- Joined
- Dec 6, 2011
- Messages
- 6,248
- Reaction score
- 2,439
- Location
- Upstate New York
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
How dare they in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principle.
j-mac
Enlightenment values, not Judeo-Christian principle.
How dare they in a country founded on Judeo-Christian principle.
j-mac
Do you have anything relevant to say or are you just here to ridicule those who disagree with you?OMG!!!! Get the child psychiatrist....You must have been scared for at least 3 minutes...
j-mac
OMG!!!! Get the child psychiatrist....You must have been scared for at least 3 minutes...
j-mac
Why do extremist whack job atheists continue to files these lawsuits that in the long run cost tax payers money fighting these extremist whack job atheists? There is nothing in the constitution that says you can put up religious decorations on public property.
I think that, with separation of church and state, our forefathers also had another idea in mind.... Freedom FROM religion.
just read james madisons words on the first amendment.seperation of church and state started with jefferson 11 years after the first amendment,and holds no value since jefferson didnt write the first amendment,madison was the godfather of that one.
madison himself later on used the words seperation of church and state,decades after he wrote the first amendment.from his own words and his own actions,nothing suggests freedom from religion,rather he had a beef with government having any involvement in religion,whether iit was supporting or against.while he was president he vetoed everything involving anything religious.
people foam at the mouth over stupid things while not realizing there are many laws on the books over religious values,but people would rather foam at the mouth over a posting of the ten comandments,and call it forced indoctrination,while it is simply not.however it is not any position of the government to promote or deny religion.individuals working for the government would be in the right to have religious sybols within their person or on their personal property.the government however can not do such as they can make no law respecting religion.
Enlightenment values, not Judeo-Christian principle.
Not scared, just annoyed. You know, that feeling when someone does something that you don't like. The feeling you get when you find out that people dare disagree with your almighty opinion.
The point of the separation of church and state is to keep both separate. And through the First Amendment we make sure the Government does not dictate to us what religion to believe in etc. With a system set up to disallow the Government from interfering officially with religion by effect we also have made it where religion cannot have an effect on the Government. Obviously we have failed at this task through out American history. But none the less the Government by law has no place in religion and religion has no place in the Government.
There is no satisfactory evidence that Washington was a professor of the Christian religion, or even a speculative believer in its divinity, before he retired from public life.[6] In no state paper, in no private letter, in no conversation, is he known to have declared himself a believer in the Holy Scriptures, as the word of God.
(...)
He was President of the convention, that voted the name of the living God out of the Constitution. His influence was great among the members of that body. Had he taken part with Dr. Franklin, in the attempt to have an acknowledgment of God inserted in the Constitution, they could hardly have failed of success. The conviction forces itself upon us, that that act of national impiety, was done with the approbation of Washington. It is to his everlasting dishonor, that he is not known to have opposed that insult offered to the Lord God, who had made him so great and successful a captain.
my emphasisBesides, there is some reason to believe, that the people were not so bad as a few practical atheists, into whose hands the management of the national affairs fell, immediately after the revolution. These men voted God out of the Constitution, and discarded all moral qualifications for office. But the people, pending the election of Mr. Jefferson to the office of President, adopted a test. The opponents of that gentleman, insisted that he was an infidel, and therefore not to be honored with the highest office in the gift of the people. His friends admitted the doctrine that a deist ought not to be President; but denied the charge against Mr. Jefferson. His Notes on Virginia, are essentially deistical. But comparatively few had read them. The people, many thousands of Christians, did not believe the charge, and thinking it a slander of his political enemies, they voted for him. Had the people known his malevolent opposition to the Bible, truth, church and worship, of God as it is now known, the writer believes that he never would have been President of the United States. That very contest rendered Deism forever unpopular in this nation.
Where do you suppose that enlightenment came from?
This is the sort of thing that happens when children are not taught their heritage in schools.
The Reverend James Renwick Willson of the Reformed Presbyterian Church had a few words to say back in 1832 concerning George Washington and some of the other men we now call Founding Fathers
The Reverend Willson also had a few words to say about the men who voted for the Constitution, and also about Thomas Jefferson's suitability for the Presidency
my emphasis
I do not think you understand the meaning of "Enlightenment" in this context
I liked it better when religion was a more personal thing. Between someone and their Gawd, not something worn like a flag lapel pin.
I could do without all 10 and just go by the Golden Rule.
As far as 'needing' the commandments... we have laws that say the same thing with penalties. like grown ups...
thomas jefferson was in france and didnt vote on the constitution
The point of the separation of church and state is to keep both separate. And through the First Amendment we make sure the Government does not dictate to us what religion to believe in etc. With a system set up to disallow the Government from interfering officially with religion by effect we also have made it where religion cannot have an effect on the Government. Obviously we have failed at this task through out American history. But none the less the Government by law has no place in religion and religion has no place in the Government.
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.
I certainly understand the meaning of "enlightenment".
Which meaning did you intend?
The Enlightenment is the period in the history of western thought and culture, stretching roughly from the mid-decades of the seventeenth century through the eighteenth century, characterized by dramatic revolutions in science, philosophy, society and politics; these revolutions swept away the medieval world-view and ushered in our modern western world. Enlightenment thought culminates historically in the political upheaval of the French Revolution, in which the traditional hierarchical political and social orders (the French monarchy, the privileges of the French nobility, the political power and authority of the Catholic Church) were violently destroyed and replaced by a political and social order informed by the Enlightenment ideals of freedom and equality for all, founded, ostensibly, upon principles of human reason.
Here is what the First Amendment actually says.
You know that might be why I wrote "and also about Thomas Jefferson's suitability for the Presidency" It was meant to indicate two separate subjects, the way I phrased it, probably should have been separate sentences for clarity.
the religion portion was made because in nearly every country priorto the us,either the govt ran the church,or the church ran the govt.look at the middle ages,the catholic church had more power than kings did,all the church had todo was excommunicate a king and no one would obey thatking.
the founding fathers dabbled with the idea of abolishing religion,and came to the conclusion that the cure was worse than the disease,as freedom of religion was required for a free state,despite the fact religion and other factors created an obstacle.the federalist papers refers to religions as factions,as groups them with other factions.
if people read the federalist papers no.10 they would get a better understanding of the first amendment and the speration between church and government.
so you write about his suitabilty for someone with little to no involment in the constitution being acceptable as written by a priest,seems you have a certain hatred for the constitution
I liked it better when religion was a more personal thing. Between someone and their Gawd, not something worn like a flag lapel pin.
I could do without all 10 and just go by the Golden Rule.
As far as 'needing' the commandments... we have laws that say the same thing with penalties. like grown ups...
I do not understand what you are trying to say.