Separation of Church and State. NONSENSE!

[ChangoLanzao 0]

"Lets take down that wall!"

Who buys into this CRAP?

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

Beck: "Progressives have built up this wall of separation between church and state, and it's nonsense"

Well, Mr. Beck: Thomas Jefferson WAS a progressive, so you're part right!

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[quade 3]

I like how Beck (aka "Dipshit") seems to think the Washington Monument was made by our "founding fathers."

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[rushmc 18]

Quote

I like how Beck (aka "Dipshit") seems to think the Washington Monument was made by our "founding fathers."

Yet more fucking proof you don't listen to him and you get your opinions regarding him elsewhere.

You should really stop commenting about him. You keep proving you don't have any idea about him or what he says or stands for

Or, pick a different site to get your opinions (made for you) about him.

Either will work

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[quade 3]

I also like how he claims the US was founded on the Ten Commandments, when in fact, nothing could be further than the truth.

His ideas are about as twisted as they come.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

"Lets take down that wall!"

Who buys into this CRAP?

I wonder how many slaves were use to errect/build the Wash Monument that declares freedom and liberty / 10 Commandments? I wonder if women voted upon its construction / errection?

Yea, the foundation of this country including many of its framers is covered in blood from rape and murder, ethnocentricity, etc.

But I could give you a few names, but they will probably just pipe in in a few if ya wait

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I like how Beck (aka "Dipshit") seems to think the Washington Monument was made by our "founding fathers."

Yet more fucking proof you don't listen to him and you get your opinions regarding him elsewhere.

You should really stop commenting about him. You keep proving you don't have any idea about him or what he says or stands for

Or, pick a different site to get your opinions (made for you) about him.

Either will work

I hate to plagiarize from your brother, but I can't help it.

All I have acknowledged is that you have become irrelevant a LONE time ago... Like the insane man on the corner yelling and insulting people that disagree with his crazy rants.

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

I also like how he claims the US was founded on the Ten Commandments, when in fact, nothing could be further than the truth.

His ideas are about as twisted as they come.

They were founded on the Declaration of Indep and the US Const. Not saying they were neccessarily lovely and complete docs or that we've followed them, but that is what were founded upon as we became an 'organized' nation. Of course the Civil War was the last big tweek to bring it to completion; still haven't followed the original docs.

[quade 3]

Quote

I wonder how many slaves were use to errect/build the Wash Monument that declares freedom and liberty / 10 Commandments?

I don't think any. However, as I recall a number of workers for both the Capitol and White House were.

Here we go;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/slaves.white.house/index.html

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[billvon 2,463]

The religious right, the Taliban and Glenn Beck, apparently.

[SpeedRacer 1]

FOX News target audience:

http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many slaves were use to errect/build the Wash Monument that declares freedom and liberty / 10 Commandments?

I don't think any. However, as I recall a number of workers for both the Capitol and White House were.

Here we go;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/slaves.white.house/index.html

Close enough, that was my point; slaves were used to build these monikers of freedom and liberty. Now (and always) the nutty right wants to tie the foundation of these principles to freedom and liberty. They either have a short memory or they're just nuts.

[FallingBliss 0]

Quote

I also like how he claims the US was founded on the Ten Commandments, when in fact, nothing could be further than the truth.

His ideas are about as twisted as they come.

Go read the Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, & John Jay and then edit your post later.

Hey Muhammad, why don't you wash your mouth out with a revolver!

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Close enough, that was my point; slaves were used to build these monikers of freedom and liberty. Now (and always) the nutty right wants to tie the foundation of these principles to freedom and liberty. They either have a short memory or they're just nuts.

No, the Republicans moved past that in 1865 and 1964 - too bad you Democrats can't.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[Lucky... 0]

Quote

Quote

Close enough, that was my point; slaves were used to build these monikers of freedom and liberty. Now (and always) the nutty right wants to tie the foundation of these principles to freedom and liberty. They either have a short memory or they're just nuts.

No, the Republicans moved past that in 1865 and 1964 - too bad you Democrats can't.

W/o a doubt, the liberal Republicans of 1860 moved us past that, as for 1964, it wasn't the R's vs the D's, it was more the Dirty South vs the north.

But this isn't the issue in this thread, it's about the general foundation as we became a nation where there were no Dems or Repubs at that time by party.

[quade 3]

Quote

Quote

I also like how he claims the US was founded on the Ten Commandments, when in fact, nothing could be further than the truth.
His ideas are about as twisted as they come.

Go read the Federalist Papers written by James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, & John Jay and then edit your post later.

You cite three people? Really? That's all the "founding fathers" there were? I don't think so.

It's like when Beck tries to link the "original" Seal of the United States with a couple of people. It changed because it was unacceptable to the majority.

It's a bit like saying the entirety of either party is contingent on a small group of people and individual's ideas. It would be as if you were saying that the entire Republican party is represented by the C Street House. Or perhaps you really do think the entirety of the Democratic party is represented by say, loony Maxine Waters?

That's simply non-sense.

Regardless of what three or even a dozen people may have wanted in the Constitution, there is a very good reason why it's written the way it is and the words "God" and "Ten Commandments" isn't a part of it.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[SpeedRacer 1]

I wonder where the Conservatives would have been in 1770.

Oh that's right. They would have stood up for king & country! And their criticism of the Patriots would have read like Ann Coulter's book titles: "Godless" "Treason " "Guilty" "High Crimes"

Speed Racer
--------------------------------------------------

[georgerussia 0]

Quote

No, the Republicans moved past that in 1865 and 1964

It definitely doesn't look like that. So if you consider this "fast"...

* Don't pray for me if you wanna help - just send me a check. *

[yourmomma 0]

Go read the constitution. The fact that god is omitted at every level and the ordination of the articles comes from the free will of man, speaks volumes. As hard is it is for you to accept the founding fathers were "progressive".

[d16842 0]

Quote

Go read the constitution. The fact that god is omitted at every level and the ordination of the articles comes from the free will of man, speaks volumes. As hard is it is for you to accept the founding fathers were "progressive".

They were progressive? I am not sure what you mean, but it must somehow explain to you why they included prayer in their meetings while writing our Constitution, with no objection to this taking place. And it must explain why when they formed our government, they opened each daily session of Congress with prayer.

As for God being omitted by our founding fathers, perhaps you might take quick look at our Declaration of Independence, which states "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their CREATOR with certain unalienable Rights..." Which part of creator and self evident is not clear to you? And exactly how does the "free will of man" make any statement whatsoever about religion, pro or con, since the western religions of Christianity, Judism, and Islam, all clearly state that men have free will?

Does the Constitution speak volumes, or do you just hear it? For it only directs two things about religion. Our government is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of a religion, and we are all guaranteed the freedom to choose one, or choose none. Could it be that they simply wanted you to have a free choice, and avoid another Spanish inquisition or the imposition of Islamic law, and nothing deeper than that? Why does the most simple explanation of their writing evade you?

If you are one of the anti-religion zealots, please don't pretend or project that our nation's founders promised you freedom from the slightest hint of religion in your life. It would help us all if the most radical and vocal segment of the whopping 8% of Americans who don't believe in God would take a chill pill, and stop their bitching whining and lawsuits every time the subject comes up.

Will it really hurt you to drive quietly past that nativity scene on your way to a seasonal shopping extravaganza? So long as the 92% of us who believe in God don't attempt to force you to do so, will it hurt to just ignore a politician's stated belief in God, or his seeking advice from a church body? Exactly how does their doing so detract from your existence, so long as they don't ram it down your throat?

I seem to be able to survive living with a President and congressional leaders who have a moral and civic view the polar opposite of mine, and suspect I will survive their imposing their views by force. Can't you peacefully coexist with those having a religious belief and expressing it? Is a bit of tolerance too much to ask all of us?

Tom B

[quade 3]

Quote

As for God being omitted by our founding fathers, perhaps you might take quick look at our Declaration of Independence . . .

Which, contrary to your apparent viewpoint, is not the founding document of the US but rather a "Dear John" letter to King George. It's important to understand where good ol' King George claimed his authority over England, the church and the colonies; God. King George used the name of "God" to claim that authority and maintain control over his people. The writers of the Declaration of Independence, by stating that men get their powers from their "creator" are sidestepping any argument of this authority from King George.

By far, the vast majority of the founding fathers were not specifically religious at all. They believed in a higher power, "A" god, but not necessarily the same God of the Christians and almost definitely not the ones of the Church of England or Rome.

Quote

Does the Constitution speak volumes, or do you just hear it? For it only directs two things about religion. Our government is prohibited from making any law respecting an establishment of a religion, and we are all guaranteed the freedom to choose one, or choose none.

For the moment, I'll give tacit agreement on this.

Quote

Could it be that they simply wanted you to have a free choice, and avoid another Spanish inquisition or the imposition of Islamic law, and nothing deeper than that?

No. While they usurped the power vested by "God" from ol' King George with the Declaration, they very specifically wanted to make certain in the Constitution that no individual in the US government ever claimed the same authority King George did; the power of authority by divine fiat.

Quote

If you are one of the anti-religion zealots, please don't pretend or project that our nation's founders promised you freedom from the slightest hint of religion in your life. It would help us all if the most radical and vocal segment of the whopping 8% of Americans who don't believe in God would take a chill pill, and stop their bitching whining and lawsuits every time the subject comes up.

And here is where your entire argument has run off the rails. The vast majority of people that are atheists (you claim 8% but the numbers run from 8 to 12%) simply don't give a poop about anyone's religion or symbols in any way, shape or form other than perhaps zoning violations and, of course, somebody claiming authority from "God" making decisions that affect their lives. They aren't out to "attack Christmas" or anything else. It's a very small percentage of extremists that make the noise, just like it's a very small percentage of Christians that blow up abortion clinics.

Quote

Can't you peacefully coexist with those having a religious belief and expressing it? Is a bit of tolerance too much to ask all of us?

You want to put a cross on your house; go for it.
Want to put "The Ten Commandments" in a courthouse; well, sorry, but that really is different. I can no more accept that at this point than most people would tolerate a similar monument and legal authority claimed by the Quran.

Quote

. . . will it hurt to just ignore a politician's stated belief in God, or his seeking advice from a church body? Exactly how does their doing so detract from your existence, so long as they don't ram it down your throat?

Because of the very specifically stated arguments above; that he's claiming authority (knowledge, moral superiority) from "God". In the US, you'd have to take not only his advise from "God" but also the advise of the Representative right next to him who claims he gets his authority from "The Devil". Both are unprovable and therefore the claims of both should be ignored as authoritative in any way.

quade -
The World's Most Boring Skydiver

[jakee 1,271]

Quote

Will it really hurt you to drive quietly past that nativity scene on your way to a seasonal shopping extravaganza? So long as the 92% of us who believe in God don't attempt to force you to do so, will it hurt to just ignore a politician's stated belief in God, or his seeking advice from a church body? Exactly how does their doing so detract from your existence, so long as they don't ram it down your throat?

That's a pretty poor attempt to trivialise any genuine problems and vilations that actually do occur.

Quote

I seem to be able to survive living with a President and congressional leaders who have a moral and civic view the polar opposite of mine, and suspect I will survive their imposing their views by force.

Hehehe, the polar opposite? Really? I take it, then, that you support murder, drug dealing and theft, you think Jesus was evil and you'd like to see an immediate return to slavery in a nation under the control of an absolute dictator?

Quote

Can't you peacefully coexist with those having a religious belief and expressing it? Is a bit of tolerance too much to ask all of us?

'Peacefully co-exist'? Newsflash bud, we do. Not many violent gangs of atheists roaming the streets looking for religious people to beat up.

As for tolerance, would it be too much to ask for the right wing of your country to go one week without someone labeling atheists as seditious un-Americans intent on undermining the fabric of society?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[FallingOsh 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I wonder how many slaves were use to errect/build the Wash Monument that declares freedom and liberty / 10 Commandments?

I don't think any. However, as I recall a number of workers for both the Capitol and White House were.

Here we go;
http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/02/slaves.white.house/index.html

Close enough, that was my point; slaves were used to build these monikers of freedom and liberty. Now (and always) the nutty right wants to tie the foundation of these principles to freedom and liberty. They either have a short memory or they're just nuts.

So only righties see those national monuments as monikers of freedom?

A comment based entirely on fact and sensibility.

--------------------------------------------------
Stay positive and love your life.

[Lucky... 0]

Actually I should amend that to state the nutty conservatives, not teh nutty right. Altho it might be somehat the same, not to be confused with the original Republican Party, which was very liberal until the early 1900's.

Quote

So only righties see those national monuments as monikers of freedom?

That's your incorrect extrapolation. Conservatives today pretend the salvery period didn't happen and cling to this pseudo, patriotic-driven version of events and beliefs. Conservatives then (Dems) thought it was normal to enalve and hell, A black person was 3/5 of a white one.

Quote

A comment based entirely on fact and sensibility.

No where did I say that only righties see those national monuments as monikers of freedom, I said that only righties tie the foundation of slavery, rape and chauvenism to freedom and liberty under the guise of bad memories. Your post verifies that assesrtion.

[billvon 2,463]

>They were progressive? I am not sure what you mean . . .

It means that they were trying their best to escape from a government linked to a religion. They made it very clear that, although most of the founders were religious men, they wanted no part of the "state church" they had just escaped from in their new government.

>Will it really hurt you to drive quietly past that nativity scene on your
>way to a seasonal shopping extravaganza?

As long as there can be a Ramadan tribute and Diwali display on the same corner, no problem.