Separation of Church and State

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: TehNinja he didn't say that! it was founded based on the principles of Christianity.

Dear, no it wasn't. Please read post 36 and 37.

Also, a question is not a claim. How you reached that conclusion is far beyond me.

[Sonart]

.

Quote by: TehNinja he didn't say that! it was founded based on the principles of Christianity.

That right?? :rolleyes: Care to walk us through the Constitution, and point out the parts based on the principles of Christianity.

Quote by: Right of Center 90% of Americans are christian okay. 10% are not fine. Does God offend? Is saying that the US is somehow close to God is offensive?

My ex-wife, like myself, is a 4th and 5th generation American. However, where my people came from Great Britain, hers came from Japan, and she and most of her extended family are still practicing Buddhists. Buddhists do not believe in God.

In fact, the second fastest growing group of new Americans are from Asia... Buddhists, Taoists, Confucianists, etc. none of whom believe in God.

Her cousin Darryl is a Vietnam vet. Her mother's brother is a vet, and her father's eldest brother gave the last full measure of devotion in WWII. He didn't come home. So kindly explain to me why the children of these hard-working, taxpaying, law abiding, nation serving people have to pledge allegiance to a God they don't believe in? Are they somehow second class citizens because "In God We Trust" doesn't include them?

.

[shield772]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer These decisions were probably founded a very long time ago.. Regardless, they are universally accepted by the scientific and educated community and it shows no sympathy for those who feel the need to break rules just to inject their beliefs past the clearly written words of the US Constitution. If you want to change the definition of science, then go ahead. I can't stop you.. though I may laugh a bit.

Nothing in the constitution places any restrictions on public state and county run schools, the only restriction is on Congress, it is not a federal matter, it is a states issue as are many things that I will not go into here. What my states schools do is my states business not congresses nor the residents of other states.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: shield772 Nothing in the constitution places any restrictions on public state and county run schools, the only restriction is on Congress, it is not a federal matter, it is a states issue as are many things that I will not go into here. What my states schools do is my states business not congresses nor the residents of other states.

Come back when you learn more about government. I can't debate with someone I would first need to teach. I'm a debater, not a teacher.

[shield772]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Come back when you learn more about government. I can't debate with someone I would first need to teach. I'm a debater, not a teacher.

I know quite a bit about government, I also know that your one of those people that want to interpret the 1st amendment to mean all government when it only specifically addresses the powers of congress, it does not place any restrictions on states, it can't because states have the right to govern themselves I see this as I do many other issues as an attack on individual states rights, so don't be condecending it only shows your ignorance, disagreement with you does not show ignorance. This is one of my big problems with liberals, when someone disagrees with you demean and insult them, it's childish. :rolleyes:

[Right of Center]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer I'm sorry, dear. You are deeply wrong. According to the popular argument, if the document, which founded the United States, is Christian in nature, the government itself must also be Christian in nature. Therefor, Christians have the right to inject their doctrine in the United States government. This argument seems reasonable, logical, and sound, but it is highly doubtful that the Constitution embodies Christian doctrine for a number of reasons. Firstly, there is no statement in the Constitution that singles out Christianity over any other religion. The laws described in the Constitution fit the description of many religious doctrines. There is no reason to assume Christian doctrine is more suitable to match the descriptions of the Constitution than other religions. If one were to examine Christian doctrine from the present to as far back as the Old Testament, one may conclude that Christianity is actually an inferior candidate in matching the description of the Constitution in comparison to other belief systems such as Buddhism. The Ten Commandments is also not embodied in the Constitution in any meaningful way. In fact, the first two commandments are in contradiction to the Constitution’s protection of religious freedom. At the time the document was written, many writers criticized the Constitution for showing a disregard and indifference towards religion. It may seem odd that the Constitution is so secular, given the time it was written, unless you uncover the facts about the founding fathers that wrote the document. Many may have you to believe that the founding fathers of the United States were Christians and therefor the United States is a Christian nation. This is deeply flawed, perhaps even a lie depending on the will of those who spread this pseudo-historical nonsense. Most of the United States’ founding fathers were deists or Unitarians, meaning, they believed in some form of impersonal god but rejected Christianity’s personal god and the divinity of Jesus Christ. To state that the founding fathers of the United States were Christians is both untrue and pointless. The religious or non-religious background of the United States’ founding fathers should not effect what they intended the United States to be; a religiously blind nation. James Madison, in his 1785 document “A Memorial and Remonstrance”, spoke these words: What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not. John Adams, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, states: “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!” In 1813, Thomas Jefferson states: “History I believe furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance, of which their political as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purpose.” These quotations of a few important founding fathers of the United States show their evident intentions. This clearly contradicts the misconception that the United States was intended to be a Christian nation. Perhaps a leading contributor to this misconception is the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. In the original pledge, God was never mentioned: Pledge allegiance to my Flag, and to the Republic for which it stands: one Nation indivisible, With Liberty and Justice for all. An openly Christian group called the Knights of Columbus later added the phrase “under God” to the pledge. Due to the nature and time of this addition, it has no place in an argument claiming the United States is a Christian nation.

Well Dear I'm sorry you read that wrong. I was talking about state constitution, not national. You know Massachusets, Rhode Island, New York, North Carolina, etc. These constitutions, at least in original form, made references to God and to God's law. Technically speaking Christian Pilgrims came to America and founded the first successful settlement. Followed by more Christian Europeans. The government America stands on is morally Christian. Christian values set what our ethos is. We as individuals have our own ethics which we abide by, but the overall christian ethos determines our individual sense of morality. Every single one of the representatives that wrote the Constitution believed in God. They believed in Christian values. It is wholly appropriate to assume that they wrote laws that accorded with Christian ideas and did not have laws that went against Christian ethos. America was founded Christian. Much as Israel was founded Jew, India founded Hindu, and Saudi Arabia founded muslim. You might not like the fact that America is drowned in Judeo-Christian ideals, you might not even realize that the way you live your life has Judeo-Christian tradition, however you cannot dismiss the fact that Christianity has had a profound impact on America. American culture was founded on ideals of God and Christianity, and taking God off our officials seals, currency, and pledge cheapens American values. Think of it this way, if you do not believe in God, then just think of it as a symbol of America's cultural foundation, theological background, and a just representation of America's modern culture, ethos, laws, philosophy, ideas, and beliefs.

Your quote from the founding fathers does not mean that they were carefully excluding all ideals and moralities that matched Christian epoch. They grew up Christian and had a very much Christian mind. Rather I think they were worried that representatives would want an entire nation Christian, with Christianity being the only acceptable religion. That is why they state seperation of church and state. However, you cannot deny that Christian values and ideals has determined what our laws are and what the founding fathers put in our constitution.

[Jack]

They believed in Christian values.

They were mostly deists, a group even many christians don't believe is christian.

[Right of Center]

What few historians speculate and what some people believe does not constitute fact. Just like saying Shakespeare was gay and Cleopatra was a slut, saying that a majority of our founding fathers were deists is quite absurd. Since America was Christian back when the Constitution was being written, why would America want deists to write their constitution? If they wanted people that would match their values they would have picked christians.

[Jack]

I only know what I read in biographies. Some were, some weren't, and none of them advocated making this a christian nation.

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects? That the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute threepence only of his property for the support of any one establishment may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever? James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance Against Religious Assessments, June 20, 1785.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: shield772 I know quite a bit about government, I also know that your one of those people that want to interpret the 1st amendment to mean all government when it only specifically addresses the powers of congress, it does not place any restrictions on states, it can't because states have the right to govern themselves I see this as I do many other issues as an attack on individual states rights, so don't be condecending it only shows your ignorance, disagreement with you does not show ignorance. This is one of my big problems with liberals, when someone disagrees with you demean and insult them, it's childish. :rolleyes:

-sigh- I guess I'm going to have to be a teacher as well.

Quote by: About.com Myth: The First Amendment only prohibits an “establishment” a national church. Response: This myth relies on one of two misunderstandings. The first is that the First Amendment guarantee of religious liberty is only about preventing the government from setting up some particular church to which all must belong. The second is that the First Amendment does not prohibit “multiple establishments” — showing equal preference for many different religions or denominations. The first misunderstanding is the easiest to clear up. If the First Amendment only prevents the federal government from setting up its own church, then the First Amendment does not guarantee religious liberty. Why? The words “religious liberty” and “religious freedom” certainly do not appear: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...” If the “no establishment only” interpretation were accurate, then the federal government could enforce compliance with the rules or dogmas of particular religions and, so long as it created no national church and allowed people to follow their own, separate religious rules, this would not be unconstitutional. Does anyone think it would be permissible for the government to force all men to wear yarmulkes, or to prohibit women from wearing jewelry? This is the misunderstanding which lies behind the myth that “freedom of religion” is distinct from “freedom from religion.” In reality, the former requires the latter, which means that the government is not just prevented from creating a single national church. It is, instead, prevented from enforcing anyone’s religious rules. Some argue that “establishment” only refers to setting up a national church and thus does not mean that the government cannot actively support some church or religion. How many really believe, though, that it would be permissible for the government to help fund the Catholic Church or the Jehovah’s Witnesses while all other religious groups have to survive on their own? The second misunderstanding has become popular in some conservative circles in recent years and is often known as “accommodationism” or “non-preferentialism.” According to this view, the federal government may “accommodate” religion by supporting religion, but only so long as it does so without “preference” — that is to say, so long as all religions which ask for assistance are treated equally. The premise behind this is that the First Amendment prohibits an establishment of religion, but not many establishments of religion. Unfortunately, the arguments offered by supporters fail, and on two accounts. The first is that it fails even based upon their own understanding of the law, known sometimes as “originalism.” According to this view, the Constitution means what the authors meant it to mean — nothing more and nothing less. Thus, if “no law respecting an establishment of religion” was intended only to refer to setting up a national church, then that is all it means. Anything else is permitted, even if that would otherwise infringe upon abstract notions of religious liberty. The problem with this is that there is ample evidence that the authors of the Constitution did not intend merely to prohibit the creation of a single, national church. James Madison, who is responsible for much of the Constitution, wrote his “Memorial and Remonstrance” specifically denouncing multiple establishments in his native Virginia. Moreover, the House of Representatives and the Senate considered different versions of the First Amendment which would have allowed for non-preferential support of religion. None were passed and the debate record shows that they did not support nonpreferentialist support of religion. Records of the debate on ratification from Virginia also show that those legislators did not support nonpreferentialism. It is true that the delegates to the Constitutional Convention wanted to prevent the creation of a national church. Established churches and intolerance towards minority religious beliefs had been common in the colonies, but when the Constitution went into effect only Massachusetts, Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Maryland still had established churches. Most delegates believed that everyone needed to have freedom of conscience. This meant that everyone needed to be able to choose their own religious path without interference from the government. The state should not tell people what to believe, how to believe, or how to practice. This philosophical background is why it is a mistake to believe that a “national church” was their only concern.

Question: Are you in favor of a theocracy? Do you respect your fellow citizens that do not share your beliefs?

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: Right of Center Well Dear I'm sorry you read that wrong. I was talking about state constitution, not national. You know Massachusets, Rhode Island, New York, North Carolina, etc. These constitutions, at least in original form, made references to God and to God's law. Technically speaking Christian Pilgrims came to America and founded the first successful settlement. Followed by more Christian Europeans. The government America stands on is morally Christian. Christian values set what our ethos is. We as individuals have our own ethics which we abide by, but the overall christian ethos determines our individual sense of morality. Every single one of the representatives that wrote the Constitution believed in God. They believed in Christian values.

No, they didn't believe in God. They were Deists, dear. Please cite your sources, thanks!

Quote by: Right of Center It is wholly appropriate to assume that they wrote laws that accorded with Christian ideas and did not have laws that went against Christian ethos. America was founded Christian. Much as Israel was founded Jew, India founded Hindu, and Saudi Arabia founded muslim. You might not like the fact that America is drowned in Judeo-Christian ideals, you might not even realize that the way you live your life has Judeo-Christian tradition, however you cannot dismiss the fact that Christianity has had a profound impact on America. American culture was founded on ideals of God and Christianity, and taking God off our officials seals, currency, and pledge cheapens American values. Think of it this way, if you do not believe in God, then just think of it as a symbol of America's cultural foundation, theological background, and a just representation of America's modern culture, ethos, laws, philosophy, ideas, and beliefs. Your quote from the founding fathers does not mean that they were carefully excluding all ideals and moralities that matched Christian epoch. They grew up Christian and had a very much Christian mind. Rather I think they were worried that representatives would want an entire nation Christian, with Christianity being the only acceptable religion. That is why they state seperation of church and state. However, you cannot deny that Christian values and ideals has determined what our laws are and what the founding fathers put in our constitution.

History contradicts you. Please site your sources.

Please attempt to respond to my post. Repeating yourself is not only annoying, it's degrading to yourself. We're in a debate, dear. Repetition won't get you anywhere.

[Matt W]

Enough of the condescension, Lullaby. Cut the 'dear'. :rolleyes:

DO NOT RESPOND IN THIS THREAD TO THE PRECEDING MESSAGE. Please contact a member of the staff privately if you have any questions.

[shield772]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer -sigh- I guess I'm going to have to be a teacher as well. Question: Are you in favor of a theocracy? Do you respect your fellow citizens that do not share your beliefs?

The first amendment prohibits congress from passing any law concerning religion, period, all encompassing, so yes when they put in god we trust on the money and under god in the pledge it was unconstitutional, but the federal congress does not run my local schools, they have no authority over them so the first amendment does not apply to what is taught in schools. only the states have power over that. so you have taught just as they do in public schools your interpretation of the 1st amendment and this must stop, the founders put what they meant, that was the scope of the amendment and using to prohibit anything but congress is unconstitutional.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: shield772 The first amendment prohibits congress from passing any law concerning religion, period, all encompassing, so yes when they put in god we trust on the money and under god in the pledge it was unconstitutional, but the federal congress does not run my local schools, they have no authority over them so the first amendment does not apply to what is taught in schools. only the states have power over that. so you have taught just as they do in public schools your interpretation of the 1st amendment and this must stop, the founders put what they meant, that was the scope of the amendment and using to prohibit anything but congress is unconstitutional.

Shield! How many times do I have to tell you? If you're going to debate, you have to respond to your fellow debater. Repeating yourself over and over isn't going to help.

[shield772]

because you are distorting my arguement, I am not saying we should live in a theocracy, I am saying that congress has no authority over my state and county schools. You people are the ones putting meaning into the 1st amendment that is not there, not me.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: shield772 because you are distorting my arguement, I am not saying we should live in a theocracy, I am saying that congress has no authority over my state and county schools. You people are the ones putting meaning into the 1st amendment that is not there, not me.

Not the question Shield!

The other 90% of my post.

[shield772]

Quote by: Lullaby Chainer Not the question Shield! The other 90% of my post.

I do not fall into any of the categories you listed, I believe words have meaning and what they wrote is what they meant, that is all nothing more.

[Jack]

Then you should read what we said. We asked a question, we didn't make an assumption. We asked if you supported a theocracy and if you respected freedom of, and from, religion. We're inquiring into your position on those topics.

[shield772]

I do not support a theocracy, I am completely for freedom of religion and from it if that is what you wish, I do not support the persecution of anyone for their belifs for or against and beliefs or non-beliefs, I thought my position on these matters was well known, I am a christian but i am not a thumper, if i am asked i will talk to someone about God and Jesus but i do not force my religion on others, ever.

[Lullaby Chainer]

Quote by: shield772 I do not support a theocracy, I am completely for freedom of religion and from it if that is what you wish, I do not support the persecution of anyone for their belifs for or against and beliefs or non-beliefs, I thought my position on these matters was well known, I am a christian but i am not a thumper, if i am asked i will talk to someone about God and Jesus but i do not force my religion on others, ever.

Then, if you insist that Creationism is taught in science class, you must allow all religions to be taught in science class.

This is, of course, if you ignore what science is. But if you must have your way, you must also let all other religions have their way into the science class.