Separation gone too far - the making of a secular state

[Lon]

We really cannot have it both ways. A secular state is an atheist state. Many will boo and hiss but there is no such thing as trouncing religious rights without 'trouncing religious rights.'

A good number of folks don't like this guy, Matt Walsh, but he says something here echoed by many Holocaust survivors and other Jews: A nation that trounces any show of religious expression is doomed to become a secular state. Many proponents in government and SCOTUS seek a United States without God in any of our expressions. We've been under attack after attack after attack. I include Matt's post in its entirety though some in spoiler:

Matt Walsh: Kneeling to honor God is offensive but kneeling to protest America is heroic


This is insane. I feel like I start every new post that way, but there is just so much insanity in our culture. Here’s the latest: a federal appeals court ruled against a high school football coach who was suspended for kneeling in prayer after games. His First Amendment rights were not violated, they declared, because the act of silently kneeling on a football field is oppressive to the people forced to witness it. The coach “took advantage of his position to impress his views upon the impressionable and captive minds before him.”
Madness.

Impress his views? Did he force them to pray beside him? Did he threaten to bench the starting quarterback if he didn’t profess Jesus Christ his Lord and savior? Or did he simply kneel and pray?
If the slightest expression of personal spiritual devotion by a public employee is not allowed, does that mean orthodox Jewish teachers should be prohibited from wearing a yarmulke at work? Would the donning of a religious skullcap be tantamount to forcing Judaism on unsuspecting students? Perhaps we’ll get there eventually as we slide down this slope.

Click the spoiler to continue reading

Spoiler

Of course, the argument is made that the people forced to witness this vulgar act of religious exhibitionism are the ones who’ve had their First Amendment rights infringed upon. This would be a great argument if only there was anything in the First Amendment guaranteeing our right to never see, hear, or otherwise encounter anyone else’s religious expression. But the First Amendment contains no such guarantee. Nor does it prohibit public employees from praying “in view of students and parents.” In fact, all it does is grant religious liberty to all citizens — be they public employees or private — and it states that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.
This coach is not Congress. He’s not even a congressman. And by saying a prayer he has not made any laws. It’s been a long time since I’ve seen the Schoolhouse Rock episode about how a bill becomes a law, but I’m pretty sure that a football coach can’t establish a state religion by kneeling on the grass.
Besides, it’s obviously hypocritical and contradictory to a maniacal degree for any leftist judge to fret over public school staff “impressing their views on impressionable and captive minds.” That’s all that goes on at public school. All day, every day. Are we supposed to believe that a coach has no right to “impress on captive minds” by kneeling after a football game, but a kindergarten teacher is perfectly free to stage a transgender cross-dressing show for her 5-year-old students? Of all the biased, subjective, inappropriate brainwashing that goes on in our public school system, this is what we have to worry about? A guy saying a prayer?
Madness.
And you really can’t talk about this issue without noticing the most glaring contradiction of all. As many people have no doubt already pointed out, there is an interesting contrast between the reaction to this coach kneeling and Colin Kaepernick kneeling.
The left has heralded Kaepernick as a hero for kneeling in protest of the national anthem. There have been protests and rallies held in his honor. He’s even going to be featured in the African American history museum as a hero of civil rights. And why did he kneel? To protest … something. America. The police. The Anthem. Whatever he’s trying to say, it’s beautiful. It’s courageous. He’ s exercising his First Amendment rights and sending an important message. Some team ought to give him a job no matter if he’s a mediocre talent who’d bring far more trouble than he’s worth. But that coach kneeling to honor God? No, he has no right. He’s a tyrant. A bully. Fire him.
What if the coach had knelt in solidarity with Kaepernick? He’d still be expressing personal opinions and “impressing them on captive minds,” yet do we think the 9th Circuit would have ruled the same way? Do we think the left would treat him the same way?
Well, we don’t have to speculate. A high school football coach knelt along with his entire team last year in a show of support to Kaepernick and his views. The coach “took advantage of his position to impress his views on captive minds,” yet the gesture was described as “powerful” and “extraordinary.” Another team took it a step further. They all laid on the ground with their hands up. Far more disruptive and demonstrative than taking a knee, but, again, we are meant to be moved and inspired.
This is clearly not about the First Amendment or the Constitution. As with most things, what motivates one side of this debate is nothing more than their utter hatred of God. They loathe religion. They despise God. This is the only consistent thread you will find running through all of these stories. You can kneel to honor Colin Kaepernick but not God because, as far as the Left is concerned, God is not welcome here. And they are not making any attempt to hide it anymore.
To see more from Matt Walsh, visit his channel on TheBlaze.

We must stand firm against our government whenever it infringes upon our God-given rights. No government 'supposedly' by and for the people, can do this to those people. We need to stand up and say "No further! We will not allow the suing of a business over religious conviction over 'wants' vs. rights or needs. No, you do not have a right to a cake. No, you do not have a 'right' to tell a coach he cannot kneel after a game!" Does it mean a teacher can wear a Kippah, Yamaka, Turban, or feather headress? I'd rather see that than a secular state.

 

[patrick jane]

We really cannot have it both ways. A secular state is an atheist state. Many will boo and hiss but there is no such thing as trouncing religious rights without 'trouncing religious rights.'

A good number of folks don't like this guy, but he says something here echoed by many Holocaust survivors and other Jews: A nation that trounces any show of religious expression is doomed to become a secular state. Every proponent in government is seeking a United States without God in any of our expressions. I include this post in its entirety:




We must stand firm against our government whenever it infringes upon our God-given rights. No government 'supposedly' by and for the people, can do this to those people. We need to stand up and say "No further! We will not allow the suing of a business over religious conviction over 'wants' vs. rights or needs. No, you do not have a right to a cake. No, you do not have a 'right' to tell a coach he cannot kneel after a game!" Does it mean a teacher can wear a Kippah, Yamaka, Turban, or feather headress? I'd rather see that than a secular state.

It's sad to see that more frequent attacks on Christianity happen all too often. I don't want a secular nation.

 

[canis_lupus47]

It's not an attack on Christianity. Back in Jefferson's day, the different denominations of Christianity were persecuting each other. That's why the state needs to be unbiased. The only way to do that is to keep it secular. Don't forget you want to protect the church from government corruption too

Sent from my LG-H910 using Tapatalk

 

[Lon]

It's not an attack on Christianity. Back in Jefferson's day, the different denominations of Christianity were persecuting each other. That's why the state needs to be unbiased. The only way to do that is to keep it secular. Don't forget you want to protect the church from government corruption too

Not on this point. I don't want or need the government involved in deciding a coach cannot silently pray. It is NONE of their business. They have no authority to tell a man he cannot kneel or close his eyes. "What" he is doing after that is nobody's business. It wasn't interfering with the game (it was over) nor getting in the way of parents and their children. Secular judges have gone too far and it is time to say "No!" with a hand slap, and "You have no right our authority to make this decision for this nation run by and FOR the people. We are not your secular dictatorship subjects, you serve us, not the other way around."

 

[The Barbarian]

God neither wants nor needs a government handout.

The Founders specifically declared that the United States was not founded on Christianity for one very simple reason; they saw what it did to Christianity in Europe, and being predominately Christian, they wanted no part of it in their new nation.

 

[Angel4Truth]

We really cannot have it both ways. A secular state is an atheist state. Many will boo and hiss but there is no such thing as trouncing religious rights without 'trouncing religious rights.'

A good number of folks don't like this guy, Matt Walsh, but he says something here echoed by many Holocaust survivors and other Jews: A nation that trounces any show of religious expression is doomed to become a secular state. Many proponents in government and SCOTUS seek a United States without God in any of our expressions. We've been under attack after attack after attack. I include Matt's post in its entirety though some in spoiler:




We must stand firm against our government whenever it infringes upon our God-given rights. No government 'supposedly' by and for the people, can do this to those people. We need to stand up and say "No further! We will not allow the suing of a business over religious conviction over 'wants' vs. rights or needs. No, you do not have a right to a cake. No, you do not have a 'right' to tell a coach he cannot kneel after a game!" Does it mean a teacher can wear a Kippah, Yamaka, Turban, or feather headress? I'd rather see that than a secular state.

They leave off "may not prohibit the free exercise thereof. " people are afraid of being sued, so they cave.

Money is their God (governments)

I would love to live in a theocracy/all christian community

 

[patrick jane]

God neither wants nor needs a government handout.

The Founders specifically declared that the United States was not founded on Christianity for one very simple reason; they saw what it did to Christianity in Europe, and being predominately Christian, they wanted no part of it in their new nation.

Wrong

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

 

[Lon]

God neither wants nor needs a government handout.

Nobody wants or needs a government handout. This is a 'hands off' discussion. "No SCOTUS, you do NOT have a right to infringe in ANY WAY, my rights that do not in ANY WAY infringe upon another's (actual, genuine) rights. That means "No cake." You have a right to my business perhaps, but not a right to a frivolity, a cake. No grocer is saying "no groceries." The Government is being inept. Lawyers are being inept and crossing lines between 'want' vs. 'right.' They have no idea that 'right' is and ever is about needs, not a desire for sugar they can get anywhere or make themselves. It is an attack. The SCOTUS needs to listen first, act later. They have been inept.

The Founders specifically declared that the United States was not founded on Christianity for one very simple reason; they saw what it did to Christianity in Europe, and being predominately Christian, they wanted no part of it in their new nation.

WRONG! Read the Declaration and try again. lain:

 

[Lon]

Another longer post so again some in spoiler:

Court rules high school football coach cannot pray on the field
Todd Starnes

Coach vows to continue prayer fight after court loss
A Washington state high school football coach who was punished for taking a knee at the 50-yard line for a post-game prayer violated the U.S. Constitution, according to the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.
A three-judge panel ruled the Bremerton School District was justified in suspending Coach Joe Kennedy after he took a knee and prayed silently at midfield after football games.

Spoiler

"When Kennedy kneeled and prayed on the fifty-yard line immediately after games while in view of students and parents, he spoke as a public employee, not as a private citizen, and his speech therefore was constitutionally unprotected," the 9th Circuit wrote.
Kennedy, who served as an assistant coach at Bremerton High School from 2008-2015, was ordered to refrain from bowing his head, taking a knee or doing anything that could be perceived as praying on public school property.

To be fair – it’s not like Coach Kennedy was conducting a Billy Graham Crusade at midfield. He would simply take a knee, bow his head, thank God for a good game and 30 seconds later – he went about his business.
"An objective student observer would see an influential supervisor do something no ordinary citizen could do – perform a Christian religious act on secured school property while surrounded by players – simply because he is a coach," the judges wrote.
The evangelical Christian was suspended in 2015 when he defied school officials and continued his post-game religious ritual.
Kennedy was not rehired when his contract expired.
"This is deeply disappointing to us," First Liberty Institute attorney Jeremy Dys said on The Todd Starnes Show.
"The 9th Circuit believes they can ban all coaches from praying individually in public just because they can be seen," Dys said. "That is simply wrong. It is not American. And it is not the America contemplated by our Constitution."
First Liberty Institute said they have not yet decided whether to appeal the ruling.
"Now all coaches across the country stand under the prospect of being prevented from engaging in any outward displays of religion,” Dys told me. "That includes crossing yourself or even taking a knee to pray."
That’s right, folks – not even Catholic coaches will be allowed to cross themselves in public, the attorney said.
Welcome to the America that was fundamentally transformed by President Obama and his activist judges.
It’s a nation where football players can take a knee to disrespect the flag, but a coach can’t take a knee to pray to the Almighty.

If you go to the page, you can hear an extended FOX interview with the coach.

 

[The Barbarian]

Originally Posted by The Barbarian View Post
The Founders specifically declared that the United States was not founded on Christianity for one very simple reason; they saw what it did to Christianity in Europe, and being predominately Christian, they wanted no part of it in their new nation.

WRONG!

No, it's entirely correct. The Senate of the United States, composed of the statesmen and soldiers of the American Revolution, declared that the United States was not based on Christianity. Jefferson and Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, declared the necessity of a wall of separation between church and state. Madison specifically wrote what I told you; the history of established religion shows only evil and damage to religion.

And the First Amendment very clearly grants freedom from religion and freedom of religion, subject only to the wishes of the individual citizen. As it should be under God who grants us the right to follow Him or not to follow him.

Those are just the facts.

Read the Declaration and try again. lain:

Two more facts, then:

1. The declaration isn't our law; it's just a statement.
2. Neither Christ nor Christianity are mentioned at all in the declaration. They could have been talking about Odin for all you read therein.

Government religion isn't just contrary to American values. It's an affront to God.

Edit:
It is often puzzling to some people how so many of the founders were devout Christians and yet wanted no government involvement in religion. Aside from the fact that there were lots and lots of things they thought the government shouldn't be involved in, it remains true that they realized that Christianity suffered greatly in nations where it was officially established:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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 the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
James Madison, from Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

 

[The Barbarian]

Wrong

https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Founding-Fathers-Deism-and-Christianity-1272214

From your article:
Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.

Doesn't seem to help your position very much, does it?

 

[Tambora]

We really cannot have it both ways. A secular state is an atheist state. Many will boo and hiss but there is no such thing as trouncing religious rights without 'trouncing religious rights.'

A good number of folks don't like this guy, Matt Walsh, but he says something here echoed by many Holocaust survivors and other Jews: A nation that trounces any show of religious expression is doomed to become a secular state. Many proponents in government and SCOTUS seek a United States without God in any of our expressions. We've been under attack after attack after attack. I include Matt's post in its entirety though some in spoiler:




We must stand firm against our government whenever it infringes upon our God-given rights. No government 'supposedly' by and for the people, can do this to those people. We need to stand up and say "No further! We will not allow the suing of a business over religious conviction over 'wants' vs. rights or needs. No, you do not have a right to a cake. No, you do not have a 'right' to tell a coach he cannot kneel after a game!" Does it mean a teacher can wear a Kippah, Yamaka, Turban, or feather headress? I'd rather see that than a secular state.

I recall reading in a news story about a man that was fined for fishing without a license.
Rather than pay the fine, he decided to argue his own defense before the judge.

His argument was that he was hungry, and that it was a GOD given right for mankind to forage for food, and that no government should have the authority to force a man to pay up or starve.


I am one that thinks the government has given themselves authority over way too many things they should not have.

 

[patrick jane]

From your article:
Although orthodox Christians participated at every stage of the new republic, Deism influenced a majority of the Founders. The movement opposed barriers to moral improvement and to social justice. It stood for rational inquiry, for skepticism about dogma and mystery, and for religious toleration. Many of its adherents advocated universal education, freedom of the press, and separation of church and state. If the nation owes much to the Judeo-Christian tradition, it is also indebted to Deism, a movement of reason and equality that influenced the Founding Fathers to embrace liberal political ideals remarkable for their time.

Doesn't seem to help your position very much, does it?

The founders believed in God and the logical conclusion of seeking God is Jesus Christ.

 

[Lon]

No, it's entirely correct. The Senate of the United States, composed of the statesmen and soldiers of the American Revolution, declared that the United States was not based on Christianity. Jefferson and Madison, who wrote the Bill of Rights, declared the necessity of a wall of separation between church and state. Madison specifically wrote what I told you; the history of established religion shows only evil and damage to religion.

And the First Amendment very clearly grants freedom from religion and freedom of religion, subject only to the wishes of the individual citizen. As it should be under God who grants us the right to follow Him or not to follow him.

Those are just the facts.



Two more facts, then:

1. The declaration isn't our law; it's just a statement.
2. Neither Christ nor Christianity are mentioned at all in the declaration. They could have been talking about Odin for all you read therein.

Government religion isn't just contrary to American values. It's an affront to God.

Edit:
It is often puzzling to some people how so many of the founders were devout Christians and yet wanted no government involvement in religion. Aside from the fact that there were lots and lots of things they thought the government shouldn't be involved in, it remains true that they realized that Christianity suffered greatly in nations where it was officially established:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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 the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
James Madison, from Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments

:nono: It was only in the 20th century that the Amendment went through 'reinterpretation.' It simply and narrowly prohibited Congress from making laws that infringed upon religious rights. Congress was the only restriction until a bunch of anti-religionists began in the early 1900's to attack religious liberty. Everson vs the Board of Education, by example, reinforced the wall of separation but the courts went too far in reactionary, though it was a well-meaning decision. They were trying to keep the inane attacks from coming into the court system, one of the very inane attacks this recent ruling is against. In this case, the judges were clearly anti-religious in their ruling and thus they made a decision that was atheist, NOT according to the Amendment. Sorry Barbarian, you lose this one. You are wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

:nono: It was only in the 20th century that the Amendment went through 'reinterpretation.'

No, that's wrong, too. The Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, preventing them from abusing the liberties of their citizens as well. That was in 1868.

The intent of the Founders was quite plain; they wanted the government completely out of the religion business.

And that's a very Christian position; God doesn't want government help.

 

[1Mind1Spirit]

George Washington.....

http://www.leaderu.com/orgs/cdf/onug/washington.html

Here's an excerpt from his prayer book.

SUNDAY MORNING...Almighty God, and most merciful Father, who didst command the children of Israel to offer a daily sacrifice to Thee, that thereby they might glorify and praise Thee for Thy protection both night and day, receive O Lord, my morning sacrifice which I now offer up to Thee;

I yield Thee humble and hearty thanks, that Thou has preserved me from the dangers of the night past and brought me to the light of this day, and the comfort thereof, a day which is consecrated to Thine own service and for Thine own honor.

Let my heart therefore gracious God be so affected with the glory and majesty of it, that I may not do mine own works but wait on Thee, and discharge those weighty duties Thou required of me:

And since Thou art a God of pure eyes, and will be sanctified in all who draw nearer to Thee, who dost not regard the sacrifice of fools, nor hear sinners who tread in Thy courts, pardon I beseech Thee, my sins, remove them from Thy presence, as far as the east is from the west, and accept of me for the merits of Thy son Jesus Christ, that when I come into Thy temple and compass Thine altar, my prayer may come before Thee as incense, and as I desire Thou wouldst hear me calling upon Thee in my prayers, so give me peace to hear the calling on me in Thy word, that it may be wisdom, righteousness, reconciliation and peace to the saving of my soul in the day of the Lord Jesus.

Grant that I may hear it with reverence, receive it with meekness, mingle it with faith, and that it may accomplish in me gracious God, the good work for which Thou hast sent it.

Bless my family, kindred, friends and country, be our God and guide this day and forever for His sake, who lay down in the grave and arose again for us, Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen.

 

[Lon]

No, that's wrong, too. The Fourteenth Amendment applied the Bill of Rights to the states, preventing them from abusing the liberties of their citizens as well. That was in 1868.

The intent of the Founders was quite plain; they wanted the government completely out of the religion business.

Nope, else they'd have never prayed before sessions or other endeavors. You are clearly and blatantly wrong. Nice history rewrite attempt, but CLEARLY you are without foundation for your inane assertion. RATHER the Amendment isn't about nonreligious politicians, but about taking no sides. The issue at hand: They clearly did take sides, and that of the anti-theist. You give ground your forefathers and fathers fought and died for. You give their blood away as if your father, grandfather, and great-grandfather's blood was cheap and worthless.

And that's a very Christian position; God doesn't want government help.

Over the years, I've found you to be a religious man after a compartmentalized fashion so are confused as to which goes where. God institutes governments. You lose again. You should be happy to be corrected. Being correct and right should be up on your list of desires. You nor anybody else can rewrite history in your own image and desires. You are wrong.

 

[The Barbarian]

Nope, else they'd have never prayed before sessions or other endeavors.

Interestingly, the Constitutional convention proceded without prayers, and a proposal to start each session with a prayer failed to carry.

You are clearly and blatantly wrong. Nice history rewrite attempt, but CLEARLY you are without foundation for your inane assertion.

The facts I set out are a matter of documented history. No point in denying them. Would you like some more?

RATHER the Amendment isn't about nonreligious politicians, but about taking no sides.

No. It's quite plain:

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

So two clauses. The first provides for freedom from religion if you don't want it, and the second for freedom to worship as you will if that's what you want. No way to spin it any other way.

The issue at hand: They clearly did take sides, and that of the anti-theist.

You've confused the piety of many of the founders with a wish to impose a governmental religion. They opposed government establishment of religion precisely because they knew it was evil, and destructive to Christian faith.

This is precisely what Jefferson and Madison stated. And they wrote the amendment.

Lon, you give ground your forefathers and fathers fought and died for. You give their blood away as if your father, grandfather, and great-grandfather's blood was cheap and worthless.

Over the years, I've found you to be a religious man after a compartmentalized fashion so are confused as to which goes where.

Jesus wasn't. Tell me, whose face is on this coin.

God institutes governments.

You're arguing for government instituting God. You lose again. You should be happy to be corrected. Being correct and right should be up on your list of desires. You nor anybody else can rewrite history in your own image and desires. You are wrong.

 

[Lon]

Interestingly, the Constitutional convention proceded without prayers, and a proposal to start each session with a prayer failed to carry.

:yawn: Wrong. Me: Link after link. You: Empty assertions lain:
1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia:"I have lived, sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth, that God governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without His notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without His aid? ... I also believe that without His concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the builders of Babel … Therefore, I beg leave to move that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations be held in this assembly every morning..." -Benjamin Franklin

The facts I set out are a matter of documented history. No point in denying them. Would you like some more?

Would like some in the FIRST PLACE! You really shouldn't be teaching college students or anybody else. You fail at accuracy miserably.
How are you going to combat the archives of the chaplain's actual prayer? :noway: Its in the Library of Congress. You lost.

No. It's quite plain:

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

So two clauses. The first provides for freedom from religion if you don't want it, and the second for freedom to worship as you will if that's what you want. No way to spin it any other way.

Er, no. lain: You are inept and WRONG, again. "Congress shall not..." You turn that around as if it is giving me rights to worship :dizzy: The Declaration already says they are 'inalienable.' I do not, you do not, derive your 'right' from this amendment :dizzy:

You've confused the piety of many of the founders with a wish to impose a governmental religion. They opposed government establishment of religion precisely because they knew it was evil, and destructive to Christian faith.

You are mindless in your 'logic' and 'reasoning skills.' Some degrees aren't with a dime for the photocopy. Yours stinks.

This is precisely what Jefferson and Madison stated. And they wrote the amendment.

Only in your warped dreams. You liberals always turn it around and get it wrong. You worship at the throne of your imaginations

Lon, you give ground your forefathers and fathers fought and died for.

Parrot. I already said that man is you. How original :yawn: You spill their blood on the pavement to our ruin.

George Washington's Farewell Address:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars."

That man is you.
Er, On Jefferson's Memorial:

"...God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever"

You give their blood away as if your father, grandfather, and great-grandfather's blood was cheap and worthless.

Jesus wasn't. Tell me, whose face is on this coin.

Ignorant. "OUR" coin says "In God We Trust" :doh:
They were Jews 'taken over' by a foreign government! You are a whig loyalist to foreign rule!

You're arguing for government instituting God.

Nope, vise versa: "Religion, morality and knowledge being necessary to good government and the happiness of mankind, schools and the means of education shall forever be encouraged." -Thomas Jefferson

You lose again. You should be happy to be corrected. Being correct and right should be up on your list of desires. You nor anybody else can rewrite history in your own image and desires. You are wrong.

=Lon.... lain: You can't even figure out basic html and Vbulletin :doh: You make yourself a TOL joke by all this nonsense.

 

[The Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
Interestingly, the Constitutional convention proceded without prayers, and a proposal to start each session with a prayer failed to carry.

Wrong

No, it's right. The motion failed. Would you like me to show you again?

Franklin’s manuscript of the speech includes this note: “The Convention except three or four Persons, thought Prayers unnecessary!!”15 In his notes on the Convention’s proceedings, James Madison reported that the Convention adjourned for the day “without any vote on the matter.”16 Years later, Madison confirmed the accuracy of Franklin’s notes and mentioned three considerations that may have contributed to the failure of Franklin’s motion: its deviation from the Quaker method of worship, the differing religious convictions of the delegates, and the differing convictions of the members of the Philadelphia clergy.
http://www.alwd.org/lcr/current-iss...nstitutional-convention-history-as-narrative/

Barbarian observes:
No. It's quite plain:

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

So two clauses. The first provides for freedom from religion if you don't want it, and the second for freedom to worship as you will if that's what you want. No way to spin it any other way.

Er, no. You are inept and WRONG, again. "Congress shall not..." You turn that around as if it is giving me rights to worship

I just showed you that although it forbids any governmental religion, it expressly guarantees your right to worship as you please.

The Declaration already says they are 'inalienable.' I do not, you do not, derive your 'right' from this amendment

Interestingly, it was the case in many of the states that people did not have that right, because government did establish religion. The Bill of Rights initially applied only to the federal government, but was later also applied to the states by the 14th amendment after the Civil War.

Barbarian observes:
You've confused the piety of many of the founders with a wish to impose a governmental religion. They opposed government establishment of religion precisely because they knew it was evil, and destructive to Christian faith.

You are mindless in your 'logic' and 'reasoning skills.' Some degrees aren't with a dime for the photocopy. Yours stinks.

Was that an example of your ability to frame a reasonable argument?

Barbarian observes:
This is precisely what Jefferson and Madison stated. And they wrote the amendment.

Only in your warped dreams.

Well, let's take a look...

Madison wrote:
Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. 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 the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?
http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/amendI_religions43.html

You liberals always turn it around and get it wrong.

See above. Exactly what I told you it was. Your imagination is no replacement for reality. You are dishonoring the men who fought and often died for our religious freedoms.

George Washington's Farewell Address:
"Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. In vain would that man claim the tribute of patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars."

Jefferson's comments:
"...God who gave us life gave us liberty. Can the liberties of a nation be thought secure when we have removed a conviction that these liberties are the gift of God? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect God is just, that his justice cannot sleep forever"
(On Jefferson Memorial)

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & 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 & State.
(letter to the Danbury Baptists)
https://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/9806/danpre.html


It's always funny that people get the idea that if the founders thought that religion was essential to a civilized nation, that means they must have wanted to establish religion by force of law. As you see from Madison's comments, that wasn't the case. They wanted religion in America, but they firmly rejected governmental religion.

Jesus wasn't. Tell me, whose face is on this coin.

Ignorant. "OUR" coin says "In God We Trust"
They were Jews 'taken over' by a foreign government!

That's not what Jesus said. He said "render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and to God what is God's."

You are a whig loyalist to foreign rule!

Actually, Roman rule vs. the zealots wasn't the issue. You've lost sight of what you were trying to argue.

As you have learned, the founders generally believed that religion was essential to a civilized society, but were committed to a wall of separation between church and state.