founders, as you correctly stated were a variety of religions and WERE FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION, but once again, I am not fooled into thinking "God" on our money and in our pledge is representitive of all citizens. THAT IS A PILE OF CRAP! It is a loophole created by Christians disigned to maintain a monopoly of power through a secret wink and nod placing all other citizens at the back of the bus.

We are merely asking that Christians remove their gang symbols from property that belongs to all of us. Just like the flag does not have an atom on it, or Star of David on it, or Cresent Moon and Star on it. NEUTRAL is not a demand for silence. It merely means do it without our help(being government).

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

I'm tired of hearing this BS from people who slept through civics.

The First Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's all the constitution itself has to say. And as the motives of the individual founding fathers are pure conjecture, save for quite a bit of anti-religion and anti-Christian rhetoric, we can't let them color our view of that clause.

The constitution was never intended to be an absolute document. You can gather this from the fact that it can be amended.

The government it describes is also not intended to be more than the basic framework. You can tell this from the powers granted each branch to define new services and departments.

Since the establishment clause has been written, there have been quite a number of judgments from the federal judicial branch that form case law that refine the meaning of establishment - and that includes government giving special voice to any religion or lack thereof.

So, I'm afraid that the great wall of seperation between church and state is exactly what people make it out to be: Religion does not get special voice in any form from government.

Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics." All I said, at least twice (quite possibly three times) is that the state cannot establish any law prohibiting the free practice of religion. Setting up a church state by law would be restricting free practice of religion.

It seems you're saying that the government should not set up a church (I agree) but you have no problem with the churches telling their congregants who to vote for (not getting a special voice in government but attempting to make sure they have their people in power).

Government shouldn't be in the religion business but the churches should be in the business of governance? Sounds like a double standard.

You wouldn't be the only Christian to hold that view - I know many of them. They also believe that Republicanism automatically implies Christianity - no need for that annoying Jesus.

 

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
JillSwift wrote:The Atheist

JillSwift wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice?
Happily:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

How does that have anything to do with having a special voice? My point, which you keep on missing for some reason, is that using "Spearation of Church and State" as a means to validate the removal of the Ten Commandments, or any other religious values from government, is not what "Separation of Church and State" means. Yes, you can remove the Ten Commandments, that is fine. But to misrepresent what "Separation of Church and State" really means to do so is twisting the original meaning.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
jcgadfly wrote:The Atheist

jcgadfly wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

I'm tired of hearing this BS from people who slept through civics.

The First Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's all the constitution itself has to say. And as the motives of the individual founding fathers are pure conjecture, save for quite a bit of anti-religion and anti-Christian rhetoric, we can't let them color our view of that clause.

The constitution was never intended to be an absolute document. You can gather this from the fact that it can be amended.

The government it describes is also not intended to be more than the basic framework. You can tell this from the powers granted each branch to define new services and departments.

Since the establishment clause has been written, there have been quite a number of judgments from the federal judicial branch that form case law that refine the meaning of establishment - and that includes government giving special voice to any religion or lack thereof.

So, I'm afraid that the great wall of seperation between church and state is exactly what people make it out to be: Religion does not get special voice in any form from government.

Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics." All I said, at least twice (quite possibly three times) is that the state cannot establish any law prohibiting the free practice of religion. Setting up a church state by law would be restricting free practice of religion.

It seems you're saying that the government should not set up a church (I agree) but you have no problem with the churches telling their congregants who to vote for (not getting a special voice in government but attempting to make sure they have their people in power).

Government shouldn't be in the religion business but the churches should be in the business of governance? Sounds like a double standard.

You wouldn't be the only Christian to hold that view - I know many of them. They also believe that Republicanism automatically implies Christianity - no need for that annoying Jesus.

 

Wow. Again, not what I said or implied. If the pastor of a church preaches on an election to his congregation, he has every right to preach on what is Biblical. He has every right to remind his congregation of the standards of morality, character, and government that the Bible teaches. I have never heard a preacher say "You must vote for candidate 'X' or else you are not a Christian!" Any preacher who is Biblical will remind his audience about the issues and let them decide. As a matter of fact, the preachers I have heard speak about this will not even mention who they are voting for. They more often than not present dirt for both sides of the election. So I don't see what double standard I am holding here.

Besides, as I said before, "Separation of Church and State" means that the government cannot establish a law prohibiting the free practice of religion. However, don't American citizens have the right to talk about government and politics? You got guys like Bill Maher in your camp freely speaking against and condenming the right. Why are churches all of a sudden forbiden from talking about this subject?

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The Atheist

Brian37 wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

I'm tired of hearing this BS from people who slept through civics.

The First Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's all the constitution itself has to say. And as the motives of the individual founding fathers are pure conjecture, save for quite a bit of anti-religion and anti-Christian rhetoric, we can't let them color our view of that clause.

The constitution was never intended to be an absolute document. You can gather this from the fact that it can be amended.

The government it describes is also not intended to be more than the basic framework. You can tell this from the powers granted each branch to define new services and departments.

Since the establishment clause has been written, there have been quite a number of judgments from the federal judicial branch that form case law that refine the meaning of establishment - and that includes government giving special voice to any religion or lack thereof.

So, I'm afraid that the great wall of seperation between church and state is exactly what people make it out to be: Religion does not get special voice in any form from government.

Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics." All I said, at least twice (quite possibly three times) is that the state cannot establish any law prohibiting the free practice of religion. Setting up a church state by law would be restricting free practice of religion.

Quote:
]Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics.

You don't have to say a thing. We already know the bullcrap you have been indoctrinated with in order to blindly and falsely defend the gang tagging by Christianity of government symbols such as our money and our pledge.

The intent of putting those slogans in sponsored by government is not to symbolize equality but is nothing but Christianity hijacking government and demanding it play favorites to them. OTHERWISE if it were truely a symbol of freedom, then any citizen petitioning government to do the same thing for others at the same scale, we would see "In Allah We Trust" on some money. We would have our children take turns each day incerting a different deity into the pledge.

THAT IS NOT WHAT WE SEE, our government almost emediately after the last of the founders died decided they didn't like the neutrality the founders set up and looked for ways around that concept of neutrality.

Our government plays favorites to Christianty and you are lying saying that is not what is going on. AND we get falsely accused when we point this out, of wanting to use government to forcably end Christianity when all we want is for government to stop offering itself up as a billboard to Christianity.

I've pointed out all the private media available to everyone of every stripe and that should be good enough for you. But make no mistake about it, YOU have missunderstood the Constitution. AND there are religious people who agree with us.

DO NOT try to make this out to be atheist vs theist. This is secularism vs revisionism. The founders, as you correctly stated were a variety of religions and WERE FOR FREEDOM OF RELIGION, but once again, I am not fooled into thinking "God" on our money and in our pledge is representitive of all citizens. THAT IS A PILE OF CRAP! It is a loophole created by Christians disigned to maintain a monopoly of power through a secret wink and nod placing all other citizens at the back of the bus.

We are merely asking that Christians remove their gang symbols from property that belongs to all of us. Just like the flag does not have an atom on it, or Star of David on it, or Cresent Moon and Star on it. NEUTRAL is not a demand for silence. It merely means do it without our help(being government).

You seem to forget that the most followed religion in the USA is Christianity. I don't know, I think that is a big factor. Plus, what are you so angry at me for? All I said, which you blew waaaaaay out of proportion, was what Spearation of Church and state had originally meant by the founding fathers. The fact that you are attacking Christianity so much, with no grounds to do so considering my initial response, just shows me that any sort of meaningful dialogue with someone like you will be fruitless

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice?
Happily:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

How does that have anything to do with having a special voice? My point, which you keep on missing for some reason, is that using "Spearation of Church and State" as a means to validate the removal of the Ten Commandments, or any other religious values from government, is not what "Separation of Church and State" means. Yes, you can remove the Ten Commandments, that is fine. But to misrepresent what "Separation of Church and State" really means to do so is twisting the original meaning.

Our founders never frowned on participation , THEY FROWNED ON MONOPOLIES, and the attitude of entitlement  without competition. If you think Christians haven't felt entitlement then name me the last openly non-Christian president our citizens have elected?

Gang tagging government property with what  clearly are logos for one label while passing it off as "fair" is bullcrap.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


The Atheist Delusion
Posts: 21
Joined: 2008-11-17
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:The Atheist

Brian37 wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice?
Happily:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

How does that have anything to do with having a special voice? My point, which you keep on missing for some reason, is that using "Spearation of Church and State" as a means to validate the removal of the Ten Commandments, or any other religious values from government, is not what "Separation of Church and State" means. Yes, you can remove the Ten Commandments, that is fine. But to misrepresent what "Separation of Church and State" really means to do so is twisting the original meaning.

Our founders never frowned on participation , THEY FROWNED ON MONOPOLIES, and the attitude of entitlement  without competition. If you think Christians haven't felt entitlement then name me the last openly non-Christian president our citizens have elected?

Gang tagging government property with what  clearly are logos for one label while passing it off as "fair" is bullcrap.

Obama...? Yes, I qualify him as being openly non-Christian based on the church he attended for twenty years! Rev. Wright's (if that's how you spell his name) theology is not Biblical or Christian in anyway, shape, or form. So trust me, he was not elected based on his "Christianity" by any stretch of the imagination.

"Professing to be wise, they became fools," - Romans 1:22


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 3661
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Just thinking, I wonder how

Just thinking, I wonder how the average American Christian fundamentalist ( not neccessarily addressing TAD ) would possibly alter their interpretation of the "Separation of Church and State"  if the US were to become majority Muslim ? 

http://theatheistconservative.com/

I'm a right wing atheist because I enjoy being hated by everyone.

"When a man loves cats, I am his friend and comrade, without further introduction." Mark Twain.


Fish
Posts: 315
Joined: 2007-05-31
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
You seem to forget that the most followed religion in the USA is Christianity. I don't know, I think that is a big factor. Plus, what are you so angry at me for? All I said, which you blew waaaaaay out of proportion, was what Spearation of Church and state had originally meant by the founding fathers. The fact that you are attacking Christianity so much, with no grounds to do so considering my initial response, just shows me that any sort of meaningful dialogue with someone like you will be fruitless

There are many ways of interpreting the Constitution, and this kind of strict originalism is only one kind. In a very real sense, in many ways it doesn't actually matter what the founders thought. Today it is fairly well established that "Separation of Church and State" includes such measures as the removal of religious icons and symbols from government property. While there are certainly remaining instances of non-separation, such as the one mentioned here, the trend is steadily moving toward this interpretation. To believe otherwise is simply to be in denial of the current state of affairs.

As for Obama, from what I understand he is a member of the Trinity United Church of Christ (please correct me if I am mistaken). This church is most definitely Christian. You can check out their website if you don't believe me.


JillSwift
Superfan
JillSwift's picture
Posts: 1758
Joined: 2008-01-13
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
How does that have anything to do with having a special voice?

Allow me to take your hand and walk you through it: A government institution displaying a religious text or artifact clearly gives that religion a special voice in that government.

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
My point, which you keep on missing for some reason, is that using "Spearation of Church and State" as a means to validate the removal of the Ten Commandments, or any other religious values from government, is not what "Separation of Church and State" means. Yes, you can remove the Ten Commandments, that is fine. But to misrepresent what "Separation of Church and State" really means to do so is twisting the original meaning.
And I've already said that your interpretation is flat out wrong. The meaning of the establishment clause and the seperation of church and state have evolved since thier original writing. The original meaning - especially as you choose to interpret it - is no longer relevant.

"Anyone can repress a woman, but you need 'dictated' scriptures to feel you're really right in repressing her. In the same way, homophobes thrive everywhere. But you must feel you've got scripture on your side to come up with the tedious 'Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve' style arguments instead of just recognising that some people are different." - Douglas Murray


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

jcgadfly wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

I'm tired of hearing this BS from people who slept through civics.

The First Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The establishment clause: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

That's all the constitution itself has to say. And as the motives of the individual founding fathers are pure conjecture, save for quite a bit of anti-religion and anti-Christian rhetoric, we can't let them color our view of that clause.

The constitution was never intended to be an absolute document. You can gather this from the fact that it can be amended.

The government it describes is also not intended to be more than the basic framework. You can tell this from the powers granted each branch to define new services and departments.

Since the establishment clause has been written, there have been quite a number of judgments from the federal judicial branch that form case law that refine the meaning of establishment - and that includes government giving special voice to any religion or lack thereof.

So, I'm afraid that the great wall of seperation between church and state is exactly what people make it out to be: Religion does not get special voice in any form from government.

Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice? Please understand what I am saying before attacking me and claiming that I "slept through civics." All I said, at least twice (quite possibly three times) is that the state cannot establish any law prohibiting the free practice of religion. Setting up a church state by law would be restricting free practice of religion.

It seems you're saying that the government should not set up a church (I agree) but you have no problem with the churches telling their congregants who to vote for (not getting a special voice in government but attempting to make sure they have their people in power).

Government shouldn't be in the religion business but the churches should be in the business of governance? Sounds like a double standard.

You wouldn't be the only Christian to hold that view - I know many of them. They also believe that Republicanism automatically implies Christianity - no need for that annoying Jesus.

 

Wow. Again, not what I said or implied. If the pastor of a church preaches on an election to his congregation, he has every right to preach on what is Biblical. He has every right to remind his congregation of the standards of morality, character, and government that the Bible teaches. I have never heard a preacher say "You must vote for candidate 'X' or else you are not a Christian!" Any preacher who is Biblical will remind his audience about the issues and let them decide. As a matter of fact, the preachers I have heard speak about this will not even mention who they are voting for. They more often than not present dirt for both sides of the election. So I don't see what double standard I am holding here.

Besides, as I said before, "Separation of Church and State" means that the government cannot establish a law prohibiting the free practice of religion. However, don't American citizens have the right to talk about government and politics? You got guys like Bill Maher in your camp freely speaking against and condenming the right. Why are churches all of a sudden forbiden from talking about this subject?

American citizens have the right to discuss their choices and their positions but a pastor shouldn't do it from the pulpit. I've heard many do it - some have made the news (http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=95003709). I've also seen the Christian Coalition flyers in the churches (the ones that state "we're not telling you who to vote for but here's who you should vote for&quotEye-wink.  Just because you've never heard of it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Perhaps it's because you agreed with your pastor's position that it slipped by you?

A Christian preacher should preach on things Biblical. Politics isn't Biblical so he should leave political things alone. If they want to remind them about the biblical stance on the issues, OK. They should not create a biblical stance on issues where the Bible is silent. Too many have done that as well.

If churches want to talk politics, let them pay taxes. Then they can say what they want and not have any legal problems at all.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


jcgadfly
SuperfanBronze Member
Posts: 6789
Joined: 2006-07-18
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice?
Happily:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

How does that have anything to do with having a special voice? My point, which you keep on missing for some reason, is that using "Spearation of Church and State" as a means to validate the removal of the Ten Commandments, or any other religious values from government, is not what "Separation of Church and State" means. Yes, you can remove the Ten Commandments, that is fine. But to misrepresent what "Separation of Church and State" really means to do so is twisting the original meaning.

Our founders never frowned on participation , THEY FROWNED ON MONOPOLIES, and the attitude of entitlement  without competition. If you think Christians haven't felt entitlement then name me the last openly non-Christian president our citizens have elected?

Gang tagging government property with what  clearly are logos for one label while passing it off as "fair" is bullcrap.

Obama...? Yes, I qualify him as being openly non-Christian based on the church he attended for twenty years! Rev. Wright's (if that's how you spell his name) theology is not Biblical or Christian in anyway, shape, or form. So trust me, he was not elected based on his "Christianity" by any stretch of the imagination.

He's not Christian because he disagrees with you. Got it. All hail the prophet from <whereever you're from>.

"I do this real moron thing, and it's called thinking. And apparently I'm not a very good American because I like to form my own opinions."
— George Carlin


Answers in Gene...
High Level Donor
Answers in Gene Simmons's picture
Posts: 4214
Joined: 2008-11-11
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Did I say that we should hold a theocratic view of the Constitution? No sir. What I meant is that people are taking what was originally written for a specific purpose and changing its meaning so it can fit what they want now. This whole "Separation of Church and State" issue does not mean take church out of everything. It means that the government cannot set up a state church or prohibit the free practice of religion. However, people are not interested in what was actually written and for what purpose, so this kind of redefinition comes in.

 

I'm just tired of seeing this type of mindset when it comes to the Constitution and what it says.

 

OK, I can tell that you don't seem to get what the general concept is. Let me try to explain my take on the matter.

 

You are of course correct when you say that it is inappropriate for the government to set up an official religion. However, I don't see that you know why that should be the way that the government was set up in the first place.

 

There is one very basic fact that you should be aware of (if you are not already) and that is that we know what the founders of this country thought about religion. Hells bells, they wrote about that one subject more than any other.

 

Mostly, the founders of the republic were in favor of religion in one form or another. The key point being the words “in one form or another”. The fact of the world that they lived in was that they were already a motley mix of differing religions. There were Lutherans, Catholics, Presbyterians, Jews, Quakers, Deists and even Devil Worshipers in early America.

 

Also, several of the colonies had actual official religions enacted as a matter of law, basically to make the religion of those already in a position to make laws into the only religion that could have any voice in public policy.

 

So here the founding fathers have to decide on the future of the republic which they must build. And given what has gone before, the only choice that works is the one which they, in fact, made.

 

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Yes, you can remove the Ten Commandments, that is fine.

 

So from that, can I reasonably assume that you do not object to removing the monument in question? Really, I want to be clear on the fact of your position.

 

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
How does that have anything to do with having a special voice?

 

Well the idea that you seem to be missing is that the general idea here is that this is about having a special voice in out government. What was a social challenge a couple of hundred years ago is only relevant to today in that it sets the tone for how we proceed with what we need to do.

 

The issue that we are facing today is the idea which is currently being introduced by people like Pat Robertson and Rush Limbaugh, to wit: “America is a Christian Nation”.

 

Well, the basic fact is that America is a nation of pluralities. We are not one huge thing so much as we are a huge thing made up of many smaller things. However, do you really think that those who would make us into the “Christian Nation” would stop there? If they got that much forced into law, then we would be dealing with which flavor of Christianity we are a nation of. Is America a Catholic Nation? Is it an Episcopalian Nation? Is it a southern Baptist nation?

 

Sure, the first amendment is about not having to fight over an official religion. Yet, at the same time, it is about whether we can have a general concept of being a “Christian nation”. Removing the ten commandments from a court house is not about removing religion from public life. It is about resisting inappropriate intrusion of religion into public life.

 

NoMoreCrazyPeople wrote:
Never ever did I say enything about free, I said "free."

=


Ralph Stewart
Silver Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
10 C off the wall, but coming back?

The ten commandments plaque has been removed from the wall. There is an effort to create a limited free forum of history of American law. The 10 C will be included as their belief is that the Constitution is based on the 10 C.

On a thread about Thomas Jefferson this came up.

 

Here read this if you dare. This is what the ACLU, Atheist, Homosexuals and Liberals don't want you to read. It was out of print for 60 years and after considerable effort from the ACLU to stop it, the book was reprinted and is opening some eyes. Read then get back to me.
"The Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States"

 

Anyone have any knowledge of "The Christian Life & Character of the Civil Institutions of the United States"? Is it worth reading?

Does “Novus Ordo Seclorum: The Intellectual Origins of the Constitution” confirm or counter?

I really don't want to read both.

 


darth_josh
High Level DonorHigh Level ModeratorGold Member
darth_josh's picture
Posts: 2650
Joined: 2006-02-27
User is offlineOffline
Glad you came back to this

Glad you came back to this thread.

I wanted to ask if you had heard of or are a part of the Rationalists of East Tennessee?

Carl and Noelle are two really great people.

Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
Quote:Well, the basic fact

Quote:
Well, the basic fact is that America is a nation of pluralities. We are not one huge thing so much as we are a huge thing made up of many smaller things. However, do you really think that those who would make us into the “Christian Nation” would stop there? If they got that much forced into law, then we would be dealing with which flavor of Christianity we are a nation of. Is America a Catholic Nation? Is it an Episcopalian Nation? Is it a southern Baptist nation?

E-Pluribus Unum

This is the same flaw Christians both on the left and right fight for and in all irony South Park makes fun of with thier motif episode that rival faction camps of atheists go to war over "What is".

We are no more a "Christian Nation" than the species is a "Pro Human" planet. We are as a species, haphasardly, as it seems to be, collectively trying to muddle our way through life and end up with bad guesses in the process.

If one can accept that you won't  win a 3 card Monty, on the side streets of Vagas, why would anyone put their hopes in any motif claiming to be devine, whose results are bathed in blood?

Could it be blood is what WE seek, not out of magic, but out of the fear of not being on top?

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ralph Stewart
Silver Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
RET

Yes I did contact RET. It is nice to know that such exist.


Ralph Stewart
Silver Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
ten commandments walk to D.C.

In the tradition of biblical prophets bring a nation back to basics, Tennessee will have one of our own headed to Washington, D.C. Arrival is planed for March 4,

http://www.thetomahawk.com/Detail.php?Cat=LOCALNEWS&ID=57916


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Just

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Just thinking, I wonder how the average American Christian fundamentalist ( not neccessarily addressing TAD ) would possibly alter their interpretation of the "Separation of Church and State"  if the US were to become majority Muslim ? 

BINGO!

Many Christians falsely portray secularists(who can be Christians) as wanting to use government to outlaw religion.

 

NO! The Constitution is empathetic to human nature in that humans will believe what they want. What it does is say that religious beliefs are not to become common law.

Most Christians would want to see a day when a Christian in Iran could run for PM of that country, but fail to see that the only way that can happen is Separation of Church and state (In their case Mosque and State), which Iran does not have. It is a puppet government ruled by Shiite Clerics.

I would say to them, if you think Jesus wrote our Constitution, and all others who don't believe in Jesus who call themselves U.S. Citizens, move to Iran and try to get yourself elected as their PM.

 

 

 

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Ralph Stewart
Silver Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
update

An update.

These are the words of Scott from a web site:

I was setting alone at my desk a couple weeks ago and speaking to God, but this time I took the time to listen to Him speak back to me.
So God spoke to me in the same way He has spoken to many others that we hear about or have read about in the Bible. It’s important knowing when it’s God’s voice.
So, here’s what God has called for me to do.... Have a Ten Commandments awareness walk. Bring awareness to His Commandments…. Okay I thought….Walk where and do what….. Nashville?  Go and tell Phil Bredeson. That won’t do a whole lot. He’s a great Governor but does not have the power as a governor to do what we need to have done. 

  Then God said no, Washington DC. That’s where all the lawmakers are at. Raise awareness and keep My Commandments.

 

This is the web site

http://www.tencommandmentswalk.com/home.html


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
RatDog wrote:Stosis

RatDog wrote:

Stosis wrote:

Maybe you can propose a smiliar plaque with 10 antitheism quotes. Seems fair to me.

Why can't the government just be neutral?  Is that so much to ask?

Quote:
Why can't the government just be neutral?  Is that so much to ask?

Because it is easyer for humans to mark their teritory than it is to recognize others.

We think we are so different because we have brains capable of contimplating deep thought. What most humans fail to realize is that we all want that "feeling of control". A placebo feeling to most is better than facing reality, even when a "subordinate" might have a better solution to a given problem.

The Constitution by far is the most difinitive recognition of "others" outside the majority, in regards to where laws come from. However, it is up to the citizens not to piss on it like a lion pissing on a tree.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
The Atheist Delusion

The Atheist Delusion wrote:

JillSwift wrote:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Care to show me where I said that religion should have a special voice?
Happily:

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
It has nothing to do with taking the Ten Commandments out of government offices.

How does that have anything to do with having a special voice? My point, which you keep on missing for some reason, is that using "Spearation of Church and State" as a means to validate the removal of the Ten Commandments, or any other religious values from government, is not what "Separation of Church and State" means. Yes, you can remove the Ten Commandments, that is fine. But to misrepresent what "Separation of Church and State" really means to do so is twisting the original meaning.

How are the ten commandments anything BUT religious? Answer that before anything else.

The Atheist Delusion wrote:
Obama...? Yes, I qualify him as being openly non-Christian based on the church he attended for twenty years! Rev. Wright's (if that's how you spell his name) theology is not Biblical or Christian in anyway, shape, or form. So trust me, he was not elected based on his "Christianity" by any stretch of the imagination.

Obama isn't a member of that guys church, weren't you paying attention during the democratic race?

Oh. This is old. Meh. I wrote it, I post it.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
where is the Biblical error

I have a theory about you athiests.  You guys claim to be educated, on the whole, but I suspect that you don't know what "errancy" means, since you keep posting threads in the "Biblical Errancy" forum that have nothing to do with errors in the Bible.

Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:

I have a theory about you athiests.  You guys claim to be educated, on the whole, but I suspect that you don't know what "errancy" means, since you keep posting threads in the "Biblical Errancy" forum that have nothing to do with errors in the Bible.

Again with the condescension. You're on a roll!

Thou shalt not kill, but make sure to stone people to death for unsanctioned sex.

Let me guess: there's a difference between murder and capital punishment? 

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness

HisWillness wrote:

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:

I have a theory about you athiests.  You guys claim to be educated, on the whole, but I suspect that you don't know what "errancy" means, since you keep posting threads in the "Biblical Errancy" forum that have nothing to do with errors in the Bible.

Again with the condescension. You're on a roll!

Thou shalt not kill, but make sure to stone people to death for unsanctioned sex.

Let me guess: there's a difference between murder and capital punishment? 

Hold on there bucko! Let me tell you how it works. They(Christians) are trying to save our lost soles, ok. SO, show some friggen gratitude and stop giving the maryters lip!

Stop this silly questioning and become assimilated, or I will send you to bed without supper!

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving

RespectfulButBelieving wrote:

I have a theory about you athiests.  You guys claim to be educated, on the whole, but I suspect that you don't know what "errancy" means, since you keep posting threads in the "Biblical Errancy" forum that have nothing to do with errors in the Bible.

I had a hypothesis about you theists. Now it's a theory. It's half a step from being a law.

You guys claim to know what you're talking about, but you don't even know your own religion, let alone science. You don't know the meaning of the words: "Evolution", "Theory", "Law", "Hypothesis", "Truth", "Fiction", and millions more. You make up definitions for them, because changing definitions is the only way for you to win an argument. Little do you know that it hasn't helped you win any. In fact, it makes you lose harder than you would have otherwise.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


HisWillness
atheistRational VIP!
HisWillness's picture
Posts: 4100
Joined: 2008-02-21
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Hold on there

Brian37 wrote:
Hold on there bucko! Let me tell you how it works. They(Christians) are trying to save our lost soles, ok. SO, show some friggen gratitude and stop giving the maryters lip!

How could I have been such a FOOL?? Oh, Brian, thankfully you have shown me the error in my ways. From now on, I'll be grateful for everyone who tells me they solved an invisible problem for me. Or threatens me with post-mortem torture. Or ... waitaminit!

Brian37 wrote:
Stop this silly questioning and become assimilated, or I will send you to bed without supper!

Noooo! I'm very hungry, and it's only just breakfast time. I can't imagine how hungry I'll be by supper. Fine. I will assimilate for pragmatic reasons. If there's an Achilles heel with me, it's my stomach. You got me.

Saint Will: no gyration without funkstification.
fabulae! nil satis firmi video quam ob rem accipere hunc mi expediat metum. - Terence


Brian37
atheistSuperfan
Brian37's picture
Posts: 13671
Joined: 2006-02-14
User is offlineOffline
HisWillness wrote:Brian37

HisWillness wrote:

Brian37 wrote:
Hold on there bucko! Let me tell you how it works. They(Christians) are trying to save our lost soles, ok. SO, show some friggen gratitude and stop giving the maryters lip!

How could I have been such a FOOL?? Oh, Brian, thankfully you have shown me the error in my ways. From now on, I'll be grateful for everyone who tells me they solved an invisible problem for me. Or threatens me with post-mortem torture. Or ... waitaminit!

Brian37 wrote:
Stop this silly questioning and become assimilated, or I will send you to bed without supper!

Noooo! I'm very hungry, and it's only just breakfast time. I can't imagine how hungry I'll be by supper. Fine. I will assimilate for pragmatic reasons. If there's an Achilles heel with me, it's my stomach. You got me.

There, was that so hard? Don't worry about the barbed wire condom the Borg is using to analy rape your freedom, just submit and obey blindly, and you will get used to the bleeding.

We as atheists have to remember that they are the alpha male and we are the subbornate, as long as we pay taxes and don't challenge their magical claims, they are happy to have us as their house negros.

"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under BrianJames Rational Poet also on twitter under Brianrrs37


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10687
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Resistance is futile.

Resistance is futile.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Ralph Stewart
Silver Member
Posts: 18
Joined: 2008-11-14
User is offlineOffline
My bad

My bad on posting here. I did it here here because I was looking bible errancy info to use on a local forum.

Scott Teague is approaching D. C. on his 'ten commandments awareness walk'. To arrive March 4.

Tennessee Congressman Phil Roe may walk with him.

The 10 C are still off the court house wall.

The Summum ruling may have changed the legal landscape. That is above my understanding of law stuff.


Conor Wilson
Posts: 451
Joined: 2008-01-07
User is offlineOffline
RespectfulButBelieving wrote:

"I suspect that you don't know what "errancy" means"

 

Me: Just so you don't claim that you've been proven right:

 

"Errancy" refers to the presence of mistakes within something.  On this site, a very topical "something" would be the Bible.  This is to distinguish the term from its opposite, "inerrancy," which when applied to the Bible, refers to the Evangelical Protestant doctrine which states that there are no mistakes of any kind in the Bible.

 

RespectfulButBelieving also wrote: "...you keep posting threads in the "Biblical Errancy" forum that have nothing to do with errors in the Bible."

 

Me: Honestly, RespectfulButBelieving, have you never been on a site where the discussion on a thread got away from its original purpose?  OK, maybe in some hypothetical perfect world that doesn't happen...but when was the last time this world was perfect?

 

Conor


RespectfulButBe...
Posts: 48
Joined: 2009-02-22
User is offlineOffline
Conor Wilson wrote:Me:

Conor Wilson wrote:
Me: Honestly, RespectfulButBelieving, have you never been on a site where the discussion on a thread got away from its original purpose?
Yes, and it is just as annoying there as it is here.

Once an athiest, now a believer, and always ready to debate issues respectfully.