Amen. Great post proving the Blabarian wrong
Separation gone too far - the making of a secular state
- Thread starter Lon
- Start date
Awww... Nicky's mad again.
Only nick would confuse religious freedom with killing people.
1Mind1Spirit
Literal lunatic
I find it interesting that the majority of those Deists would have made the most pious Christian of all of them king if he had let them.
Lon
Well-known member
Your quotes notwithstanding. The ONLY thing those quotes showed was the government was not to interfere. NONE of it suggests no participation. THAT separation of church and state is atheism and an atheist state. CLEARLY they prayed and hired chaplains (still do). Only the inept would read it any other way. Junk commentary and worthless to suggest we have a secular state. A 'secular' state is impossible, because it will always bow to the lowest moral and lowest value rather than the values and rights that are endowed by their Creator. Yours is compartmentalized and atheist by logic, thought, sentiment, and deed. It would destroy everything the Founding Fathers worked at and for. You'd have us all bowing once again, to another monster. I, among many, will not let that happen: No secular atheist state. Your deplorable version of government didn't exist nor was ever desired.
Jose Fly
New member
It's pretty simple really. The coach was a government employee on government time, which made him a representative of the government. In that capacity, he engaged in a deliberately visible endorsement of religion, thereby giving the impression that the government was advocating for religion.
Also, in his role as high school football coach, his actions could be seen as coercive towards his players. Would a player who spoke out against his prayer be treated differently than those who agreed with it? Would players who joined in be treated differently than those who didn't?
A school official cannot put students situations where they have to decide whether to go along with the official's religious beliefs.
Right-wing Christians can stamp their feet, shout, and wave their arms all they want, but they are never going to win one of these cases.
Also, in his role as high school football coach, his actions could be seen as coercive towards his players. Would a player who spoke out against his prayer be treated differently than those who agreed with it? Would players who joined in be treated differently than those who didn't?
A school official cannot put students situations where they have to decide whether to go along with the official's religious beliefs.
Right-wing Christians can stamp their feet, shout, and wave their arms all they want, but they are never going to win one of these cases.
Even though the founders were not atheists, they called for a wall of separation between church and state. The first amendment makes it very clear that no establishment of religion was permitted.
As you saw, the founders didn't even pass a proposed resolution for a prayer at the constitutional convention.
The courts have ruled that "In God We Trust" on money is not unconstitutional, since through usage, it now has no meaning to most people.
The founders wrote that the United States was not founded on Christianity. And they would know.
To remove the wall of separation would destroy everything the Founding Fathers worked at and for.
As you learned, they saw the results of established religion in Europe and wanted no part of it.
You'd have us all bowing once again, to whoever had power to enforce his vision of religion on the rest of us. It won't happen. There are still some places in the world with official churches. Wouldn't you be happier there?
Jose Fly
New member
You have to wonder.....if the founders didn't want the US to be a secular state, why didn't they establish an official government religion? Why didn't they set us up as a theocracy?
I mean....if we were deliberately designed to not be a theocracy, doesn't that by default mean we were deliberately set up to be a secular state?
I don't see how, given an atheist has essentially settled the question against. A secular state isn't concerned with the question. It's indifferent in form and supportive of the individual's right to any conclusion.
I'm a firm believer in rights, but I don't know that I'd call any of them religious outside of the literal right to practice your faith unmolested. Mostly, it seems to me that rights work for everyone, including the religious. So the right to speak is just that. The right to assemble peacefully is just that, and so on.
Matt's wrong. Coercion is a real concern. At a public school you have to keep that in mind. Not kneeling on the field isn't denying you the right to pray, or to believe. The coach has to understand that he's acting as a representative of his school in that moment and the school can't favor any particular faith over another. That's not its role. So no praying toward Mecca with a handful of students at the end of the game.
Well, I believe all rights are God given so I'm not going to argue that. I don't think there's a conflict in that regard here. As a private individual it's entirely his business. And if anyone fires or penalizes him for his private faith I'll take it up pro bono. As an ambassador of the school? Different animal.
You do if it's offered by a business holding itself out to the public and you have the money to purchase it. More to the point, the baker has no right to refuse black people, or Christians, or gays the right to purchase what he's holding out for sale. Now if they aren't wearing shoes, shirts it's another thing...except in the Keys, of course.
You do in his capacity as an agent of the school.
And we are a secular state. We always have been. The difference was that we were so uniformly one thing way back when, a lot of the religious trappings bled over into that state and no one really minded. Once we got big enough and enough people of different backgrounds were in play some of those trappings/traditions were undone.
So, what stops you? Go do it.
Oh, right, you won't be content unless I'm living in that hellhole with you. I understand.
I will as soon as Jesus comes back.
No, i actually dont think youll make it through the tribulation, since you think what God creates is a hellhole.
baloney. Don't be a pest.
Lon
Well-known member
No, the more a body goes secular, the more against religion it is. As to Democrats, a large government means a large godless body that already thinks it rules people rather than vise versa. To me? It looks like unwilling dupe to me. We are not better off since 1963 when prayer was removed. It was a wrong decision for our country. Every attempt, I see, is "this is the way it 'was' supposed to be." Well no. One day you may realize there is no such thing as 'unbiased' and there never has been. I defy anybody to find that government. A secular government in the United States will merely give one group power over the other, as it is doing now. The 'majority' is quickly becoming godless and moraless and perpetuating, by absence, godless atheism. We are becoming that state. Blinders will help no Christian. We are either part of the onslaught problem, blindly, willingly, or we see what is being done and can stand against it. I do NOT favor a godless society. Right now, government is a huge talking point and preoccupation in this country. As such, a godless state will effect a godless society. Separation of church and state never meant this, but that IS the direction. It is an abuse as well as brainwashing. I'm not a dupe. I see what is happening. The rest will have to figure this out on their own, and probably when it is too late. Your children and grandchildren will inherit what you leave them.
A secular government molests. You are hoping for one ideal, but you will end up with quite another. It is inevitable. My hand will show historically as being against and opposed, even if I have to give my life for these freedoms.
NOBODY has a clue what that coach was doing. It is a law based on 'presumption' and you nor I have a right to say boo. Matt was correct. Lawyers and judges are wrong. This IS the problem with this country and you've taken the Kool-Aid. You were before you became a Christian. It is my belief, this is going to be one of the last vestiges that Christ will change in you. I believe, as smart as you are, that you are just ignorant. Christ will change this in you. I'm convinced of it. I'm just giving it and Him time. You will come, eventually, to seeing what the justice system, secular and unchecked, is doing to this country. You know they are. When the vast majority is against their rulings, yet they do it anyway in spite, despite, they are no longer serving this nation by and for the people. They are serving their OWN agenda and looking for that secular utopian that CANNOT ever exist. Justice is Justice. In that sense, there is no 'blind' else it isn't true 'justice.' It is just someone's interpretation ideal at that point and it is NOT mine. That either makes me a criminal by thought, or it makes them so. One of us doesn't stand for the United States or the Constitution at that point. When you are ready to put me in jail, or release me, that is when you will have to eventually join a side and it will no longer be a 'secular' decision. It will be based upon my God-given blessings, perhaps rights. If I have a right to live, I have a right to bow on a field. It is nobody's business. It really, truly isn't. There is no freedom for me when the government says 'no.' Frankly, it has NO right to do so. I deny them that right by my own God-given right. You are thinking Government can settle everything. It cannot. I have a higher calling and in this United States, by and for me, no authority. They serve me, not vice versa.
No it is not. You don't have a right. The school doesn't have a right. He was basically accused regardless. NOBODY heard his prayer. We are not the thought police OR the kneel or stand police. It went too far. The court and district were wrong. It is frankly atheism AND an infringement on his rights. You don't have a right, not to be offended. School policy must be cited that "no school employee may kneel." It'd be a stupidity. What for? All because someone's WRONG sensibility is offended. His right is being obstructed. NOBODY can tell a teacher not to pray at school. Nobody. It cannot be done. Praying at commencement etc. is a bit of a different issue. This one? Dumb, frankly. Undiscerning, frankly.
Er, NONE of them need a cake. It is a frivolity. Affirmative action went too far. It is time the pendulum swing come back. Note you did not post 'white' in your quote. It speaks for itself. All of this mess is simply wrong and the courts inept. I posit, you cannot make an anti-discriminatory policy without discriminating itself. It becomes 'anti-white' at its extreme, just as a secular government, at the extreme (where we are headed) is atheism, not friendly at all to religion of any kind. Did you think "don't kneel" was Christian friendly? :nono: It is 'anti-' We all should really re-examine anytime when we are anti-Christ and/or perceived as anti-Christ. I'd rather be 'politically' wrong than Spiritually wrong. My allegiance is first to Christ. Any government man or woman must ever hold that litmus constantly up to his/her own inspection for Christ. It IS the mark of the beast. As a public school teacher, I was and am ever mindful of a compromise that compromises me.
You are upholding the idea that expression of religion is 'favoring' that particular. Nope. ANY expression may benefit our society at large. A Muslim may bow to Mecca after a game. Does it 'force' anything? Nope. Promote it? Nope, just promote a value. Nobody is encouraged to pray to Mecca by such. The government, and sometimes you, are caught up in idiocy that says we cannot have any public display of faith. This is wrong. Imh and biblical opinion, this is from the devil. It is satanic.
Getting more so.
Incorrect. You can be a Christian AND carry your Christian values into office. We still have government chaplains, etc. etc. We are at least a theocratic respecter by nation.
"In God we Trust... One nation, Under God...Endowed by our Creator...."
THIS is our legacy, not what is currently attempted to shove down our throats. It is time for public schools to end. We need Christian schools that are affordable and against a secular training. Economics makes it very hard for parents to raise kids against secularization (godlessness). It can happen, but effort is thrown after 'secular' (godlessness). The void has an effect, in schools and in government. A bad one. You will have to one day, eventually see that. It is NOT 'good.' Sin is a privation. Secular is a privation. Both leave God out, in the wake. Listen to your Forefathers and betters: A government without God will not stand. They said so. They knew so. The faster you realize it yourself, the better. It truly is my opinion, that God will redeem your thinking in this too. This secular sentiment is not of God. You are literally advocating for a Godless government and thus, a godless America by the absence and wake left where God SHOULD be. I am asking you to really think that over and give it prayer and due. I hope you really meditate over it.
AND we were better off for it. Granted there were problems. A secular government ALSO has problems. Frankly, these are far far worse. There is 'godlessness' in the wake of this drive for a secular government. Government doesn't need to be secular, just beneficial. Christianity is the ONLY rule that is truly beneficial to all of society. Secular government isn't beneficial, it is harmful by negligence AND by ruling against those of faith, as is the case here. It is damage, not helpful, not loving, not right. It is wrong. It hurts. It HAS to be wrong for it.
Town takes the side of the ateists
I wonder why so many ignore this part?
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So many leave that part off.
There is a difference in a coach kneeling to pray (freely exercising their religion) and a coach forcing others to also - then we have that the local government isnt congress (states rights and locality law rights).
Whats its really about is choose today who you will serve. God or man (or money in fear of lawsuit cost even though you know you will win)
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
So many leave that part off.
There is a difference in a coach kneeling to pray (freely exercising their religion) and a coach forcing others to also - then we have that the local government isnt congress (states rights and locality law rights).
Whats its really about is choose today who you will serve. God or man (or money in fear of lawsuit cost even though you know you will win)
Yes, it meant one does not have to be part of Church of England; other denominations were permitted for all citizens. They do not consider non-Christian religions, yet did consider the irreligious.
Barbarian observes:
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.
Well, let's take a look...
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation... 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 Against Religious Assessments
Don't presume to know what you don't.
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.
Well, let's take a look...
Because the Bill implies either that the Civil Magistrate is a competent Judge of Religious Truth; or that he may employ Religion as an engine of Civil policy. The first is an arrogant pretension falsified by the contradictory opinions of Rulers in all ages, and throughout the world: the second an unhallowed perversion of the means of salvation... 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 Against Religious Assessments
Don't presume to know what you don't.
As I pointed out earlier, the first clause provides freedom from religion, if you don't want it, and the second provides for you to worship as you will.
It's just common sense. If people don't want to worship, then they have the perfect right to be left alone, if they want to worship, they have the perfect right to be left alone.
If they decide they need government to worship, or to not worship, then too bad for them.
There is a difference in a coach kneeling to pray on his own time, (freely exercising his religion) and a coach representing the school, "asking" his players to join him in a prayer at a practice or a game.
In the former case, he's exercising his God-given right. In the latter, he's trying to impose his beliefs on others. No one with an ounce of sense doesn't realize that a coach in such a case is pressuring his players to comply.
Until 1868, it was legal for states to violate religious freedom. Then the 14th Amendment made the states comply with the Bill of Rights.
What does God says about it?
Matthew 6:5 And when ye pray, you shall not be as the hypocrites, that love to stand and pray in the synagogues and corners of the streets, that they may be seen by men: Amen I say to you, they have received their reward.
[6] But thou when thou shalt pray, enter into thy chamber, and having shut the door, pray to thy Father in secret: and thy Father who seeth in secret will repay thee. [7] And when you are praying, speak not much, as the heathens. For they think that in their much speaking they may be heard. [8] Be not you therefore like to them, for your Father knoweth what is needful for you, before you ask him.
Of course, the pharisees had a different opinion. The founders seem to have generally gone with Jesus on this one. You should, too.