Ken you said most FF's were Deists. Do you mean by this definition.

de·ism (dzm, d-) KEY

NOUN:

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

If so, I don't agree. Look at the quotes. By the way, thanks in advance for making me check. I'm feeling much more confident now. I only went 5 Presidents deep.

Washington's First Inaugral Address:

In tendering this homage to the Great Author of every public and private good, I assure myself that it expresses your sentiments not less than my own, nor those of my fellow- citizens at large less than either. No people can be bound to acknowledge and adore the Invisible Hand which conducts the affairs of men more than those of the United States. Every step by which they have advanced to the character of an independent nation seems to have been distinguished by some token of providential agency;

Articles of Confederation:

And Whereas it hath pleased the Great Governor of the World to incline the hearts of the legislatures we respectively represent in Congress, to approve of, and to authorize us to ratify the said Articles of Confederation and perpetual Union.

Declaration of Independence:

We, therefore, the representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, FREE AND INDEPENDENT STATES;

John Adams' Inaugural Address:

And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.

Thomas Jefferson Inaugural Address:

And may that Infinite Power which rules the destinies of the universe lead our councils to what is best, and give them a favorable issue for your peace and prosperity.

James Madison Inaugural Address:

In these my confidence will under every difficulty be best placed, next to that which we have all been encouraged to feel in the guardianship and guidance of that Almighty Being whose power regulates the destiny of nations, whose blessings have been so conspicuously dispensed to this rising Republic, and to whom we are bound to address our devout gratitude for the past, as well as our fervent supplications and best hopes for the future

James Monroe Inaugural Address:

Relying on the aid to be derived from the other departments of the Government, I enter on the trust to which I have been called by the suffrages of my fellow-citizens with my fervent prayers to the Almighty that He will be graciously pleased to continue to us that protection which He has already so conspicuously displayed in our favor.

Those don't sound like the things a Deist would say. Meaning, I think you are wrong as it seems to me that their own writings and speechs show they believed in a God that as living and active in their lives and in the life of the country. Thanks again. :cool:

Ken you said most FF's were Deists. Do you mean by this definition.

de·ism (dzm, d-) KEY

NOUN:

The belief, based solely on reason, in a God who created the universe and then abandoned it, assuming no control over life, exerting no influence on natural phenomena, and giving no supernatural revelation.

If so, I don't agree. Look at the quotes. By the way, thanks in advance for making me check. I'm feeling much more confident now. I only went 5 Presidents deep.
I don't agree with that definition either. Try Wiki (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deism) for a more thorough definition.

Deism. As in believing in a higher power. Not necessarily a specific flavor, not necessarily a specific god or a "god" at all. They all had their own unique views that very seldom agreed with the orthodox beliefs of the time.

What matters most is that they had the intellect to grow beyond their Puritan/Protestant roots and put their life experiences to good use for the betterment of all.


"We hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth that religion, or the duty which we owe our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence. The religion, then, of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man: and that it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate." -- James Madison


Once you get beyond Monroe you're pretty much outside the realm of the FFs.

Not only that, but many of the Founders had beliefs that would be branded heresy in most Christian churches today. Ben Franklin denied the divinity of Christ. Jefferson was as close to modern-day Agnosticism (the word hadn't been invented then) as any were likely to get in that day. Washington was a Deist. Remember, these were men of the Enlightenment, and much of that philosophy can be seen as a reaction against the doctrines (and the wars and strife they brought to Europe) of European Christianity. By Enlightenment ideas, Man was thought to be able to perfect himself and his society by reason alone.

A distrust of the Church and it's earthly (political) power can be found in many of their writings, especially the Federalist Papers. And I believe it was Madison who wrote the treaty (ending the wars against the Barbary Pirates, IIRC) stating that the United States was in no way a "Christian" nation. We were then, as now, largely a nation of Christians, but that's not the same thing, and the Founders went to great pains to make that distinction.

--Shannon

Since I believe that there is reason to believe in God looking at the world and my life. I think the differentation that you are making is "not blind faith" equals a Deist.

I think most people are Christians not because of blind faith. I think they have seen the evidence in their past life, history of the world, social actions, etc.

I think most atheists believe that most Christians believe only by blind faith, because that makes them feel superior, but I believe that is far from the truth.

However, when it comes to moral choices and areas that fall outside of science (origins of universe and life), then true Christians fall on blind faith in the Bible (which is still supported by Natural Law and observations), but then again ALL PEOPLE then fall on blind faith in something or another when answering those questions.

When does life begin? Is it wrong to steal? Why am I here? We all operate on blind faith on those questions. That makes you a Diest too I guess.

Itself was against tradition and organization, since it was focused on the individual man's relationship with Jesus/God. While they may have been different sorts of Protestants, let's not throw them all into the atheist bag all together now.

They were against the state church and certainly fought to not make the same mistake. THat in no way meant that they were against Christianity and individuals, including themselves, having a strong and powerful relationship with Jesus/God.

Looking at the history of the world, especially current events, you can't be serious in thinking by REASON that man can by his own achieve enlightenment, peace and utopia.

Communism has been proven in real life to be a failure and against human nature, by REASON then, how can we have utopia when there will always be haves and have nots, and men who just hate and want to kill, rape, steal, etc.

Man's problem is his own heart. Every person on this site, near the edge of killing, stealing, raping, etc. If only they had the opportunity and sufficient motivation. Don't be so pious to ignore human nature. Look at violence and sex in movies and TV, you think man is getting better and moving toward peace. Get real.

Itself was against tradition and organization, since it was focused on the individual man's relationship with Jesus/God. While they may have been different sorts of Protestants, let's not throw them all into the atheist bag all together now.

They were against the state church and certainly fought to not make the same mistake. THat in no way meant that they were against Christianity and individuals, including themselves, having a strong and powerful relationship with Jesus/God.
.

The FF's were operating a couple of centuries after the Reformation, and although Martin Luther's "protest" against aspects of Roman Catholicism might have been anti-traditional, particularly in its "protest" that there is no intercessor between God and Man other than Jesus, and that the Church can't sell indulgences that guarantee a man's salvation, etc., by the time the Enlightenment rolled around, Protestant churches were entirely establishment.

Witness the Anglican Church in England, the Lutheran Church in Germany, and the continued dominancy of the Catholic Church throughout Europe.

I think the "FF's" as we're calling them wouldn't remotely recognize this "strong and powerful relationship with Jesus" language that you use, which is very much a product of 20th Century American evangelism. Their theology was indeed well documented as much less dogmatic.

I think the "FF's" as we're calling them wouldn't remotely recognize this "strong and powerful relationship with Jesus" language that you use, which is very much a product of 20th Century American evangelism. Their theology was indeed well documented as much less dogmatic.I think they'd actually be horrified to see how far religion has encroached into American politics.

Since I believe that there is reason to believe in God looking at the world and my life. I think the differentation that you are making is "not blind faith" equals a Deist.

I think most people are Christians not because of blind faith. I think they have seen the evidence in their past life, history of the world, social actions, etc.

I think most atheists believe that most Christians believe only by blind faith, because that makes them feel superior, but I believe that is far from the truth.

However, when it comes to moral choices and areas that fall outside of science (origins of universe and life), then true Christians fall on blind faith in the Bible (which is still supported by Natural Law and observations), but then again ALL PEOPLE then fall on blind faith in something or another when answering those questions.

When does life begin? Is it wrong to steal? Why am I here? We all operate on blind faith on those questions. That makes you a Diest too I guess.
No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Religion is nothing more than the codification of natural law and herd preservation with a supernatural element to explain the unexplainable and to ensure compliance. Murder is bad for the herd so of course the herd would naturally shun it. Same goes for theft and other similar anti-social behaviors. Solid family units are good for the herd, thus marriage is promoted. Recognizing that man is a jealous beast, boinking someone else's spouse is generally shunned because, again, it's bad for the herd because it hurts the family unit. Anyone with an imagination and the will and personality to drive it can create their own religion -- see Scientology for a recent example. It's been happening since the dawn of time. Nothing new or special about it. Nature doesn't reflect Christianity, Christianity reflects nature. Etc, etc, etc.

Many of the Founding Fathers realized this truth. It didn't mean that they didn't believe completely in a supreme being or a creator but they did see through the dogma of religion. It also didn't mean that they didn't believe in virtue as they clearly did. They also saw the grave danger that religion posed to society when mixed with government.


I've heard many a Christian speak of how America's ills are directly related to the decline of religion in America. I think it's the opposite: Many of our problems now are because of too much religion in American politics. There is far more religion in government now than there was at the beginning. If people would spend more energy practicing what they preach instead of working to mandate it in others we'd be better off.

Not only that, but many of the Founders had beliefs that would be branded heresy in most Christian churches today. Ben Franklin denied the divinity of Christ. Jefferson was as close to modern-day Agnosticism (the word hadn't been invented then) as any were likely to get in that day. Washington was a Deist. Remember, these were men of the Enlightenment, and much of that philosophy can be seen as a reaction against the doctrines (and the wars and strife they brought to Europe) of European Christianity. By Enlightenment ideas, Man was thought to be able to perfect himself and his society by reason alone.

A distrust of the Church and it's earthly (political) power can be found in many of their writings, especially the Federalist Papers. And I believe it was Madison who wrote the treaty (ending the wars against the Barbary Pirates, IIRC) stating that the United States was in no way a "Christian" nation. We were then, as now, largely a nation of Christians, but that's not the same thing, and the Founders went to great pains to make that distinction.

--Shannon

Distrust of the Church, the organized body and those who run it doesn't mean disbelief in God or Christ. The Church in it's power tends to dominate lives and invade the freedom those men stood for. I don't think the distrust you claim is indicative of their faith or how they thought it fit into the new country they founded. They took great care to insure the Church did not control politics but religion permeated every aspect of the lives of the populace of that time. Religion was openly displayed, both in private lives and in the acts of governing this country. Extreme secularism and banning mention of God or Christ is a relatively new aspect of our lives.

Every person on this site, near the edge of killing, stealing, raping, etc. If only they had the opportunity and sufficient motivation.
That's an interesting view into your psyche. Speak for yourself -- just because YOU have those feelings doesn't mean we all do. Some of us have a natural sense of responsibility and the greater good and thus don't require a crutch to help us reason what is and isn't good for society.

I wouldn't' begin to know how they thought but religion was much more a part of every day life in their time than in ours. We aren't watching the same story if you believe religion has encroached rather than receded.

I wouldn't' begin to know how they thought but religion was much more a part of every day life in their time than in ours. We aren't watching the same story if you believe religion has encroached rather than receded.That religion was more a part of daily life is not what we're talking about. Until the late 1850s early 1860s however, religion played almost no role in our government. That the Founders thought secular government was essential is not in question. Religion has played an ever increasing role in our political spectrum since their time, including a couple legislated issues in violation of the establishment clause.

The decline you are referring to is a correction, so to speak. Between the founding and now we have gone from close to a 100% Christian population to an 80% Christian population. The 20% non-Christian population started to demand equality and a return to a secular government.

The simple and plain truth is that we are a nation comprised mostly of Christians; we are not a "Christian nation." The outrage of the religious right is nothing more than sour grapes from the majority because they are not being allowed to mandate/legislate their beliefs to the minority. The Founding Fathers expected and mostly predicted the religious right and they created the 1st Amendment with them in mind, thankfully. Humorously enough, the attempts of the RR to stack the courts with conservative judges that they assume will rule in their favor have yielded nothing but more outrage -- see the recent conservative ruling against ID.

Communism has been proven in real life to be a failure and against human nature, by REASON then, how can we have utopia when there will always be haves and have nots, and men who just hate and want to kill, rape, steal, etc.


If, by communism, you mean communism as it purportedly existed in Eastern Europe, the Soviet Union, China, Cuba, and North Korea you are correct. On the other hand, true communism has never existed on a macro scale, so it is impossible to call it a failure. Communism, as a theory, is actually a magnificent plan with an altruistic vision for the betterment of all [wo]men. In the 20th century, those governments that sought to form communist governments really only sublated isolated Marxist principles onto fundamentally totalitarian states.

I do agree, however, with your fundamental premise, because, in order for communism to work, disparity must be eliminated, as must be the personal drive for the accumulation fo wealth on an individual level. A fairly difficult proposition, if you ask me.

And, for you flamers, no, I am not a Marxist.

No, that's not what I'm saying at all.

Religion is nothing more than the codification of natural law and herd preservation with a supernatural element to explain the unexplainable and to ensure compliance. Murder is bad for the herd so of course the herd would naturally shun it. Same goes for theft and other similar anti-social behaviors. Solid family units are good for the herd, thus marriage is promoted. Recognizing that man is a jealous beast, boinking someone else's spouse is generally shunned because, again, it's bad for the herd because it hurts the family unit. Anyone with an imagination and the will and personality to drive it can create their own religion -- see Scientology for a recent example. It's been happening since the dawn of time. Nothing new or special about it. Nature doesn't reflect Christianity, Christianity reflects nature. Etc, etc, etc.

Many of the Founding Fathers realized this truth. It didn't mean that they didn't believe completely in a supreme being or a creator but they did see through the dogma of religion. It also didn't mean that they didn't believe in virtue as they clearly did. They also saw the grave danger that religion posed to society when mixed with government.


I've heard many a Christian speak of how America's ills are directly related to the decline of religion in America. I think it's the opposite: Many of our problems now are because of too much religion in American politics. There is far more religion in government now than there was at the beginning. If people would spend more energy practicing what they preach instead of working to mandate it in others we'd be better off.



I saw a very interesting show on the Discovery channel about Christmas and it's roots in the United States. Did you know that the puritans had outlawed the celebration of Christmas? Did you know that the idea of celebrating Christmas did not take hold until the mid 1800's in the Victorian age? Did you know that, in fact congress conviened and met on Christmas day for 60 years after the signing of the Constitution because they did not celebrate Christmas? Did you know that Christmas became a national holiday because the congress lamented the fact that they had no vacations at that time of year so they manufactored one? I would say that religion has been making more inroads into polictics now and has not been reduced from the time of the founders.

On who's authority do you believe that all of what you wrote about why religion exists and herd mentality, etc. Just curious.

Tell me it's Joseph Campbell. Or he's one of them.

I was listening to his big series and right at the start he says, I believe that religion started when a monkey man (or something like it, let's not get caught up in the title) heard and saw thunder and lightning. He got scared and then believed there must be some scary power out there, etc.

From this platform, he launches his whole belief system about everything.

I just want you to understand. It's from his belief in this one thing. He makes everything else fall into his belief system.

We are all that way. We must believe in something unknowable and then we build on that. Evolution is built on the belief that somewhere a non living thing came together to become a living, eating, replicating. etc. thing. There is no evidence of the first thing. They don't know the conditions, the components, etc. They just believe that one time spontaneous generation occured. Let's be honest. Your herd thing is totally based on blind faith.

Extreme secularism and banning mention of God or Christ is a relatively new aspect of our lives.

NO!!!!!!!!!

Sorry, but "banning mention of God or Christ" is not a "new aspect" of our lives. It is no aspect of our lives, because it doesn't exist.

No law, no court ruling, no action of government has ever banned mentioned of God or Christ by any believer, anywhere. Unless that believer was acting as an agent of the State. Because THE STATE HAS NO RELIGOUS BELIEFS.

The Constitution requires the State to stay out of religious questions, to remain silent on matters of faith and doctrine. Even the question of whether or not God exists is not a question the State should be answering. The alternative to secular government is theocracy, and you will not find any religious government that did not turn to tyranny. Not one, so far as I am aware.

To claim that Christians are somehow being persecuted or surpressed is simply ludicrous. Over 80% of the population self-identify as Christian. I also find the claims that this is about religous freedom not very credible. When was the last time a major Evangelical organization went to court to protect a non-Christian public religous display? So far as I know, it's never happened. And ask yourself... How would you react if your child's 5th grade teacher called the students out into the aisles to face Mecca and pray? The only people screaming louder than the ACLU would be the Southern Baptist Convention, Focus on the Family, and the Christian Coalition.

What these organizations are promoting is not public displays of "religion", it's public promotion of Christianity, Why a certain segment of believers need the power of the State to back up their faith is beyond me, but it's dangerous, and needs to be opposed at every step, by every American who values freedom.

--Shannon

So what? People used to believe lots of crazy stuff. Some of us know better now.

The Southern Baptist Convention gives voice to the silent majority that continues to reject Democratic candidates who support many of the "just" causes you so dearly love. Perhaps the whispers are louder than the screams, I know the votes speak clearly on how the majority feels.

That religion was more a part of daily life is not what we're talking about. Until the late 1850s early 1860s however, religion played almost no role in our government. That the Founders thought secular government was essential is not in question. Religion has played an ever increasing role in our political spectrum since their time, including a couple legislated issues in violation of the establishment clause.

The decline you are referring to is a correction, so to speak. Between the founding and now we have gone from close to a 100% Christian population to an 80% Christian population. The 20% non-Christian population started to demand equality and a return to a secular government.

The simple and plain truth is that we are a nation comprised mostly of Christians; we are not a "Christian nation." The outrage of the religious right is nothing more than sour grapes from the majority because they are not being allowed to mandate/legislate their beliefs to the minority. The Founding Fathers expected and mostly predicted the religious right and they created the 1st Amendment with them in mind, thankfully. Humorously enough, the attempts of the RR to stack the courts with conservative judges that they assume will rule in their favor have yielded nothing but more outrage -- see the recent conservative ruling against ID.

I'm not sure what intrusion you are speaking of unless it would be the "Under God" thing in the pledge or "In god We Trust" on our money. If that is the only complaint, I would be content to see them removed but that isn't what Christians are dealing with today. We have had Christmas pagents, city decorations, nativity scenes on courthous lawns since I can remember. Now my memory doesn't quite reach as far back as the FF's, but it goes farther than many on this board. Thanksgiving was basically a religious holiday, it was a day of thanks to God, it was established as such.

What we see today is an intrusion into the celebbration of who we are, even 80% is an overwhelming majority. I have seen actual intrusions removed, such as the blue law in Texas that required most business to close on Sunday. No problem there. I want a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, I see no problem with the city government paying for it, it funds a number of social plans to help minority groups and I have no problem with that either. What you describe in such innocuous terms as a "correction" is an outright invasion of the lives and practice of belief for 80% of the population by your own numbers. I want an invocation at a graduation to be allowed, a prayer before athletic competition. Neither of those are an intrusion on any minority rights, they are an acknowledgment of the numbers and a concession to the faith that majority has. If it had been intended to be prohibited by the wise men you claim to admire, we would not be fighting over it today, Those practices didn't become widespread in the '50's

It's amazing the people like you are willfully ignorant of the facts.

Here's the beginning and end of the Declaration of Independence. You'll have to show me how this shows the FF's did not believe in God, nor were they desiring that this country be wholly separated from Him. By the way, it sure looks like they fully accept His reality and acknowledge His Creation of them as well as the fact that He is involved in everyday life individually and nationally. Ignore away.


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The only sad part is the ACLU then goes to the liberal judge who then with their single voice, overrules the voice of the entire city, state or country. The voice of many overruled by the voice of one or a few. Sounds just like what the liberal claims Christians do, don't it.

I seem to recall something about a freedom of religion, and a freedom from persecution/repression thereby.....the Bill of Rights really ought to be abolished.

The only sad part is the ACLU then goes to the liberal judge who then with their single voice, overrules the voice of the entire city, state or country. The voice of many overruled by the voice of one or a few. Sounds just like what the liberal claims Christians do, don't it.You do know of the recent ID decision? Last I heard, the city would just assume have no truck with their school board which brought up the mess---they were all *voted* out.

The ACLU defends those whose rights my be infringed upon---not those who may be infringing on others. If your rights are violated (the right to force your religion on thoers notwithstanding), the ACLU will defend you also.

the court is there to prevent at times 'bad decisions' by a majority. Sometimes Mob rule isn't what is best for democracy. It's why our FF put it in the Constitution (Checks and Balances) otherwise we'd still have segregation in many states as well as probably lynch laws after all, that's what entire cities or states may want. stupid courts. and once again Flip, it's been Conservative Courts overturning legislation as of late. 33 and counting,including appointing a President, which BTW was in conflict with the Majority of people (W lost the popular vote)

Well, if you adhere so closely to the FF intent, W. won the way they intended it to be. Dems tried to gerrymander the ballots and the courts prevented it. Larceny was actually prevented and the intent of those honored men was upheld.

You'll have to show me how this shows the FF's did not believe in God, nor were they desiring that this country be wholly separated from Him. By the way, it sure looks like they fully accept His reality and acknowledge His Creation of them as well as the fact that He is involved in everyday life individually and nationally.
no one'ssaying that.....what everyone is trying to communoicate is that the FF believed that religion was an important INDIVIDUAL right, not something to be determined by the state.

Take your argument where it naturally goes and pretty soon we have laws in certain towns decreeing what religion is allowed.........what if it weren't yours?

The FF's believed relious belief and a personal relationship with God was incredibly important, they just didn't think it was the role of government to define those beliefs for any individual.

You accuse everyone else of ignoring the facts, how about this one......those same FF'ers that you quote so well, had it in their power when drafting the constitution and Bill of rights, to be specific about what religious beliefs the government should hold and support, yet they stayed mute on it......why do you think that was?

Len

uh Votes were not counted. the Fl. state supreme court said count them. a conservative court would have deferred to the states decision, what they did was judicial activism. W was appointed and that isn't anything resembling what our FF's wanted.

Your original post (especially its title) suggested that you were interested in learning something. "Deist? Thanks in Advance for the Education."

Were you?

Or were you just looking for a straw man to knock down, a venue to suggest that these men indeed shared your brand of evangelical Christianity and your notions of how it should shape government.

Inquiring minds want to know.

It's amazing the people like you are willfully ignorant of the facts.

Here's the beginning and end of the Declaration of Independence. You'll have to show me how this shows the FF's did not believe in God, nor were they desiring that this country be wholly separated from Him. By the way, it sure looks like they fully accept His reality and acknowledge His Creation of them as well as the fact that He is involved in everyday life individually and nationally. Ignore away.


When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.


You are, perhaps, aware that the Declaration of Independence has no force in U.S. Law? It's not a legal document, it's a call to arms. It's also interesting to note that whenever someone sees mention of "the Creator" in the Declaration, they assume that it's their God the author was talking about. Bear in mind that Jefferson, who wrote the darned thing, was not only likely the least religious of the founders, he was a scientist of the first order. You must remember that the science of the time had not even thought of an un-created universe. The discoveries which underly modern cosmology lay 150 years in the future. Careful scientist that he was, it's likely that Jefferson would have accepted those results.

He also wrote the Virginia Statute for Religous Freedom.

Again I ask, and note that you have not answered:

Why is it that you feel the State must promote not only religious belief in general, but yours in particular? No one is telling you to take the Nativity off YOUR lawn. Why do you feel the need to place one on OURS, as well? What is it about the idea that the State should remain silent on matters of religion that makes you feel persecuted? And would you feel differently if the religious ideas the State was promoting were radically different from yours?

--Shannon

Here are some quotes from our founding fathers:


http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html

http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html

http://altreligion.about.com/library/weekly/aa070202a.htm

Thomas Paine

From The Age of Reason, pp. 8–9:
“I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Turkish church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of....Each of those churches accuse the other of unbelief; and of my own part, I disbelieve them all.”

From The Age of Reason:
“All natural institutions of churches, whether Jewish, Christian, or Turkish, appear to me no other than human inventions, set up to terrify and enslave mankind, and monopolize power and profit.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The most detestable wickedness, the most horrid cruelties, and the greatest miseries that have afflicted the human race have had their origin in this thing called revelation, or revealed religion.”

From The Age of Reason:
“What is it the Bible teaches us? — rapine, cruelty, and murder.”

From The Age of Reason:
“Loving of enemies is another dogma of feigned morality, and has beside no meaning....Those who preach the doctrine of loving their enemies are in general the greatest prosecutors, and they act consistently by so doing; for the doctrine is hypocritical, and it is natural that hypocrisy should act the reverse of what it preaches.”

From The Age of Reason:
“The Bible was established altogether by the sword, and that in the worst use of it — not to terrify but to extirpate.”

Additional quote from Thomas Paine:
“It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible.”


Thomas Jefferson (the third President of the United States)

Jefferson’s interpretation of the first amendment in a letter to the Danbury Baptist Association (January 1, 1802):
“Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should ‘make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,’ thus building a wall of separation between church and State.”

From Jefferson’s biography:
“...an amendment was proposed by inserting the words, ‘Jesus Christ...the holy author of our religion,’ which was rejected ‘By a great majority in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and the Mohammedan, the Hindoo and the Infidel of every denomination.’”

Jefferson’s “The Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom”:
“Our civil rights have no dependence on our religious opinions, more than on our opinions in physics and geometry....The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no god. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg.”

From Thomas Jefferson’s Bible:
“The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus, by the Supreme Being as his father, in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter.”

Jefferson’s Notes on Virginia:
“Reason and persuasion are the only practicable instruments. To make way for these free inquiry must be indulged; how can we wish others to indulge it while we refuse ourselves? But every state, says an inquisitor, has established some religion. No two, say I, have established the same. Is this a proof of the infallibility of establishments?”

Additional quotes from Thomas Jefferson:
“It is error alone which needs the support of government. Truth can stand by itself.”

“They [the clergy] believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition of their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the alter of god eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man.”

“I have examined all the known superstitions of the word, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half of the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth.”

“In every country and in every age the priest has been hostile to liberty; he is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own.”

“Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear....Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it end in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue on the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise and in the love of others which it will procure for you.”

“Christianity...[has become] the most perverted system that ever shone on man....Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus.”

“...that our civil rights have no dependence on religious opinions, any more than our opinions in physics and geometry.”


James Madison (the fourth President of the United States)

Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments:
“Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for every noble enterprise....During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less, in all places, pride and indolence in the clergy; ignorance and servility in laity; in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution.”

Additional quote from James Madison:
“Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together.”


Benjamin Franklin

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“My parents had given me betimes religious impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.”

From Franklin’s autobiography, p. 66:
“...Some books against Deism fell into my hands....It happened that they wrought an effect on me quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quote to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations, in short, I soon became a thorough Deist.”


Ethan Allen

From Religion of the American Enlightenment:
“Denominated a Deist, the reality of which I have never disputed, being conscious that I am no Christian.”
John Adams (the second President of the United States)

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli (June 7, 1797). Article 11 states:
“The government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion.”

From a letter to Charles Cushing (October 19, 1756):
“Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, ‘this would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it.’”

From a letter to Thomas Jefferson:
“I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved — the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!”

Additional quotes from John Adams:
“Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?”

“The Doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.”

“...Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind.”


That do not support Flip's position. What say ye now?

Len

You can read quotes till you are blue in the face, the intent is what is questioned and that has around 200 years of history and precedent to go on until the recent PC craze and the rush to not offend the three of 300 who may be in the room. Prayer in schools, Christmas, Thanksgiving, opening prayer at nearly every major gathering at any public function, including town meetings or other government functions, speak to their intent much louder than the recent attempts to read enforced secularism into what they established. They believed in a secular government but were not threatened by open practice of religion. We are not threatened either, just embarrassed by God or Christ on display, might offend a handful of people. They were against enforced religion, not free practice of it, said so.

majority rule and MINORITY rights

which our FF's created and intended it to protect those who's beliefs may not be 'mainstream'. Thus such activities were banned not out of embarrassment of God or Jesus but as to NOT offend those 3 of 300 in order to protect their rights.

practice your religion at home,in church, under your breathe,whatever,but it has no place in any form being forced down the public's throat.

School prayer or PreCivic Event, which one? Christian? wow that sounds like a Gov. sponsorship of one faith that would counter all the non Christians and depending on where ya live, they make upmore than 3 of 300

You can read quotes till you are blue in the face, the intent is what is questioned and that has around 200 years of history and precedent to go on until the recent PC craze and the rush to not offend the three of 300 who may be in the room. Prayer in schools, Christmas, Thanksgiving, opening prayer at nearly every major gathering at any public function, including town meetings or other government functions, speak to their intent much louder than the recent attempts to read enforced secularism into what they established. They believed in a secular government but were not threatened by open practice of religion. We are not threatened either, just embarrassed by God or Christ on display, might offend a handful of people. They were against enforced religion, not free practice of it, said so.

Again, and again, and again until you get it:

It's not the citizen's practice of religion that's under discussion. It's the GOVERNMENT'S!!!! A secular government, to remain secular, must remain silent on questions of faith. This silence harms nobody, To permit the State to engage in religious practice, even if that practice is "non-denominational" (although always, in practice, Christian) is to, at the minimum, suggest that the State believes in God. Which it's not allowed to.

And it's not about offending those 3 out of 300. It's about opressing them. If it were 1 person in the whole country, his rights would not be any less important than all the rest. I am not offended by being required to pledge allegiance to a God in which I do not believe, I am opressed by it. I am forced, by the power of the State, to affirm that which I to not believe. The State should have no power to require that. And if someone were to propose changing "under God" to "under Allah", you'd be up in arms. The only way to avoid those kinds of disputes, and the pain and death they always bring, is for the State to stay out of it altogether. Which is clearly what the Founders intended.

Again, it is easy to point out the harm done to non-believers when the State speaks with a religous voice. Nobody has ever shown any harm done to people of faith when the State is silent.

--Shannon

See ya at the polls, again, and again, and again, until YOU get it.

is that a bunch of ignorant tools can be fooled into voting against their own interests.

last I checked, prayer ain't comin' back, the cross on my Mtn still has to come down, prayer ain't allowed in civic places and ID still ain't science.

you keep hangin' on and votin' fer them issues though, they're gonna change em sooner er later

Thank you, I certainly will. You keep on wondering why your guys lose.

A good democracy depends on the intelligent interest of its participants

you are a fine example of why we lack a good democracy

It works for me.

the waffen SS

Thank you, I certainly will. You keep on wondering why your guys lose.
just wait till the next election and we'll see how smug you are then.

just wait till the next election and we'll see how smug you are then.

So, you 're saying "Wait till next time?"

Heard THAT one before.

and if the left gets in control and starts giving you the squeeze you ain't allowed to whine.

What? You think you should have control and still have exclusive rights to whining too. Surely you don't want EVERYTHING?

I'm not sure what intrusion you are speaking of unless it would be the "Under God" thing in the pledge or "In god We Trust" on our money. If that is the only complaint, I would be content to see them removed but that isn't what Christians are dealing with today. We have had Christmas pagents, city decorations, nativity scenes on courthous lawns since I can remember. Now my memory doesn't quite reach as far back as the FF's, but it goes farther than many on this board. Thanksgiving was basically a religious holiday, it was a day of thanks to God, it was established as such.

What we see today is an intrusion into the celebbration of who we are, even 80% is an overwhelming majority. I have seen actual intrusions removed, such as the blue law in Texas that required most business to close on Sunday. No problem there. I want a nativity scene on the courthouse lawn, I see no problem with the city government paying for it, it funds a number of social plans to help minority groups and I have no problem with that either. What you describe in such innocuous terms as a "correction" is an outright invasion of the lives and practice of belief for 80% of the population by your own numbers. I want an invocation at a graduation to be allowed, a prayer before athletic competition. Neither of those are an intrusion on any minority rights, they are an acknowledgment of the numbers and a concession to the faith that majority has. If it had been intended to be prohibited by the wise men you claim to admire, we would not be fighting over it today, Those practices didn't become widespread in the '50's
Fortunately, we have the Constitution to protect us from that line of thought.

Thank you, I certainly will. You keep on wondering why your guys lose.Snake, it doesn't matter who is in office. In fact, I prefer Bush when it comes to his judges. At least THEY get it and that's really all that matters.


/Damned lifetime appointments....

Snakebit -

It's got nothing to do with politics, or who wins or looses elections. The Constitution is what it is, and we live (for now) in a secular state. If every other person in the country thought as you do, and voted in a Congress and President who turned America into the Christian theocracy you clearly desire, it'd still be unconstitutional, it's still be wrong, and I'd fight it until you burned me at the stake.

What the founders recognized, and you clearly do not, is that the Church and the State are two vastly powerful institutions, and to mix those powers is the death of liberty.

--Shannon

On who's authority do you believe that all of what you wrote about why religion exists and herd mentality, etc. Just curious.

Tell me it's Joseph Campbell. Or he's one of them.

I was listening to his big series and right at the start he says, I believe that religion started when a monkey man (or something like it, let's not get caught up in the title) heard and saw thunder and lightning. He got scared and then believed there must be some scary power out there, etc.

From this platform, he launches his whole belief system about everything.

I just want you to understand. It's from his belief in this one thing. He makes everything else fall into his belief system.

We are all that way. We must believe in something unknowable and then we build on that. Evolution is built on the belief that somewhere a non living thing came together to become a living, eating, replicating. etc. thing. There is no evidence of the first thing. They don't know the conditions, the components, etc. They just believe that one time spontaneous generation occured. Let's be honest. Your herd thing is totally based on blind faith.On who's authority? Huh? My "herd mentality thing" is based on observation of nature. It's pretty straight forward and simple.

My take on religion is also based on personal observation. No faith involved. That religion is bogus is a unequivocal fact to me and there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else could say or do that would even come close to making me reconsider that position. Religion is BS. Plain and simple.

My take on religion is also based on personal observation. No faith involved. That religion is bogus is a unequivocal fact to me and there is absolutely nothing you or anyone else could say or do that would even come close to making me reconsider that position. Religion is BS. Plain and simple.

I'm with you Ken.

Lately the term religious wacko has become redundant.

Flip, you're always looking for reading material, how about ex-pres Jimmy Carter's new book?

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0743284577/qid=1135915345/sr=8-1/ref=pd_bbs_1/103-8604012-5419829?n=507846&s=books&v=glance

Silas

Snakebit -

It's got nothing to do with politics, or who wins or looses elections. The Constitution is what it is, and we live (for now) in a secular state. If every other person in the country thought as you do, and voted in a Congress and President who turned America into the Christian theocracy you clearly desire, it'd still be unconstitutional, it's still be wrong, and I'd fight it until you burned me at the stake.

What the founders recognized, and you clearly do not, is that the Church and the State are two vastly powerful institutions, and to mix those powers is the death of liberty.

--Shannon

It seems to me that what we have is a difference of opinon of what separation of church and state means. Many of the things that have come under attack and been banned or pushed aside are not at the level that is claimed for them. Much of it that I have listed earlier is simply the free practice of religion. The location and occaision of a prayer does not determine whether it intrudes on anyones rights or space. Many of the claims border on the ridiculous but they are pursued with the same vigor as those that may have some legitamacy. Both sides love to quote the FF's and state what their intent was. Their intent wqas that we not have a state religion, not that religion wo0uld play no active role in the lives of believers. 200+ years of prayers at public government functions is testimony to that idea.

It seems to me that what we have is a difference of opinon of what separation of church and state means. Many of the things that have come under attack and been banned or pushed aside are not at the level that is claimed for them. Much of it that I have listed earlier is simply the free practice of religion. The location and occaision of a prayer does not determine whether it intrudes on anyones rights or space. Many of the claims border on the ridiculous but they are pursued with the same vigor as those that may have some legitamacy. Both sides love to quote the FF's and state what their intent was. Their intent wqas that we not have a state religion, not that religion wo0uld play no active role in the lives of believers. 200+ years of prayers at public government functions is testimony to that idea.

The part I don't understand is how anyone can claim that keeping the state out of religous matters infringes any citizen's free exercise rights. The location and occasion of a prayer absolutely matters, if the government is doing the praying, or even promoting prayer. For the state even to take the position that God exists is to intrude on the rights of non-believers. The Bill of Rights is a limitation of the powers of the state, not an enumeration of the rights of the people.

One more time...

The State has NO free exercise rights. Citizens do, and those rights are not under attack in any of the cases we are discussing. The State's powers in the religous arena are limited to the point of non-existance. And that's how it should be.

YOU can praise Jesus, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all you want. The government isn't allowed to.

Unless you're a closet theocrat, I don't understand what the problem is.

--Shannon

The part I don't understand is how anyone can claim that keeping the state out of religous matters infringes any citizen's free exercise rights. The location and occasion of a prayer absolutely matters, if the government is doing the praying, or even promoting prayer. For the state even to take the position that God exists is to intrude on the rights of non-believers. The Bill of Rights is a limitation of the powers of the state, not an enumeration of the rights of the people.

One more time...

The State has NO free exercise rights. Citizens do, and those rights are not under attack in any of the cases we are discussing. The State's powers in the religous arena are limited to the point of non-existance. And that's how it should be.

YOU can praise Jesus, or Allah, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster, all you want. The government isn't allowed to.

Unless you're a closet theocrat, I don't understand what the problem is.

--ShannonTheir problem is that because they're the majority they feel that everyone should have to endure their beliefs and they feel that the state should sanction it regardless of what the Constitution states. Snake, for example, thinks that the state should pay for nativity scenes because it also funds social programs for minority groups (why do I doubt that they're religious programs) and Flip thinks that atheists and agnostics should have no voting rights or role in the government because that is clearly the law according to him (forgetting the fact that if the Founders wanted it that way they would have written it into the Constitution).

They're just pissed that the Constitution stands in the way of them imposing their beliefs on the rest of us. They don't care that their ultimate goal is the same as Al Qaeda's they just want it their way so I say let them be pissed.

We are not talking about state mandated religion or even state support of it. We are talking about community gatherings and the practice of asking guidance and protection by those who feel the need to do so prior to an undertaking that may require wisdom or care. If you view it as a meaningless ritual, what is your complaint? It has no effect one way or the other and you are NOT forced to participate. I sometimes don't even bow my head, much less pray with the group but from time to time, I may, depending on how I feel about what is at stake. I am 62 years old and I have never been forced to pray, only to show tollerance and respect for others while they followed their faith. It IS a ritual, it gives comfort to believers and adds to their quality of life, it takes nothing from those who do not believe or who have a different faith except tollerance. The idea that these prayers or symbols of Christian religion are somehow unconstitutional is a relatively new concept, and it is unpopular. I believe it is also in error.

We are not talking about state mandated religion or even state support of it. We are talking about community gatherings and the practice of asking guidance and protection by those who feel the need to do so prior to an undertaking that may require wisdom or care. If you view it as a meaningless ritual, what is your complaint? It has no effect one way or the other and you are NOT forced to participate. I sometimes don't even bow my head, much less pray with the group but from time to time, I may, depending on how I feel about what is at stake. I am 62 years old and I have never been forced to pray, only to show tollerance and respect for others while they followed their faith. It IS a ritual, it gives comfort to believers and adds to their quality of life, it takes nothing from those who do not believe or who have a different faith except tollerance. The idea that these prayers or symbols of Christian religion are somehow unconstitutional is a relatively new concept, and it is unpopular. I believe it is also in error.Tell ya what Snake--how'd you like some neighboring community to start having state sponsered 'askings for guidance' at gov't functions (i.e. possible use of public/state tax dollars) that were say..... satanic rituals? Hmmmm? Would 'live and let live' still apply?

How about in your own community?

Or is this another example of chr*stians cherry pickin to forward their own cause?

Methinks the religious folk would be filing with the ACLU also.

Tell ya what Snake--how'd you like some neighboring community to start having state sponsered 'askings for guidance' at gov't functions (i.e. possible use of public/state tax dollars) that were say..... satanic rituals? Hmmmm? Would 'live and let live' still apply?

How about in your own community?

Or is this another example of chr*stians cherry pickin to forward their own cause?

Methinks the religious folk would be filing with the ACLU also.

Well, methinks you are creating a straw argument here. I'm not talking about publications, I'm talking about celebrations of the holidays we have traditionally celebrated in this country, you remember tradition? Christmas and Thanksgiving have always been recognized as Christian based. I'm talking about invocations at graduations or prior to civic meetings or a prayer before an athletic contest. If you prefer some pagan deity, then pray to that one while the other 99.99% of the people at your civivc gathering ask for guidance and protection from their God. As for your witches and goblins, we do that at Halloween. The protests of the few hardliners who have protested that event have largely been laughed at for most of my life. Lotsa PC crap and garbage today though.

None of the things I have mentioned are state sponsored or have forced participation. they are who we are and it is who we remain, in spite of the current overzealous pursuit of denial. Nobody is harmed or warped by any of it. There may be some emotional discomfort for the more insecure people among us but life is like that. Now if I lived in a community that was 99% witches, I think I would move, well, that would depend on just how dadgummed pagan we were gonna be at those gatherings. I hear there is nudity involved, I try to remain somewhat openminded about things like that.

Snake, my guess is you live in pretty much whiteyville. now if you lived in a culutrually or religiously diverse area where you may have a mix of buddhists, hindu, muslim, atheist,agnostic and a variety of Christians you'd see how doing invocations at civic events (school, community) would be an affront to more than the .01 that make up your community.

so I'm gonna simplify. what if you are not Catholic and the majority of folks are in your area. Would you be offended if it was a Mass? I mean American Evangelicals feel the Catholic Church is in bed with the antichrist, how would you Protestants feel if you were subject to the Catholic Prayer Book?

An invocation is not a service, it is the practice of the faithful asking for aid at the outset of an event in their lives. Nothing I have mentioned reaches the level of Mass or a service. It isn't important if the person leading that prayer for the group is Catholic or Baptist. It might be a problem if they were Hindu but they would be very much in the minority here. That is one of the reasons those wise old men you love so much tried to set things up so we would regionally, mind our own friggin business. If I were the only white Christian American at a graduation of predominately ethnic people, I would probably not understand the service at all but I would try to be respectfully quiet and simply pray to my own God (the real one) while they conducted their service.

just be happier (in a non Christian area) if they just did a 'moment of silence' or you could just pray on your way to the event? I'm sure being constantly subjected to a faith not your own (especially since you've obviously chosen the right God) would get a tad old quite quickly and you'd tire of biting your tongue whilst sitting through it.
You are right about the FF wanting to stay out of our friggin business, it's why the created
the 'wall of separation' for fear our great nation would fall into the religious trappings of the Europe we fled. Now if you are so down with the Gov.allowing us to mind our own friggin business, why are you so in support of this admins constant infringements into our 'own friggin business'?

Snake, my guess is you live in pretty much whiteyville. now if you lived in a culutrually or religiously diverse area where you may have a mix of buddhists, hindu, muslim, atheist,agnostic and a variety of Christians you'd see how doing invocations at civic events (school, community) would be an affront to more than the .01 that make up your community.

so I'm gonna simplify. what if you are not Catholic and the majority of folks are in your area. Would you be offended if it was a Mass? I mean American Evangelicals feel the Catholic Church is in bed with the antichrist, how would you Protestants feel if you were subject to the Catholic Prayer Book?There is huge hispanic population in the Midland area, over 50% in some areas. My guess is that they're mostly Catholic.

Here's a breakdown:

(the data includes the rural areas surrounding Midland, TX. If you focus on Midland proper, it's almost 50% hispanic.)

There was never a "Wall; of Seperation." That's why the part about the free practice of, was included. Religion and it's practice has always been a major part of life in this country, it is accepted. This "Wall" you speak of is a new concept. If there actrually were a state sponsored religion, the practice of which was enforced, I would agree with you. As to your other question, I am not a practicing Christian, I have often found the trappings to be irritating but they are simply part of life. No, a moment of silence is stupid and serves no purpose whatsoever. Have your prayer, Christian, Bhuddist, Taoist or Islamic or just get on with it. I find the "momemt of silence' far more irritating than the prayer. I understand the reason and possibilities of prayer.

Wall of Separation was coined by Thomas Jefferson in his letters to the Danbury baptists.
ya might wanna actually research stuff before making such erroneously wrong and grandiose statements. oh nevermind yer a Republican historical or factualaccuracy isn't a big deal over there. But if you were interested you could have just done a quick search and found a littany of info on ole TJ and the subject.

An invocation is not a service, it is the practice of the faithful asking for aid at the outset of an event in their lives. Nothing I have mentioned reaches the level of Mass or a service. It isn't important if the person leading that prayer for the group is Catholic or Baptist. It might be a problem if they were Hindu but they would be very much in the minority here. That is one of the reasons those wise old men you love so much tried to set things up so we would regionally, mind our own friggin business. If I were the only white Christian American at a graduation of predominately ethnic people, I would probably not understand the service at all but I would try to be respectfully quiet and simply pray to my own God (the real one) while they conducted their service.

Here's the part you choose not to see... The State is not faithful. It's not allowed to be. You can pray in silence, or in song, or by guzzling beer, or any other way you want to. The Constitution protects this.

The Government can't pray, because the Government doesn't believe in God. Yours, or anyone else's. It matters not who the majority is. You do not have the right to have the State back up your religious choices. And it is no infringement of your free exercise rights for it not to do so. As long as they're not telling you that you can't worship as you choose, your rights are intact. And telling those of different faiths to shut up and just not participate is just slightly less oppressive than forcing them to pray alongside you. Granted, in your America, that would be the law, but thankfully, we don't live in your America.

Tradition is not an argument. Lots of evil things have been traditional. Even when everyone was doing them, they were still wrong. And given the history of theocratic societies, tradition is about the last argument you would want to use.

--Shannon

Tradition is not an argument. Lots of evil things have been traditional. Even when everyone was doing them, they were still wrong. And given the history of theocratic societies, tradition is about the last argument you would want to use.

--Shannon

yeah like a good ole fashion lynchin'. A fine tradition of some good ole Southern Baptists.
How about persecution of non believers? Charlemagne got that ball rolling after it got dropped at the end of the Byzantine Empire but the Spaniards, well they had it down. Nothing like a good ole burning of the heretics.

hmmm how about genital mutilation of young girls by many african tribes?
but,but it's our tradition.

nice point Tub-ee

There is huge hispanic population in the Midland area, over 50% in some areas. My guess is that they're mostly Catholic.

Here's a breakdown:

(the data includes the rural areas surrounding Midland, TX. If you focus on Midland proper, it's almost 50% hispanic.)
You might want to find a graph of the Muslim population in parts of Michigan as well. The dominate certain school districts and if memory serves the ACLU took them to court at the behest of the minority Christians in the district over religious rights being taught or extolled at the school.

You might want to find a graph of the Muslim population in parts of Michigan as well. The dominate certain school districts and if memory serves the ACLU took them to court at the behest of the minority Christians in the district over religious rights being taught or extolled at the school.As we all know, the ACLU is an anti-Christian terrorist organization who actively works to strip American Christians of their right to freely practice their religious beliefs. So sayeth Flip Flash.

Recent ACLU involvement in religious liberty cases include:

September 20, 2005: ACLU of New Jersey joins lawsuit supporting second-grader's right to sing "Awesome God" at a talent show.

August 4, 2005: ACLU helps free a New Mexico street preacher from prison.

May 25, 2005: ACLU sues Wisconsin prison on behalf of a Muslim woman who was forced to remove her headscarf in front of male guards and prisoners.

February 2005: ACLU of Pennsylvania successfully defends the right of an African American Evangelical church to occupy a church building purchased in a predominantly white parish.

December 22, 2004: ACLU of New Jersey successfully defends right of religious expression by jurors.

December 14, 2004: ACLU joins Pennsylvania parents in filing first-ever challenge to "Intelligent Design" instruction in public schools.

November 20, 2004: ACLU of Nevada supports free speech rights of evangelists to preach on the sidewalks of the strip in Las Vegas.

November 12, 2004: ACLU of Georgia files a lawsuit on behalf of parents challenging evolution disclaimers in science textbooks.

November 9, 2004: ACLU of Nevada defends a Mormon student who was suspended after wearing a T-shirt with a religious message to school.

August 11, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska defends church facing eviction by the city of Lincoln.

July 10, 2004: Indiana Civil Liberties Union defends the rights of a Baptist minister to preach his message on public streets.

June 9, 2004: ACLU of Nebraska files a lawsuit on behalf of a Muslim woman barred from a public pool because she refused to wear a swimsuit.

June 3, 2004: Under pressure from the ACLU of Virginia, officials agree not to prohibit baptisms on public property in Falmouth Waterside Park in Stafford County.

May 11, 2004: After ACLU of Michigan intervened on behalf of a Christian Valedictorian, a public high school agrees to stop censoring religious yearbook entries.

March 25, 2004: ACLU of Washington defends an Evangelical minister's right to preach on sidewalks.

February 21, 2003: ACLU of Massachusetts defends students punished for distributing candy canes with religious messages.

October 28, 2002: ACLU of Pennsylvania files discrimination lawsuit over denial of zoning permit for African American Baptist church.

July 11, 2002: ACLU supports right of Iowa students to distribute Christian literature at school.

April 17, 2002: In a victory for the Rev. Jerry Falwell and the ACLU of Virginia, a federal judge strikes down a provision of the Virginia Constitution that bans religious organizations from incorporating.

January 18, 2002: ACLU defends Christian church's right to run "anti-Santa" ads in Boston subways.

http://www.aclu.org/religion/tencomm/16254res20050302.html


Terrorists, I tells ya!


Unfortunately, my demographic data doesn't include religious information but I could tell you the number of adults who used sore throat products or who has a VCR

http://www.blessedcause.org/TMPressRelease.htm


but on other notes

this is interesting God Hating ACLU defends a catholic who was being forced into Pentecostal rehab program
http://www.aclu.org/religion/govtfunding/22354prs20051206.html

or defending a kids right to sing "Awesome God" at a school talent show
http://www.aclu.org/religion/schools/20174prs20050920.html

or their personal entry in a yearbook
2004-MAY-12: MI: ACLU helps Christian student avoid censorship: Under pressure from the American Civil Liberties Union, the Utica Community School District settled out of court a dispute with Abbey Moler, valedictorian of Stevenson High School in Sterling Heights, MI. The school's yearbook had profiled Moler and a number of other outstanding graduates. Each student was invited to share their thoughts with the rest of the school. Moler, a devout Christian submitted the comment: "I would like to share a favorite verse that shapes my life and guides me from day to day: 'For I know the plans I have for you,' declares the Lord, 'plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future.' Jeremiah 29:11 (New International Bible [sic])." In an obvious violation of her First Amendment rights, he school refused to publish her comment because of its religious content. They did not even have the decency to tell Moler in advance. She only found out after the yearbook had been published. The school district agreed to place a sticker with her original entry in those copies of the yearbook which were still at the school, to send Moler a letter of apology, to instruct the yearbook staff to not censor political or religious speech, and to continue to train school staff on free speech and religious freedom issues.

or protecting some forms of christians from being subject to ther forms
http://www.aclu.org/religion/gen/16270prs20050531.html

wow what a bunch of God Haters

The 'State" doesn't pray, nor does it require you to do so. Yoiu don't have to tqak part in an invocation, don't even have to bow your head but it is usually expected that you remain silent while those who wish to, do so. I've done that all my life, don't even bow my head or shut my eyes and pretend, just show a bit of respect for the rights of those around me. Never needed the ACLU to help me out and neither do you. The state is not coercing you.

The 'State" doesn't pray, nor does it require you to do so. Yoiu don't have to tqak part in an invocation, don't even have to bow your head but it is usually expected that you remain silent while those who wish to, do so. I've done that all my life, don't even bow my head or shut my eyes and pretend, just show a bit of respect for the rights of those around me. Never needed the ACLU to help me out and neither do you. The state is not coercing you.Do prayers have no effect if not lead or performed as a group?

And the key issue in the ACLU's cases is exactly the one discussed here: The difference between the individual's right to free exercise of religion and the state's power to espouse religous ideas.

The courts have generally held that the government and it's employees cannot use their power or their positions to advance religous ideas. Thus, a student cannot be prevented from praying at school, but the teacher is forbidden to lead prayers. When the teacher speaks to the class, he or she acts as an agent of the state, and the state has no religous beliefs. None. Not any.

No one is suggesting that the free exercise clause be done away with, but if you get rid of the establishment clause, free exercise for everyone else goes with it. Which is, of course, the real goal of Dobson, Robertson and company. Get those stakes and fires ready folks...

--Shannon

The prayers I am speaking of are not generally led by a teacher or necessarily anyone that is a government employee. Those pregame prayers at athletic events are generally led by a student at whatever school or schools are involved. I wouldn't know about an invocation at a graduation ceremony but that doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem either. These are ridiculous objections.

Snakebit,

Do your homework. The school prayer case that the Supreme Court decided a few years back out of Texas indeed was brought by Mormon and Catholic students who never had an opportunity to have the invocation reflect their theology because in the Baptist-majority Texas community where the case arose, the students selected the speaker by majority vote.

The prayers I am speaking of are not generally led by a teacher or necessarily anyone that is a government employee. Those pregame prayers at athletic events are generally led by a student at whatever school or schools are involved. I wouldn't know about an invocation at a graduation ceremony but that doesn't seem to be an insurmountable problem either. These are ridiculous objections.If it is sanctioned by the school it makes little difference if it's a teacher or a student -- they're both acting on behalf of the school.

You speak of respect for the beliefs of others. Why is it unthinkable that you show that respect by not forcing people to sit through, and feel outcast by, a prayer session?

Snakebit,....

Do your homework. .

yeah right. I think I laughed so hard something flew out of my nose. Ignorance of the actualissue and overstated opinions are his nom de plume.

And you find that undemocratic?

not undemocratic, un-GOOD-democratic.

ya know informed and interested populace and all. don't believe all the NeoCon hype about the ACLU,they help everybody including fat bloated, full of BS drug addled talk show hosts who if they had an ounce of credibility would have put a gun in their mouth after being caught dealing narcotics.

Hey, I lived in a small town in Utah for a year and I never heard of a Baptist being asked to lead the prayers. Never heard one complain either.

and her father didn't get a promotion because he wasn't a Mormon (though he did win a nice settlement).
but again Baptist mo-Mo is too close. try say a Baptist living in Little Saigon.Don'tthink they'd be too psyched having to say the Mantras or Sutras.

Thing is, you don't gotta say it, you just gotta be quiet and respectful while those who see meaning in it do. That isn't state sponsored or forced religion, just life in our diverse coulture.

you'd just be as pleased as a pansy sitting through every local sports game, every civic function and being subjected to 20 minutes of Ohm Mane Padme Hum. and you KNOW most Christians,if they were subjected to it wouldscream bloody murder as it would be 'idolatry' and strictly against the will of their God. please at least attempt to be intellectually honest

If I found myself in that situation, I'd get the hell out of California and back to Texas, but I wouldn't file any lawsuits.

Thing is, you don't gotta say it, you just gotta be quiet and respectful while those who see meaning in it do. That isn't state sponsored or forced religion, just life in our diverse coulture.If I'm not shown respect why should I return it? If I were ever in such a situtation, I'd continue my conversation normally. Respect is a two-way street. I'd never interrupt someone praying during a moment of silence but if you want me to sit quietly through an involuntary prayer at my kid's school sporting event or play or whatever you're nuts.

There's a difference between "Let's have a moment of silence", "Please join along in Our Lord's Prayer" and "God bless and goodnight".

already defended some non dominant form Christians from being subjected to the dominant form of Christianity that was not of their ilk, so it
a) again proves my above point
b) shows you are still being dishonest

Then you are just rude and intollerant. People might not think much of you but the "state" would have nothing to say to you about it. You would be within your rights, but you wouldn't be right in what you were doing.

Then you are just rude and intollerant. People might not think much of you but the "state" would have nothing to say to you about it. You would be within your rights, but you wouldn't be right in what you were doing.
The feelings would be mutual. Those imposing their beliefs upon me are even more rude and intollerant than me. I'd merely be pointing it out to them. Like I said, respect is a two-way street. You respect my beliefs and I'll respect yours. Don't and I won't either. I'm not the one, however, who feels the need to be accepted in a group so it wouldn't bother me a whit what people thought.

They aren't imposing their beliefs on you, they are practicing them in front of you. You have no constitutional protection from that. You are being rude and intollerant and your mama would be ashamed of you. ;)

please hear my prayer. please send Snake for some reason to live in an Islamic Republic to learn what it's like to endure his form of 'tolerance'. I say these words in love and honor of all the great prophets.

amen

Well I can tell you one thing, if I find myself in an Islamic culture, I'm not gonna try that "In dog we trust" thing you use and get away with here in this country, among Christians. ;)

Atheists phooey, I prefer witches, they at least get nekkid. If we're gonna be pagan, lets do it right.

Well I can tell you one thing, if I find myself in an Islamic culture, I'm not gonna try that "In dog we trust" thing you use and get away with here in this country, among Christians. ;)LOL! Why not -- them Arabs just cut your head off. Christians burn you at the stake. Now us atheists, we'll just bore you to death with 1st Amendment mumbo jumbo. ;)

it's why the membership roles are down. you lack enough bloodshed in your name to be classified a real belief system

until you crack (my guess about a week of being subject to morning, afternoon and evening prayer calls) in which you'll yell something about them being dirt worshippin', raghead pagans, who don't even speak 'merican to which they will happily part your head from the rest of your mortal coil.

Atheists phooey, I prefer witches, they at least get nekkid. If we're gonna be pagan, lets do it right.I hear ya but lots of them witches don't shave or bathe. I'm pretty open minded and all but that pushes my limits pretty far.

You speak of respect for the beliefs of others. Why is it unthinkable that you show that respect by not forcing people to sit through, and feel outcast by, a prayer session?

Because it is only respect for HIS beliefs that he is concerned about. As shown by the parenthetical "the real one" in an earlier post, other people's beliefs, if they differ from his, are simply wrong, and therefore not worthy of respect, and liberty be damned.

The irony is, that kind of arrogant certainty is exactly the thing that the Founders were guarding us against when they wrote the First Amendment. So, in stating his case, he proves ours. Such is often the case with zealots.

--Shannon

If I'm not shown respect why should I return it? If I were ever in such a situtation, I'd continue my conversation normally. Respect is a two-way street. I'd never interrupt someone praying during a moment of silence but if you want me to sit quietly through an involuntary prayer at my kid's school sporting event or play or whatever you're nuts.

There's a difference between "Let's have a moment of silence", "Please join along in Our Lord's Prayer" and "God bless and goodnight".

I hate religion. Any time someone starts praying in my presence or mentions god it makes me sick. I see wonderful things like this that religion brings.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/asiapcf/12/28/pakistan.honor.ap/index.html


I don't want a moment of silence for anything and wish religion would die off. Imagine everyone having to find a new reason to hate each other. We would all be Infidels. Ah...a perfect world.

If I were the only white Christian American at a graduation of predominately ethnic people, I would probably not understand the service at all but I would try to be respectfully quiet and simply pray to my own God (the real one) while they conducted their service.
Who says your God is the real one? Do you have proof of this? Until you do, you might want to be a little less arrogant in your assertions!

Hey, I lived in a small town in Utah for a year and I never heard of a Baptist being asked to lead the prayers. Never heard one complain either.


Well, then, pardon me. This must clearly be a non-issue then since none of the Baptists in one small Mormon town complained (that you know of).

Public policy issue solved!

Well, then, pardon me. This must clearly be a non-issue then since none of the Baptists in one small Mormon town complained (that you know of).

Public policy issue solved!

That's okay, we all make mistakes from time to time. Happy New Year.

uh Votes were not counted. the Fl. state supreme court said count them. a conservative court would have deferred to the states decision, what they did was judicial activism. W was appointed and that isn't anything resembling what our FF's wanted.

You seem to have a curious definition of "judicial activism". It doesn't mean overturning legislation, it means ruling in a way that creates a law where one doesn't exist.

The case in Florida was an example of this. The state constitution gives the legislature the responsibility to write laws concerning elections. They had done so, and the recounts would have violated some of the provisions of FL state law (time limits), but the FL state supreme court said "count them anyway".

You say that a conservative court would have deferred to the states decision, but that's what they did. The difference is that the US SC deferred to the decision of the legislature, not the FL SC. Based on Florida's constitution.

Let me ask you this, if the judiciary effectively writes law, through their ruling, that isn't supported in their respective constitution or existing law, what's the check and balance for that?

p.s. the recounts done later by the media show that under all but the most lenient standards, Bush won the election. Some myths die harder than others.

example: Roe V wade, the great act of judicial activism didn't create a new law, it just made the law consistent nationally. killing an existing law is legislating just as much as creating one just inverse direction.

in regards to FLA, the US SC doesn't side with legislators, it ruled on what the lower courts decided. a federalist court (like they did in Sciavo) deferred to the local rule. That is behaving like they are supposed to. Overturning the FL SC's decision (they read state law and made their decision) was activist, pure and simple and regardless of outcome was an ethical flip flop of the nth degree and reprehensible for a court that is by it's leaning supposed to defer to the states in most matters

HE does. The proof is that I am here.Then enlighten us as to why he never created *roadbikes* if the creations was indeed *perfect*?;)

Who says your God is the real one? Do you have proof of this? Until you do, you might want to be a little less arrogant in your assertions!

HE does. The proof is that I am here.

Then enlighten us as to why he never created *roadbikes* if the creations was indeed *perfect*?;)

Where do YOU think they came from? It just took him a while to realize we needed them. ;)

Where do YOU think they came from? It just took him a while to realize we needed them. ;)D@m he's sloooow:D

which does prove God is quite fallible.

D@m he's sloooow:D

Not in HIS time. Besides, first we needed roads and rubber for the tires. Where would Lance be if those French mountains hadn't come first. It was a big chore, not so simple as you might believe.

7 days for the whole fickin shebang


how many centuries for Road Bikes?

7 days for the whole fickin shebang


how many centuries for Road Bikes?

Why don't you ask Him? :)