NCclimber 0 #26 September 13, 2007 Quote Quote The Treaty of Tripoli (1796) Yeah but since the US bombed Tripoli in 1986 I don't think the treaty counts any more Or even 185 years earlier. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #27 September 13, 2007 QuoteThe constitution is not a religious document but I would call it a moral document. Most of the Founding Fathers had a belief in God and those beliefs helped frame the constitution to an extent. They understood that church and state should be separate for obvious reasons. I agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended."America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #28 September 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe constitution is not a religious document but I would call it a moral document. Most of the Founding Fathers had a belief in God and those beliefs helped frame the constitution to an extent. They understood that church and state should be separate for obvious reasons. I agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended. I agree 100%. The decline of morals in government and public life will be to our detriment.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 18 #29 September 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe constitution is not a religious document but I would call it a moral document. Most of the Founding Fathers had a belief in God and those beliefs helped frame the constitution to an extent. They understood that church and state should be separate for obvious reasons. I agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended. I agree 100%. The decline of morals in government and public life will be to our detriment. Yes, and this can be directly related to those not wanting to be responcible for thier own actions and crating laws and placing blame (to society) on anything other than themselves"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #30 September 13, 2007 Quote Quote Quote The Treaty of Tripoli (1796) Yeah but since the US bombed Tripoli in 1986 I don't think the treaty counts any more Or even 185 years earlier. Before my timeDo you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #31 September 13, 2007 QuoteFor this to be an honest discussion, we need to distinquish the goverment (and the laws governing it) from the people. Of course. QuoteThe Founding Fathers were overwhelmingly Christian. I'm pretty sure all of them believed in the God of Christianity and Judaism, even if they did not support organized religion. But that does not of itself affect the identity of the nation, especially when, as you say, they took pains to make a distinction between their private religion and government. QuoteSome of the changes are quite reasonable. Some are totally absurd, basically overriding the wishes of the clear majority in favor of a few malcontents. But surely that is the point of the constitution, to prevent the tyranny of the majority? In constitutional issues popularity should have absolutely no bearing, except where it comes to actually changing the document. QuoteFor the last 20 years, there has been a counter effort by Christian groups stop stop the erosion of Christianity from American life. As a result, we have some rather extreme groups leading the charge. Unfortunately, the get the headlines, so many people think they are representative of Christians in this country. Bummer. True dat.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #32 September 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteThe constitution is not a religious document but I would call it a moral document. Most of the Founding Fathers had a belief in God and those beliefs helped frame the constitution to an extent. They understood that church and state should be separate for obvious reasons. I agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended. Like what? Anything specific?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #33 September 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteI agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended. Like what? Anything specific? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141874/posts Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #34 September 13, 2007 Quote Quote Quote I agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended. Like what? Anything specific? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141874/posts Ok, well on the one hand I really don't see the point in that kind of lawsuit, seems like a waste of time, however, I can't see how it actually affects anyone one way or the other. If I lived there I think I'd be finding it very hard to raise a flicker of interest either waySome people were talking about 'moral issues' being affected by overzealous pursuit of seperation of church and state, things to do with the actual processes of government. Anyone care to give an example?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #35 September 13, 2007 Quote Quote Quote Quote I agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended. Like what? Anything specific? http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1141874/posts Ok, well on the one hand I really don't see the point in that kind of lawsuit, seems like a waste of time, however, I can't see how it actually affects anyone one way or the other. If I lived there I think I'd be finding it very hard to raise a flicker of interest either way As a stand alone issue it is pretty irrelevant. However, it was presented a a specific example of a fairly significant trend. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
n23x 0 #36 September 13, 2007 No, and yes, if they're rediculous enough. .jim"Don't touch my fucking Easter eggs, I'll be back monday." ~JTFC Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #37 September 13, 2007 QuoteFunny how people rarely mention the context in which the above was written. So what's the full context in which it was written. Was in not in reply to the Danbury letter? What's your take on Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. Mainly this part: "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." QuoteAnyway, what role did Jefferson play in the writing of our Constitution? What's your point? He was the principle author of the f-ing Declaration of Independence and one of the greatest minds to ever walk this earth. QuoteYou mention Jefferson and Madison... what where their thoughts on official State religions? Did they object to the States that made official religions part of their Constitutions? I think Madison pretty much sums it up in Memorial and Remonstrance. QuoteYou mean it's all fiction? No, it's not all fiction. But how do you separate that fact from fiction. It's a religious book and should be studied as such. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #38 September 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteFunny how people rarely mention the context in which the above was written. So what's the full context in which it was written. Was in not in reply to the Danbury letter? The letter was "to the Danbury Baptists (a religious minority concerned about the dominant position of the Congregationalist church in Connecticut), assuring that their rights as a religious minority would be protected from federal interference." IOW the FEDERAL government would not prohibit you from being a church. Quote What's your take on Jefferson's Act for Establishing Religious Freedom. Mainly this part: "Be it therefore enacted by the General Assembly, That no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burdened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in nowise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities." Right. It was a federal matter prohibiting mandatory membership/participation in one national church. It was legal for state constitutions to support official state religions during the late 1700s and early 1800s. Funny how what Jefferson wrote has come to mean nativity scenes are prohibited on the town square. QuoteQuoteAnyway, what role did Jefferson play in the writing of our Constitution? What's your point? He was the principle author of the f-ing Declaration of Independence and one of the greatest minds to ever walk this earth. My point is Jefferson wasn't involved in the writing of our Constitution. Why so testy? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JackC 0 #39 September 13, 2007 Quote Quote Quote The Treaty of Tripoli (1796) Yeah but since the US bombed Tripoli in 1986 I don't think the treaty counts any more Or even 185 years earlier. Fair enough, the treaty didn't last long but I still don't understand why article 11 specifically stated that "the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion" if it was known to be a false statement at the time? Anyone care to enlighten me? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Darius11 12 #40 September 13, 2007 QuoteSuch an enlightened perspective. Do you always look for the worst exceptions to paint with a broad brush? Pot meet Kettle Kettle met PotI'd rather be hated for who I am, than loved for who I am not." - Kurt Cobain Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #41 September 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteSuch an enlightened perspective. Do you always look for the worst exceptions to paint with a broad brush? Pot meet Kettle Kettle met Pot Cite? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #42 September 13, 2007 QuoteQuoteQuoteThe constitution is not a religious document but I would call it a moral document. Most of the Founding Fathers had a belief in God and those beliefs helped frame the constitution to an extent. They understood that church and state should be separate for obvious reasons. I agree with your statement but to say that the seperation being pushed for today is NOT what the founders intended. I agree 100%. The decline of morals in government and public life will be to our detriment. So is anyone going to be giving me specifics on this? What moral issues are suffering as a result of seperation of church and state?Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #43 September 13, 2007 My point is that morals in America have been in decline and continue to decline. I don't know where the blame lies. Breakdown of traditional family values. Example-the Aids epidemic. This is a lifestyle disease with the exception of blood transfusion or where a mother gives it to a newborn child.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Casurf1978 0 #44 September 13, 2007 QuoteWhy so testy? If you look at history every time religion and government have been mixed atrocities are committed under the name of 'God'. Look at countries like Saudi Arabia. Also if the founding father wanted this new nation to be a Christian country then why didn't they specifically state it. Look at what Washington said: "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country." You can see that he is a deeply religious man. But when it comes to dealing with it, the regulation of it, or establishment of a national religion, the government should not interfere. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #45 September 13, 2007 QuoteMy point is that morals in America have been in decline and continue to decline. I don't know where the blame lies. Breakdown of traditional family values. Example-the Aids epidemic. This is a lifestyle disease with the exception of blood transfusion or where a mother gives it to a newborn child. You obviously think it has something to do with increased seperation of church and state or you would not have brought it up in this thread. So..... spill it. Give me an example.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
NCclimber 0 #46 September 14, 2007 QuoteQuoteWhy so testy? If you look at history every time religion and government have been mixed atrocities are committed under the name of 'God'. Look at countries like Saudi Arabia. Of course, with any major religion that has been around for at least a thousand years, there are going to be some abuses/misuses. But what does this have to do with you're getting testy at my point that Jefferson wasn't involved in the writing of our Constitution? QuoteAlso if the founding father wanted this new nation to be a Christian country then why didn't they specifically state it. Look at what Washington said: "I am persuaded, you will permit me to observe that the path of true piety is so plain as to require but little political direction. To this consideration we ought to ascribe the absence of any regulation, respecting religion, from the Magna-Charta of our country." You can see that he is a deeply religious man. But when it comes to dealing with it, the regulation of it, or establishment of a national religion, the government should not interfere. Are you trying to counter any points I've made? If so, which ones? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pirana 0 #47 September 14, 2007 QuoteChristian messages and symbols were placed on many of our national monuments and symbols. Prayer at public events was standard fare. That was just to placate the huddled masses." . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
nerdgirl 0 #48 September 14, 2007 QuoteExample-the Aids epidemic. This is a lifestyle disease with the exception of blood transfusion or where a mother gives it to a newborn child. ... Shivers up my back ... So was the Spanish flu pandemic of 1918, which first appeared at Ft Riley in Kansas, spread to the world subsequently, and was responsible for almost 40% of US troops killed in WWI, was a "lifestyle disease" of serving in the Army in 1918 Kansas? What do you think are the rates of heterosexual spread of AIDS? Dang ... sad ... another virus, polio, re-emerged from Northern Nigeria in 2003 spreading to more than a dozen countries and halfway around the world because strongly "religious" folks were opposed to the vaccine on "moral grounds." One of false reasons was that it was perceived to spread AIDS. /Marg Act as if everything you do matters, while laughing at yourself for thinking anything you do matters. Tibetan Buddhist saying Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jakee 1,379 #49 September 14, 2007 QuoteDang ... sad ... another virus, polio, re-emerged from Northern Nigeria in 2003 spreading to more than a dozen countries and halfway around the world because strongly "religious" folks were opposed to the vaccine on "moral grounds." One of false reasons was that it was perceived to spread AIDS. And lets not forget the tireless efforts of the Vatican to prevent condom use in the worst AIDS hit countries in the world.Do you want to have an ideagasm? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AWL71 0 #50 September 14, 2007 AIDS...acquired immune deficiency syndrome. It is something you acquire. Your examples do not correlate. If you are sexually active and have multiple partners or IV drug use you risk getting aids. Simple as that. It is, for the most part, a lifestyle disease. If you practice safe sex then your chances of getting aids are slim. Aids was not around 50 years ago. Why is that? Because sleeping around was not as common as it is today.The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
This Site Is For Sale
