As we all know, most atheists in America only support the Establishment clause in the US Constitution because of the following dumb excuse:
They ONLY THINK that it literally means Separation of Church and State.
Apparently, they’ve misinterpreted it. What this phrase really means is that the US Founding Fathers didn’t want a single dominant religion in the United States, (which I too strongly agree with), NOR did they want the US federal government to stop any American citizen from joining a religion and to stick with Science, atheism, or secularism. The Founding Fathers were Deists, so they WERE very tolerant of ALL religions and wanted freedom FOR religions, not FROM religions.
There are two problems, though:
First, there are most atheists who ONLY THINK that the Separation of Church and State is meant to protect ONLY THEM from the US federal government telling them to join a religion.
Second, there are most atheists who want what I like to call “Complete and Total” Separation of Church and State. To them, it’s the more separation the better, and before you know it, we’ll have signs saying: “Atheist Restrooms” and “Religious Restrooms”; “Atheist Drinking Fountains” and “Religious Drinking Fountains.” Sound familiar? Its Segregation is what it is, and Segregation, as we all know, is un-constitutional in the US.
And as far as this whole “Freedom of Religion” is, quote: “the same as “‘Freedom from Religion’” is concerned, this is also NOT true. “Of” and “From” are two totally different words with two totally different meanings. In my opinion, personally, people should really call it “Freedom FOR Religions,” and, as always, “Freedom TO Worship."
Bottom line: Atheists have NO right whatsoever to laminate and/or segregate innocent religions from the United States, NOR are they in any position to point out their faults.
I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again: If atheists have nothing nice to say about religions, than they shouldn’t say anything at all. They’re abusing their Freedom of Speech in the US.
All of this is from the rights of individuals that has been preached to our children from kindergarden through college. The feel good about yourself no matter if you succeed or fail only creates a feeling of separatism. If only we could learn to celebrate our similarities and tolerate our differences instead of the opposite.
Your entire argument is wrong.
Here's the reason why Christians, Atheists, Jews, Muslims, Hindi's, etc. etc. should NOT shut up:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
CONGRESS shall make no law.
States and cities can. CONGRESS shall make no law.
There is NO separation of church and state - unless your state has actually written it into their constitution (almost all have).
apparently you have not heard of the supremacy clause of the Constitution...
I'll raise you a Treaty of Tripoli.
The Treaty of Tripoli is a tricky one.
Indeed, it does declare that the US "is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion"... but now we must ask if this claim is Constitutional.
If Congress is outlawed from respecting a religion, then any treaty that DOES make such a respect is null and void. Thus, that one part of the sentence is illegal, null, and void.
A treaty can NOT override the Constitution because the treaty in question must be Constitutional to actually be a treaty.
The validity of the law itself can be argued however the intent cannot and this intent is what the judicial branch will refer back to to interpret law.
Like Jefferson's letter.
People argue the letter but if anyone actually reads his manuscripts and books it's clear he was either a deist or atheist.
He was plagued by atheist accusations and Thomas Paine was his good friend.
Don't forget the bible he wrote where he cut out Jesus divinity and miracles.
Which was also handed out to congress for a long time.
I don't personally see how claiming the country was not founded on Christianity is a conflict to the first amendment.
Congress agreed to a treaty with a claim that was regarding the respect of an established religion and claiming that the US was in no way founded on a religion.
The Supremacy Clause would thus make that part of the treaty void.
We can talk all day about what Jefferson thought, but the Constitution is the Constitution.
If you are right then why was it a valid law until it expired?
Why didnt anyone object to it at all?
Stating we are not a country founded on Christianity doesn't seem to contradict the first amendment at all, I don't see how you make that leap. Neither does the supreme court though so I guess it doesn't matter anyways
There really isn't much to talk about Jefferson as I have read virtually all his work for research papers and in no way can he possibly be thought of , by evangelical standards, Christian.
You should read his memoirs and books, they really give a good view of how Jefferson perceived religion.
The supremacy clause of the Constitution? Are you serious? Not only have I heard of it, but I am familiar with it AND I actually bothered to read and quote it. I read the supremacy clause on the actual document this summer, and I would've taken a photo, but those guards get pissed off.
I also made sure that States shall not "emit bills of credit" and that they shall not make "any thing other than gold and silver a tender in payment of debt".
The Constitution clearly states that it is the supreme law of the land, but then it says that Congress shall not pass a law with respect to a religion. Thus, any law passed by Congress which is a law respecting religion is Unconstitutional and NOT the supreme law of the land.
It also has another clause (the 10th amendment) which says that if a power is denied to the Federal Government, that power is reserved to the states.
Sorry, your argument is hollow.
Words have meaning, and to claim that they don't is a pointless endeavor.
Here are the relevant passages in the Constitution (notice how the supremacy clause is limited by the phrase "which shall be made in pursuance thereof", which means that ONLY Constitutional laws shall be the Supreme law of the land):
Article 6: "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."
Amendment 1: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
Amendment 10: "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution ... are reserved to the States..."
Emphasis is my own.
well looks like you have no idea what Atheists want. I don't have any idea where you got the idea from that atheists want segregation.
There is also no misapprehension as to the constitution and what the founding fathers were. or the record many of the founding fathers were very much against the idea of organised religion, even in a time when this was a dangerous thing to admit. Read their books biographies/autobiographies for more information on this.
When it comes to separation of church and state and freedom of religion, I don't think any single atheist has claimed that this meant freedom from religion, we are well aware of the fact that this is freedom of religion (Although we might not agree with it)
Neither of these things are constitutional, all that is constitutional is that Congress shall pass no law against (any) religion.
The separation of church and state was made very clear by the founding fathers, even the deists. They did not want religion to have any control over politics.
Personally I think that this needs to be extended for the modern world, i want to see a separation of corporation and state too. No private body should in my opinion have any control or influence on the workings of a government.
When it comes to saying 'not nice things' about religion Atheists have just the same amount of rights as the religious people who like to say that all gays should go to hell, that atheists are sinners, etc etc.
Personally I think if you actually believe there is some geezer up there who will bring you to a magical place called heaven when you die - then you should probably have some kind of psychiatric testing.
Religion is mostly harmless, but it is still the biggest cause of conflict in the world today.
If you listen to NPR (right-wing bastion of conservative religionism that it is) you will hear people who do claim to be atheists and head organizations that are atheist claim that the constitution mandates a total separation of church and state. They almost always site the Separation Clause, never acknowleding the Abridgement Clause. I don't think ALL atheists want segregation, but SOME very vocal ones want not merely segregation but outright extermination of religion.
You are right, the Founding Fathers did not want religion to control government a la France, England or Germany where there were actual state religions. They never meant for society to be free from religion as a result. Read their actual words. So it's logical to say they might think that a publicly funded school should not mandate prayer, but it's not logical to say they would think a publicly funded school should ban all prayer in any form for any reason at all costs.
It would be nice to think that if religion went away then most of the conflicts in the world would as well. In a way, I wish that were true, but it's not. People will always fight, they always have.
Some very vocal Christians want us to nuke Muslim nations. If you start listening the majority of people who are vocal about things you can run in to some serious problems.
To be honest I have no doubt that the founding fathers were happy to offer religious freedom, a lot of religious people in the countries you mentioned were being persecuted, as the rise in literacy gave atheism it's first real legs to the majority of the lower classes. This combined with Christianities usual reaction to off shoot branches of it's religion meant there were a lot of people looking to escape.
"Some very vocal Christians want us to nuke Muslim nations. If you start listening the majority of people who are vocal about things you can run in to some serious problems."...Um, yeah I guess but they are few and far between and that was still not my point. My point was that there ARE atheists who want religion completely eliminated from public life (you seemed to intimate that there are not.)
As to you second point, I think you're misreading actual history. Yes there was a rise in literacy but it did not give atheism any real legs in the "lower classes." Many of them still believed, even if many of them still didn't live like it (just like the "upper classes.")
You also make an error in saying that "Christianities usual reaction" as if ; a) Christianity was some unified monolith where all branches have a uniform reaction and b) the Church was actually Christianity. One of the reasons for "off shoot branches" (and by the way I am an evangelical which would make me one of the "off shoots") is because the church had become way too chummy with the state, even in some cases becoming the state which diluted or even eliminated the actual message of Christ from the church.
Lastly, the Founding Fathers were almost all religious (many were preachers and pastors,) there were no true atheists. Nor were either the Declaration of Independence nor the Constitution truly atheistic documents. Even Thomas Jefferson, often held up as practically atheist, proposed putting aside public monies for sending missionaries among the Native American tribes, and Ben Franklin (who was avowedly not a Christian) said that Christianity was necessary for good public morals. The religious freedom they wanted to offer was the freedom they themselves sought to practice their own religion.
I'm an Atheist and I want segregation.
I don't feel safe with religious people running lose. Every last one of them are mentally ill, delusional, and a threat to every living thing on this planet.
You're right Mick.
Not only that, but there actually is no such thing as "separation of church and state" in American law.
Actually, I think total separation of state and religion is a good thing.
The secular world has the right to ignore God and live (within accepted law) as they wish, and equally so do the religious folk.
Politically the secularists can vote for who they like, and if they have enough votes, they can have what they want as law, (within your constitution)and live with what they get.
Christians (and as 83% of Americans claim to be Christians, I refer specifically to them in this) equally have the right to vote, and therefore influence the law making process to meet their desires.
But in reality, (and most Christians will not accept this) believers should simply pray that Gods will be done, and that we all (collectively) get the governments that we deserve.
Note: deserve, not necessarily desire.
Currently we seem to have what we deserve as government, because in truth, we live in a world where those in power are put there by the vested interest groups who really are in power, and those groups, despite what you may think, are NOT Christian, even if they claim to be.
Gods people pray that Gods will be done, in heaven as it is on earth, not at the ballot box, which is hopelessly corrupt anyway.
I agree total seperation is a good thing. Reading further into the wikipedia stats you reference, 83% claimed a (any) religious denomination...not Christian...which was referenced there [perhaps not even currently] to be between only 60-76%...
It always gets me that any negative outcomes, natural disaster, death and illness of any individual...be deemed a religious repercussion [Gods will]. I don’t care too much to exist in a world where the collective deeds of a multitude of MANY DIFFERENT types of people, religious or otherwise, await punishment by a single religions named ultimate deity.
The single-minded belief that there is no free-will, that everything has been decided, even contrary to the religious belief that ‘man has a right to choose his destiny…seems hypocritical and naïve to me. Life is complicated. Humans do things for many different reasons, environmentally influenced, genetic, or otherwise.
Religion seems to me more about passing any personal responsibility to an outside entity, that everything was caused by the higher power, and therefore no real ownership be taken as to the outcome of our own lives…OUTSIDE of the context of all the myriad ‘rules’ that Christians claim we should follow. This is separate, and seemingly only intended to gain personal entrance to their heaven.
While this may seem unfair to those simply wanting to live a ‘good’ life and be ‘good’ to others…I share the very same value system, and yet do not believe in Christianity, other than in its original historical context.
"Religious folk (and as 83% of Americans claim to be Religious, I refer specifically to them in this) equally have the right to vote, and therefore influence the law making process to meet their desires."
It is of course within your power to leave that world at any point, and undeniable that you will at some point leave this world, on way or another.
The relevant issue is of course that if there is a God, then what you chose to accept or not becomes very relevant to you personally, and if there is not, your argument is vacuous.
"Humans do things for many different reasons, environmentally influenced, genetic, or otherwise."
All of which could equally be controlled or influenced by God
Passing the AUTHORITY over our lives to Christ is a personal decision made by each believer to lesser or greater extents, the extent it is granted seems to have a direct correlation to how those lives are charted out.
Gods intention is that we should all progress to full union with Him and lead balanced and peaceable lives helping others, this desire is of course influenced by the degree of control and authority we take upon ourselves in our own lives, the more we reject God and choose our own control (and I will not here labour the point that there are other forces that can also control our lives once we take authority away from God, but there are!)the more we stand alone.
....and your shared value system may indeed serve you well, or not, dependent upon the decisions you take over how your life (and death) progresses towards an inevitable finish.
It is quite possible to lead a good and successful life minus Gods authority and influence, I was able to do pretty well on my own before I came to faith, but having experienced the life since coming to faith, I would never choose to reject Christ and return to my old masters, even if the paramount master of my prior faith life was myself.
That's odd. I have yet to see an atheist have that misunderstanding. I have seen many believers here who do have that misunderstanding, though. I provided a link to an explanation of a secular government to a believer who had never understood it before.
Are you sure you don't have that backwards?
You've created a false premise. Of course, the more separation the better. As Christians, would they ever want to see Shariah Law incorporated into the government, for example?
You can't incorporate one religion into government without incorporating them all.
But, that's exactly what it's all about, and atheists know that.
LOL! Now, that's funny. At least we now know your motives and agenda for this thread. Intellectual dishonesty and censorship.
i noticed that you said the founding fathers were deists, not true. 57% of the signers of the Declaration of independence were Episcopalian/Anglican, 23% were Congregationalists, and only two of them were Unitarians. The idea of freedom of religion also was first established legally in the frame of government of Pennsylvania in the 1600's, which was written by William Penn, a Quaker.
I'm sure there were a lot less gay people in that time too. Probably not, however they were just in the closet and had to pretend to be straight or face severe social consequences. Same went for religious beliefs. Someone who cuts up the bible like Thomas Jefferson did would have been ostracized from society and labeled a heretic had he published it. So I humbly contest the validity of those statistics as empirical evidence.
Hardly empirical. But it has long been the agenda of both Atheists and Communists to diminish the character of the founding fathers of America. To place emphasis on all of the negative aspects of American culture in order to subvert and demoralize our thinking to the point where the very idea of patriotism is a characteristic for the fool hearty.
And on it goes.....
This is so completely lacking in logic, it beggars belief.
Separation of the ADMINISTRATION of Church and State is not in any way related to the physical separation of PEOPLE.
Religious nuts always want to believe that non-belief is some kind of organized group with an agenda. Most people who don't believe simply go about their lives. Many even attend church each week out of tradition.
Most non-believers don't even think about religious nuts until they start trying to push into public places with their foolish notions.
Then there are some of us who are filled with rage over being enslaved and brainwashed from birth.
Forced into insanity before we could even talk, minds filled with images of burning tortured people as they burn for ages because of some "sin".
Yeah.. I still hold alot of anger and rage from my former mental assult.
So much in fact.. That I would gladly stand behind any politician that could offer a "final solution" to our religious problem.
We say no more than the fundementalists and less than than those who are theists in name only.
So, using your logic, what gives you the right to criticis atheists?
I did that already, my opinion is Atheism IS a religion.
I favor Mikel’s opinion. Atheism is one of three major religious belief systems. One believes a God does exists. Another believes a god does not exist and the rest believe a god may exist. In the absence of any tangible proof, each has built its own unique belief system about "god" based upon faith, experiences, and intuition. Which one has gotten it right and which has not? More importantly, who among us is qualified to judge?
What a wise suggestion. There are many forum topics and posts that would make interesting hubs. I have considered mining my own posts for that kind of inspiration.
I have yet to see any religious person or organization try to get something from some other, different religion made into law; it's only their own rules and concepts that need to apply to everyone.
It just seems like a much better idea that states follow along with the feds in not allowing any religion to control the laws and actions of everyone. States are not what they were in our history; we have truly become one nation in a way that was not possible back then.
It isn't just religious groups that seek the imprimatur of the states legal mechanism for their beliefs. It is a basic human failing that we want some kind of control over the chaotic aspects of life. The personal, individual actions of others are one of those chaotic things.
"Of all tyrannies, a tyranny exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
This is a tyranny separate from religion after all aren't speech codes on college campuses a valid example?
I love the quote - there is a lot of truth there.
Yes, attempt to control others in personal things that don't matte a whit to the controller are not limited to religion, but religion is by far the biggest offender.
Any time multitudes of people live together in close proximity there will have to be some control, but religion goes behind our closed doors as well, controlling nearly every aspect of our lives (or trying to).
I'm not familiar with college speech codes - controlling hate speech perhaps? Or speech that is very offensive to others and could cause a riot? Some justification for either, but it's getting very close to crossing the line of what society should be able to control. If it hasn't already crossed it - as I say, I'm not familiar with the rules.
Anything can be justified in the name of a nebulous threat - the wrong words might cause a riot. What is hate speech but speech? Free speech, even hate speech, is enshrined in the Constitution - remember the First Amendment? The state of Indiana bars package liquor sales on Sunday. Every few years a measure to permit such sales on Sunday is introduced to the legislature. It goes down to defeat because of religious groups, from all across the spectrum of race and politics, opposing the measure. I am a stalwart defender of religious liberty but this grinds my gears.
And have lost huge swathes of liberty and the very precious flexibility that a federal state offers and a unitary one does not. Perhaps it is time to eliminate state governments entirely? I for one despise the idea that a state like Indiana, that has a balanced budget, would be forced to bail out the foolish government of California all in the name of a unitary state.
Don't feel bad - Idaho electricity prices are way up from what they should be because they have to sell to California. Because Cali won't allow power plants to be built in their own state - NIMBY. So other states put up with the pollution to keep the sensitive Californians supplied with power.
I would argue that busybody isn't predicated on religion or even politics but, instead, on a basic failing in ourselves. It is our frustration that the behavior of others does not mesh comfortably with our own or conform to what we want from them in the way of cooperation. It is the failing to live within our own skin and accept that the sole person over which we exercise control is ourselves.
To this end it is obviously not governed by religion or politics. I am a conservative and a Christian but it just chaps my rear when I can't buy a beer on Sunday before the Bear's game.
I'm really at a loss at trying to make sense of the OP. It's not only atheists who support a clean separation of church and state; many, many religious people are secularists (myself included) and want the same thing.
Yes, the smart ones that realize there are other people in the country pretty much support that concept.
For the most part it is only the fundie Christians that insist everyone else follow their beliefs. I hear a few grumbles now and then about Sharia law, but so far it is to apply only to Muslims and is a very small minority anyway.
Kind of like the metrosexual moment (the backlash was 100x stronger and lasted 10x as long as the metrosexual microtrend), the movement to forbid sharia law, especially in places like Oklahoma where there are no sizeable Muslim populations, is much, much larger than the movement to impose it.
The only meaningfully-sized religious fundamentalist movement in this country is the Christian one (although fundamentalists of other flavors plague other countries, too).
Just so. All the others combined are but an annoying flea bite while the elephant of the fundie Christian movement is the stomping us flat whenever possible.
Just Christians? Atheists don't initiate lawsuits and try to get legislation passed that limits what we see and hear concerning religion?
It is the idea that the "wall of separation between church and state" is enshrined in the Constitution. It clearly is not. The idea that a political candidates personal religious faith(or lack there of) could disqualify him for public office is a troubling idea but we have been treated to the suggestion that a religious test does, or should exist.
Rick Perry has openly talked of his religious faith and has been castigated for it. Barrack Obama has obscured his and has been praised. The press seeks to draw politicians into commenting on Mit Romney's Mormanism as if there is a religious test.
I would gladly vote for a man the quality of Dr. Zuhdi Jasser for any public office.
"They ONLY THINK that it literally means Separation of Church and State." You should try thinking once in awhile, garbage such as this might not fall out of your mouth if you did. It is the separation of church and state that has allowed you brand of ignorance to thrive in this country.
"What this phrase really means is that the US Founding Fathers didn’t want a single dominant religion in the United States" How much time do you spend making sure your brand of sky daddy worship doesn't become the dominate religion in this secular nation? How often do you vote for a candidate based on his or her lack of belief? How much did the subscription to wallbuilders cost you? Try finding an original thought before you open you yap the next time. Damn I don't miss this level of ignorance at all.
This is only partially true; the founding fathers only prohibited the federal government from establishing a religion. States were allowed to do as they please.
This was required as different states had different sects as their primary religion and those founding fathers recognized that religions cannot and never will be able to get along. Each one was irrefutably right and did not want any chance that a different one would eventually come into control in their area of the new country.
Different than the fundies today, our founding fathers recognized that no religion should be able to control the actions of non-believers. That they were extremely wise in that decision can certainly be seen today as religion constantly attempts the control that is prohibited to the federal government, failing to understand that if they could implement that control so could others that do no share their belief system.
Here's another point for you to consider. It is the non religious that believe that words mean exactly what they say. it's the religious people like yourself that take even the words of your beloved jesus and twist them so much no one recognizes them. Judge not lest you be judged hasn't stopped one christian from judging everyone they come across. Love thy neighbor only applies when you happen to agree with the person. I'm sure you are like most christians and against homosexuals and abortions. It makes no difference to you how your savior would treat a homosexual he might have met. You will condemn them to your hearts content. Do you think jesus would treat a woman exiting an abortion clinic with the love most christian show her? You claim to believe in jesus and the word of god and yet you take every opportunity that presents itself to do the exact opposite of what your savior teaches you. Your god is nothing but an excuse to act like the most despicable human being you can and feel good about it.
The courts get to make that decision, and they don't agree with OP. So he can complain all he wants, he ain't winning this one
How on earth would you "segregate" a philosophy anyway?
Hi Mick. If we weren't founded on the notion of separation of church and state, how do you explain the treaty of Tripoli?
1797, the United States Senate ratified a treaty with Tripoli that stated in Article 11: As the Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion ; as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity, of Mussulmen; and, as the said States never entered into any war, or act of hostility against any Mahometan nation, it is declared by the parties, that no pretext arising from religious opinions, shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
A failed attempt at translating Arabic with personal bias.
The Barlow translation is at best a poor attempt at a paraphrase or summary of the sense of the Arabic . . . . Most extraordinary (and wholly unexplained) is the fact that Article 11 of the Barlow translation, with its famous phrase, 'the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,' does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic]. The Arabic text which is between Articles 10 and 12 is in form a letter, crude and flamboyant and withal quite unimportant, from the Dey of Algiers to the Pasha of Tripoli. How that script came to be written and to be regarded, as in the Barlow translation, as Article 11 of the treaty as there written, is a mystery and seemingly must remain so. Nothing in the diplomatic correspondence of the time throws any light whatever on the point.
Those who cite the Treaty of Tripoli as evidence that this nation was not founded on the Christian religion, usually ignore the Treaty of Paris of 1783. This Treaty, negotiated by Ben Franklin and John Adams among others, is truly a foundational document for the United States, because by this Treaty Britian recognized the independence of the United States. The Treaty begins with the words, "In the Name of the most holy and undivided Trinity... ," and there is no dispute about its validity or its wording.
The treaty of Tripoli was read aloud before Congress and voted on after this. A copy of the treaty was published in news papers across the country and many original copies still exist. There was no outcry from the American people who were alive when the treaty was signed. Records of this can be found in the library of Congress. The only out cry over this treaty occurred a century after the people involved had died. I suppose that people alive today actually know more about what occurred back then than the people alive did. I also tend to believe the official records of our country over the opinions of a religious site. The site you linked to is no better than the Wallbuilders site and their hero David barton. Why is it that most religious people go to a religious site for verification. If I want to know about history, I go to historical records, If I want to know about science, I go to scientific sites. If I want to know about religion, then yes I will go to a religious site. You seem to use one source for all your fact checking and that makes absolutely no sense at all if you are interested in the truth. You oibviously are more interested in hearing what you want to hear rather than actual fact. Then again so are most religious people.
Since the constitution was signed in 1787 I don't see yours as a valid point concerning the Treaty of Paris.
Main Entry: foun·da·tion
Date: 14th century
1 : the act of founding
2 : a basis (as a tenet, principle, or axiom) upon which something stands or is supported <the foundations of geometry> <the rumor is without foundation in fact>
3 a : funds given for the permanent support of an institution : endowment b : an organization or institution established by endowment with provision for future maintenance
4 : an underlying base or support; especially : the whole masonry substructure of a building
5 a : a body or ground upon which something is built up or overlaid b : a woman's supporting undergarment : corset c : a cosmetic usually used as a base for makeup
— foun·da·tion·al \-shnəl, -shə-nəl\ adjective
— foun·da·tion·al·ly adverb
— foun·da·tion·less \-shən-ləs\ adjective
The treaty of Paris was signed before the Constitution.
Thank you, for posting the definition of foundation.I guess.
We could argue this all day because it's been argued for quite some time by others.
The Union functioned under the Articles of Confederation. When the weaknesses of that union became apparent, the nation hammered out the constitution. In order to form a more perfect union. Those were their words. Not yours, or mine. The states realized that the Articles of Confederation weren't going to work and the Constitution was ratified.
The Constitution is your foundational document. Anything it doesn't address can be argued by looking at historical examples prior to its inception.
But, it does address the separation of church and state. The only way I can understand an argument against it is by accepting that someone is attempting to explain that they have the duty to tromp on my first amendment rights.
Notice that it is the First Amendment. It was first and foremost on their minds. It was a problem that they believed should be addressed in order to form a more perfect union.
Written in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
Look. There is no easy answer to this. If there was, we wouldn't be arguing it now. but, I'm at a loss as to what your point is.
The Treaty of Paris was signed in 1783 before the ratification of the Constitution.
The Constitution was signed in 1787
The Treaty of Tripoli was signed in 1797 after the ratification of the Constitution.
Oh. I just realized your point. I don't really see it as a point but, good call. I can't argue the way the date was written.
The year of our lord was a common way of speaking back then. What exactly do you think this proves? It proves that some of those who drafted the constitution believed in God. It doesn't prove that this country was founded as a christian nation. Those who drafted the constitution had actual experience with what happens when the church controls a country. If this country was founded as a Christian nation, don't you think they would have come out and said so? Do you suppose they refused to plainly state this as a way of proving it to be so? Belief in God didn't mean that they wanted the church to control the country. Their were a lot of religions around at the time of this country's founding and none wanted the laws of this land to give control to their particular church. Show mw one example of a country controlled by religion that has not been a disaster for the citizens of that country. Only those who have no interest in history would seek to repeat the mistakes of the past.
Hey, you're preaching to the choir. I was simply conceding the fact that we (edgity and me) were destined to disagree. I have no doubt what the intent of the founders was. Anyone that bothered to look at the world back then would be opposed to religious interference with government.
For that matter, all anyone has to do is take a good look at the world today. They'd come to the same conclusion. Religion has absolutely no place in government, if you want a peaceful country.
Whatever you have to tell yourself to understand the foundation of our country.
I am not telling myself anything, I am examining the history of this country and the world at large and stating the facts as the have been recorded. To be honest the falsehood that America was founded as a Christian nation is meaningless at best. What do you really seek here? Complete control of this country and the people in it by the church? Why? What good do you think will come from it for the country as a whole? The only one it would benefit is those who buy into your brand of religion. I assume you feel that as one of the so called chosen people you have the right to lord your personal beliefs over others. I suppose you think that by denying the rest of us the rights our constitution guarantees us, you will be doing us a favor. I will ask you again to show me one example of a country controlled by the church that didn't result in great harm coming to the masses. You are welcome to your beliefs. You are not permitted to force others to live their life according to them. What is so damned hard about understanding that? Why do so many of you seek to turn America into the next Iran?
Way to take a turn of phrase out of context. I would say we are in the year 2011 AD, does that make me religious too?
If I was talking about sometime before the year 0 I would talk about the year BC, does that make me religious.
No, it really does not. the same applied then.
Sorry, I forgot you were there when they wrote it, and know the exact intent of "the phrase". You must have been a small lad at the time eh?
As it turns out it wasn't, but I do 'read' these things called 'books'. With a little varied exposure to works of historical interest, biographies, history books and novels of the time you may actually be able to make an educated comment rather than showing your ignorance in the topic.
Yes, you read them and interpret them. Your interpretation isn't the same as everyone elses, but its obviously the correct one.
Oh it would be some much easier if we all thought just like you.
Ahh yes, I mis-interpreted what they said, now that's an original argument rather than a quote that you believe I may have mis-interpreted. However my interpretation is actually consistent with people who have read the book, and seen what has clearly been said in black and white.
You could indeed continue to make vague baseless accusations, or you could try to add a valid point to the debate, take your time, read some of the books before arguing about them if you want.
You would have "NO RIGHTS" at all if God did not first suggest them and second defend them for you.
I don't understand what you're saying/meaning.
Are you suggesting that no humans ever had rights before they invented your god. I do believe that countless civilizations existed and members of these civilizations understood the concept of rights. I suppose you feel that no human being ever watched the sun rise before your god appeared. No one ever drank water before your god showed up. Humans have survived for centuries before your particular deity was invented. That comment made no sense what so ever Dave. Another point is that if the religious right has their way in this country, no one other than the wealthy will have any rights. I suppose you god is a republican as he only seems interested in tell republicans that he want's them to run for office.
Yes, indeed. God not only suggested that the Jews could have slaves, but helped them get their very own slaves with explicit directions.
Does this mean that I can have you for a slave? It is my God given right, after all!
So tell me something, if it's your God-given right to own slaves, why was it Christians and only Christians who headed up abolition movements? Where were the humanist abolitionists, the one's who decried slavery on the basis that humans, as self-aware individuals, could not be kept as chattel by other humans? If you have one or two, I actually would like to know, but it really doesn't change the fact that all the famous abolitionists, from William Wilberforce to John Brown, based their convictions about human beings on their religious convictions. Did Christians own slaves? Sadly, yes, many did. And some who truly might be called Christians (as opposed to those who simply could call themselves Christian) did believe in it. But the Bible argues otherwise (try reading Paul's letters if you want to argue about "God-given" rights to slavery.) And that sad chapter does not change the fact that it was Christians, not Muslims or atheists or Buddhists, who worked to end slavery.
I'm not sure what he's suggesting, but if you actually go back and look at history, you will find that the ancient Hebrew civilization so derided for it's "bloodthirsty god" actually had more rights granted to common people than other civilizations of the day. Look up the codes and laws, most of them are readily available on the web.
Your other points are valid, but only if the only actual religious people in this country were rich, self-interested republicans, which of course is not true. Try looking at all the people, even within evangelical circles, who are not pro-money but are actually interested in furthering the cause of Christ. God is neither republican nor democrat, and if that's all that anybody gets out of it, then they have missed Him entirely.
Atheists are atheists, they have their beliefs and no use arguing with them, yet I agree with some of your points. Just know you can't change them, or fix them. It is their choice to believe what they believe.
This is not a religious argument. It is a political debate. There is a problem with attempting to throw religion into it. And, the religious who were around at the time understood that. A large percentage of the pious were not only in favor of a secular government, they actively promoted it and rejoiced at the inclusion of the first amendment.
Not only were they tired of being persecuted, they wrote quite eloquent documents explaining why Christ would look down on attempts to legislate through religion. You should read them.
Besides, the only polite context for yelling STOP at anyone are if it is HAMMER TIME.
On that note - I am not American but have seen a large amount of polar thinking without backing since moving here (temporary I'm afraid but this country does have some good points).
However if you really do want to find out about the thinking behind the founding of America then the books and letters written by the founding fathers including their letters to each other and friends about their thoughts before during and after their fight for independence.
And you don't see the irony in this? Maybe I'll just keep reading them until my interpretation matches yours.
You just have to read them once, the founding fathers were fairly eloquent and clear in their writing. You have to work pretty hard to distort their text in to any thing other than what they write.
Yes you do, so please stop, because youre distorting beyond recognition. It's almost as if you expressing your own opinion about their writing. Oh wait, you are. What do care what my founding fathers had to say anyway, you're not even from America?
how am I the one distorting their meaning when you are telling me that I shouldn't look at what they literally said, in ink, multiple times, in personal and public letters?
I care what the founding fathers say because I like to read, and I find writing done by intelligent people very interesting.
They wrote this in "ink", Written in "the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven."
They wrote the Treaty of Paris in "ink". They wrote lots of things in "ink"; however, you pick and choose the "ink" that supports YOUR OPINION and PHILOSOPHY, and twist the things that don't. I know you would like to believe that religion played no part in the foundation of the USA, but it did, it played a major role, and you can't change the "ink" in history.
Religious Affiliation of the Delegates to the
Constitutional Convention of 1787, including the
Signers of the Constitution of the United States of America
Religious Affiliation # of
delegates % of
Episcopalian/Anglican 31 56.4%
Presbyterian 16 29.1%
Congregationalist 8 14.5%
Quaker 3 5.5%
Catholic 2 3.6%
Methodist 2 3.6%
Lutheran 2 3.6%
Dutch Reformed 2 3.6%
TOTAL 55 100%
Name of Signer State Religious Affiliation
Daniel Carroll Maryland Catholic
Thomas Fitzsimons Pennsylvania Catholic
Roger Sherman Connecticut Congregationalist
Nathaniel Gorham Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Langdon New Hampshire Congregationalist
Nicholas Gilman New Hampshire Congregationalist
Abraham Baldwin Georgia Congregationalist; Episcopalian
William Samuel Johnson Connecticut Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Madison Jr. Virginia Episcopalian
George Read Delaware Episcopalian
Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer Maryland Episcopalian
David Brearly New Jersey Episcopalian
Richard Dobbs Spaight, Sr. North Carolina Episcopalian
Robert Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
Gouverneur Morris Pennsylvania Episcopalian
John Rutledge South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Cotesworth Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Charles Pinckney South Carolina Episcopalian
Pierce Butler South Carolina Episcopalian
George Washington Virginia Episcopalian
Benjamin Franklin Pennsylvania Episcopalian (Deist)
William Blount North Carolina Episcopalian; Presbyterian
James Wilson Pennsylvania Episcopalian; Presbyteran
Rufus King Massachusetts Episcopalian; Congregationalist
Jacob Broom Delaware Lutheran
William Few Georgia Methodist
Richard Bassett Delaware Methodist
Gunning Bedford Jr. Delaware Presbyterian
James McHenry Maryland Presbyterian
William Livingston New Jersey Presbyterian
William Paterson New Jersey Presbyterian
Hugh Williamson North Carolina Presbyterian
Jared Ingersoll Pennsylvania Presbyterian
Alexander Hamilton New York Huguenot; Presbyterian; Episcopalian
Jonathan Dayton New Jersey Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Blair Virginia Presbyterian; Episcopalian
John Dickinson Delaware Quaker; Episcopalian
George Clymer Pennsylvania Quaker; Episcopalian
Thomas Mifflin Pennsylvania Quaker; Lutheran
Name of Non-Signing Delegate State Religious Affiliation
Oliver Ellsworth Connecticut Congregationalist
Caleb Strong Massachusetts Congregationalist
John Lansing, Jr. New York Dutch Reformed
Robert Yates New York Dutch Reformed
William Houstoun Georgia Episcopalian
William Leigh Pierce Georgia Episcopalian
Luther Martin Maryland Episcopalian
John F. Mercer Maryland Episcopalian
Elbridge Gerry Massachusetts Episcopalian
George Mason Virginia Episcopalian
Edmund J. Randolph Virginia Episcopalian
George Wythe Virginia Episcopalian
James McClurg Virginia Presbyterian
William C. Houston New Jersey Presbyterian
William R. Davie North Carolina Presbyterian
Alexander Martin North Carolina Presbyterian
http://www.adherents.com/gov/Founding_F … igion.html
I would never debate with anyone who starts a post with "As we all know," or tries to get INTERNET TOUGH GUY on me by posting a direct command like STOP in all quotes.
Your facts seem to be a little of center. Here's a link to two letters to the editor that do a good job debunking a claim just like yours by a writer named Loconte.
http://www.secularplanet.org/2007/02/ft … eists.html
Loconte says that it was Christians, not atheists, who led the effort against the slave trade. Perhaps he forgets that slavery was abolished in France in 1791, not by the church, but by the atheistic founders of the revolution.In the United States, the early critics of slavery - Benjamin Franklin, George Washington, Thomas Jefferson and John Quincy Adams - were all either atheists or deists. Later, the abolitionist cause was taken up by Ralph Waldo Emerson, a Unitarian minister turned atheist; William Lloyd Garrison, an atheist; and Robert Ingersoll, the "Great Agnostic." Indeed, the "Great Emancipator" himself, Abraham Lincoln, never acknowledged being a Christian and was (at the very least) thought to be a freethinker in matters of religion. In England, atheists Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill were leading abolitionists.
Atheists and freethinkers of all stripes worked closely with progressive Christians to abolish slavery and to fully extend voting and civil rights to African-Americans. To suggest otherwise is an affront to the rich history of free thought in America.
Baptist, Methodist, Presbyterian and Episcopalian churches owned slaves; Baptist churches owned the most. Christians obeyed the 10th commandment that forbids coveting a neighbor's "manservant" and "maidservant" (slaves). In the Civil War, some 250,000 Southern men died defending states' rights and slavery.
Atheists could not lead the effort to end slavery because they had no political power. Just as today, they have little chance to be elected to public office. Christians have accepted slavery for centuries. William Wilberforce did, indeed, end slavery in Great Britain by the end of his life. He overcame the policies of an empire that relied on slaves.
Loconte's piece is a perfect example of the rewriting of history. Slavery is explicitly approved in the Old Testament and implicitly approved in New Testament. The international slave trade arose and thrived during a religious era. Many abolititionists were religious, but so were many of those supporting slavery who cited the Bible to justify their practices. Today now that all of society agrees that slavery was wrong, someone like Loconte comes along to claim that religion “ended” slavery. The same is true of the civil rights movement. There were religious people on both sides of the issue, yet some claim that religion “ended” segregation. Today our society struggles with homosexual rights, with the religious on both sides of the issue. In several decades, when homosexuality has become completely acceptable, I predict the religious will claim that religion “ended” homophobia.
" The international slave trade arose and thrived during a religious era. Many abolititionists were religious, but so were many of those supporting slavery who cited the Bible to justify their practices." Not only are you absolutely right but were even anticipated and preceeded in my own statement. That doesn't change the fact that it was Christian idealism that stopped it. And if you think that Enlightenment thinkers didn't get their notions about "egalite`" from the Christian notions of the equality and brotherhood of man, then you need to point me to your sources.
Another error is when you say, "Christians obeyed the 10th commandment that forbids coveting a neighbor's "manservant" and "maidservant" (slaves)." Actually two errors, the first being the blanket statement that implies ALL Christians "obeyed" this command, although you yourself do acknowledge otherwise later in your statement. The other is to assume that a) manservants and maidservants were always chattel slaves comparable to slavery in the antebellum South (in fact it was more like an indentured servitude with an end in site and obligations of the 'owner') and b) that existence of permission to own slaves constituted a mandate to own slaves. The ancient Near East was full of societies that owned slaves, and the Mosaic laws actually represented a softening of customs over other similar cultures of the time. God permitted what man was going to do anyway, He didn't command them to do something they would never have otherwise done.
In once sense psycheskinner is correct when he/she writes, "Atheists had political power, they just had it by pretending to be Christian as was required to lead a respectable life. As such we don't really know what personal belief had to do with social movements then or indeed now." However it is historically true that the ideas of human equality and fraternity were originally practiced by Christians and later appropriated by atheists. Atheism in and of itself did not decide that man was inherently equal despite the Bible saying otherwise.
As to your assertion about the "atheistic founders of the revolution," outside of Benjamin Franklin a person would be hard-pressed to find any truly atheistic Founding Fathers. Many, if not most, were preachers and pastors.
"Slavery is explicitly approved in the Old Testament and implicitly approved in New Testament." is a statement supportable only if you take selected verses from the Bible and divorce them from the context of history or even the rest of the Bible. Again, God permitted them to do what they would have done anyway (much like He permitted divorce although He explicitly stated He hates it (Malachi 2:6)) but He didn't allow them to do it the way other cultures did. And although a surface reading of Philemon might seem to suggest that Paul approved of slavery, really he was trying to show both Philemon and Onesimus that in Christ, all are equal. Reference Galatians 3:28.
Your quip about "homophobia" is clever but misses the mark in one important distinction, which is that although the Bible does state both explicitly and implicitly that slavery is wrong, it does not make any such statements about homosexuality. That does not mean that gays and lesbians can't be saved, and don't even try to say I'm arguing in favor of "reparative therapy," I'm not going there in this statement and you shouldn't try to read between lines that aren't there. It does mean that the Biblically mandated family structure is that a father and mother be married to each other, and that same-sex unions are not positively sanctioned in the Bible. But I will concede that in all likelihood, sometime within the next several decades homosexuality will become "completely acceptable" in that only those deemed "intolerantly conservative religionists" will refuse to say it's "natural, normal and okay."
By the way, I refer you to David W. Galenson, John Goldingay and Gregory C. Chirichigno as cited by Paul Copan in "Is God a Moral Monster?" for my evidence about the state of servitude in Old Testament Israel.
Athiests had political power, the just had it by pretending to be Christian as was required to lead a respectable life. As such we don't really know what personal belief had to do with social movements then or indeed now.
"Abusing their freedom of speech"? Excuse me, but how is that possible? Freedom of speech entitles people to say what they want. You can't abuse something that has no limits. You call it abuse because it doesn't suit your agenda. What about Westborough Baptist Church, with their "God hates you," "thank God for dead soldiers," and "thank God for 9/11" signs? I bet you're fine with that. That's not abuse at all, because it caters to your side. I guess you don't mind them protesting military funerals either, right? Speaking out and saying "hey, we don't want you cramming your beliefs down our throat" isn't abusing freedom of speech. For the record, have fun trying to hold public office in the U.S. if you openly declare you're an atheist. Some school boards in the Bronze Age intellectual void called the "Bible Belt" won't even hire atheists. Are you okay with that too? Even your title "Atheists STOP" is a command to silence opposition to your dogmatic superstitions. We let you say what you want, we just don't want you forcing your beliefs on us. Is that not fair? How about, religious people STOP. Stop trying to force Christianity into schools, where many people of many faiths go to get an education. Stop trying to weasel evolution out of the curriculum. Stop sticking your nose in everything to get everyone on your side, and then we'll stop complaining. You don't see us trying to shut down your churches, but you people have no problem trying to shut down science. Stop being a hypocrite and practice what you preach.
The original poster pointed out that the definition of "separation of church and state" is mis-interpreted. That's waaay within his freedom of speech.
Yours, however? Well, maybe yours falls into that category too, but I'm not sure! ha.
For one thing, free speech isn't unlimited. Common sense tells us that it's okay to use free speech unless it escalates into harrassment or some other violation of some other person's rights! The Westboro Church is an example of that, and they should be jailed, in my opinion! But the liberal agenda wouldn't want to see that happen simply because THEY want unlimited freedom to spout whatever they want to outta their own mouths.
And it's liberals who have been forcing atheism and every other Godforsaken view into our schools.
I've never heard of any school declaring that God does not exist (ie "forcing" atheism) - what might you be referring to here? Just the fact that we aren't able to force prayer and other religious ceremonies doesn't mean promotion of atheism, you know.
How is atheism being forced into our schools? What Godforsaken views? Not arguing just curious because I haven't noticed any of that.
While I can see schools teaching evolution as something we all know happens on a daily basis, I cannot imagine how they are teaching atheism.
Do you have names and publishers of these atheism textbooks that are being used? As well as which school districts are using them?
Any school actively teaching atheism needs stopped - although you and I seldom agree this would be quite improper and illegal.
Atheism per se is not taught outright in schools, but the removal of Christianity and the teaching of evolution which most proponents are avowedly atheist does amount to teaching atheism, just more subtly.
As I pointed out earlier, removal of Christians teachings from schools has nothing to do with atheism, nor does it promote atheism in any way. It simply fails to promote Christianity, which I understand is objectionable to Christians that want their particular religion favored in government programs.
Teach of evolution is not atheistic, either - many Christians have come to understand and accept that the ideas behind evolution are factual and not debatable. They are thus what needs to be taught even though many other Christians again want their particular religious views and fables crammed down childrens throats instead of what we know to be true. Again, it is not teaching atheism (a declaration that God does not exist) but rather the facts of biology as we understand them from thorough research and testing.
If atheistic teachers are not to be allowed as undesirable, should we then also disallow all Christian teachers as they may subtly teach Christianity? I rather doubt that the Christian community would support that idea, even though it seems quite equitable if atheist teachers are assumed to be teaching atheism.
"As I pointed out earlier, removal of Christians teachings from schools has nothing to do with atheism, nor does it promote atheism in any way. " That's a historical falsehood. Those who worked the hardest to remove Christianity from schools, from Dewey to O'hare, were avowed atheists with an aversion to Christianity in particular.
The removal of anything, from Christianity to Jim Crow, from the public education system is an implicit statement that they are not worthy to be taught. Sometimes even explicit.
I think we view evolution differently then. To me it's a scientific discovery that has a valid place in school. Teaching that certain views and ideas exist is different from teaching that one of them is the only true right one.
I'm not exactly an atheist but going back to the OP I fully believe in the separation of church and state.
I think at the time, the Founders were trying to establish the system of freedom of religeon by using Protestantism because as the word suggests it was a Protest against the single Christain religeon of Catholicism which was burning them at the stake at the drop of a hat for the slightest intolerances.Since basiclly most all of the signers were originally from the U.K or sons of immigrants, they had this in mind and since at least one third of the signers were Freemasons who claim their fraternity is not a religeon than i would venture to say it was a mixture of Religous Protestants, yet relaxed on stritness and atheist or even some deist Masonic influenced men. Therefore it was not necessarily based on Christianity per se but on some Creator above. Did all beleive in a Creator. I doubt it , but I would say most did have some deist or theist thought.. I beleive they worded it the way they did to protect both the theist groups and atheist groups from persecution by any single institution of religeon( at the time specifically against Catholicism) therefore i beleive the Clause was actuaslly based in anti-catholicism.Although it states you can't deny them their faith either. Every corner stone in most original gov't buildings has a masonic cornerstone and they are known to be at odds with Catholics in the past. I've never looked into this but how many signers of the Constitution were Catholics? I would say probably not many or even none but I could be wrong. THerefore saying that it is based on Christianity is not necessarily right as there were at least two denominations of christianity( a few Catholics and a majority Protestant), Judaism probably hiding from persecution within Freemasonry( one third of signers were masons) and even atheists present at the signing. With all that said I do think it was written in the tone of an overall Creator but didn't necessarily force the issue.
Who are these communists you speak of? Cubans? Or are you using negative buzzwords to label socialism? You injure your argument by resorting to tactics like these. Same can be said for the otherside. My only problem is the presentation of facts that can be skewed from the truth regardless of whose favor they are in. Also presenting facts from Wikipedia is virtually meaningless.
Oh, are you a socialist? Did I offend you by throwing you into the pile with Communists, because there's such a big difference? Socialism is pretty much just a stepping stone to communism. But please forgive me for not adding Socialists to the brain-trust of cultural Marxism in America as well. All the gender studies radical feminism, African studies, Native American studies, the deconstruction of classical literature to show racism or sexism for philosophies that didn't even exist at the time, in order to aggravate a sense of rage, separatism, and victimization, and assign to the only culture that tries to eradicate these injustices the soul onus of their origins.
There can be no "injustices of the soul" because there is no soul. May as well say... "Injustices of unicorns, or the injustice of Santa clause.
If you truley believe otherwise your mind has been damaged by years of abuse.
I do, and I will have as many children as I possibly can to spread that ideology throughout the world, so that even more people believe the same as I do. So by all means feel free to advocate to the morally bereft the need not to procreate, so that your numbers get smaller and smaller and mine get bigger.
By the way what lead you to think I was talking about "Injustice of the soul"? Or do you just wish to bash the religious and don't know where to start...
Well then, we'll have no choice but to throw you and you brainwashed children into a deprogramming concentration camp until you have either been cured of this infection of the brain or until you decide to stop being delusional and join the rest of us in the real world.
"Well then, we'll have no choice but to throw you and you brainwashed children into a deprogramming concentration camp"
Who's delusional? LOL!
Wanting to lock away the mentally ill from the rest of the population makes me delusional?
You wanna talk about sadistic.. Lets examine the Christian God.. then ask yourself what kind of person would ever want that creature to be real, let alone raise their children to love honor and respect it.. He is according to your own sacred texts the most savage and violantly brutal homicidal nutcases to have ever disgraced the pages of human fictional literature .. one who has slaughtered countles millions upon millions of innocent people in his jealous fits of homicidal rage.. This creature is unfit for worship and anyone who would dare to say otherwise if just as equally unfit to walk amoungst the rest of humanity.
You hardly offended me for I have nothing to lose from this argument but a few precious moments. I am trying to determine your purpose on this thread however. Instead of a debate for learning or winning people to your beliefs, you use hostile and demeaning rhetoric. And no I'm not a socialist.
Does anyone else find it ironic how the treaty of tripoli is what let evangicalism and Mormonism even exist. Surely they would have been summarily executed if we did not have a secular government.
Hostile and demeaning rhetoric? How so? I was simply refuting your assertions as is the traditional mode of operation in a debate.
Or perhaps I am demeaning people by being opposed to Atwas911's idea that I and my family be sent to a concentration camp. In that case yes, I am a very mean person who is in love with the idea that people get to have ideas and beliefs without being exterminated or otherwise ousted from society.
Perhaps you are mistaking my posts for someone else's if you think Im asserting anything. My first post deals with you presenting fallacy as fact in your lame Wikipedia research percentages you tried to pass off.
My second post is more of an inquiry to your labeling of socialism as communism. I was trying to understand your position.
Your response to me was ad hominem. There's is no denying this.
I'll end with an agreement that you and I are ultimately entitled to our opinion without fear of persecution. I will defend your right to this until my dying breath.
And I'll take satisfaction in knowing I made you google ad hominem.
That part is in jest.
Joined 25 hours... Are you another sock puppet?
Can you join with time greater than 0? If so how do I instantly start with 2 months?
Your stats are 25 hours. Your posts are many. You are a sock puppet. May I inquire as to how much you make? I might be interested.
Nobody has ever discovered hubpages forums and been motivated to post while they have two days off? If I could only have this kind of luck at winning things.
Is there something wrong with my grammar or posts you do not like? Should I not express myself without your explicit permission?
Thanks but I already knew what ad hominem means. Your assertion that the treaty of Tripoli is what guaranteed religious freedom in America is what's absurd. The US Constitution does that.
By declaring America secular it gave protection to the great awakening responsible for the many new religions. At least this is theory taught in schools where I live and is my own opinion after having done extensive research on the subject for a research paper.
I'd like to hear how you think otherwise as I am not an authority on the matter by any means and like to hear others opinions.
Just don't call me the s word again. Lol
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;" This is what made freedom of religion possible in America not the treaty of Tripoli, not Thomas Jefferson's "separation of church and state", not the articles of confederation. It is the Constitution of the United States that has been the binding authority by which this country is governed.
It also says the right bare arms shall be protected too.. But that still does not stop them from requiring licenses or taking the right away all together should you commit a crime..
I would love to see religion treated in the same way..
"Well.. you've abused your children and tortured them mentally.. You have thus given up your freedom of religion just as a felon has given up his right to arms."
The debate isn't over what the first amendment says its what it doesn't say. This is where all the problems stem from. An example of this would be the states dealings with neutrality. If it was so easy to understand then why the hundreds of court cases? What was the real intent of this law? The courts looked to Jefferson's letter for the answer in Everson v Board of Education.
The treaty of tripoli is a law guaranteed by the constitution as it appears you didn't realize "all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land"
This is treaty(or laws) importance is found mostly in understanding the fathers intent.
This was posted on another Atheists are evil demons type of thread and thought it belongs here as well
I am an aagnostic that agrees with you. But I am against federal and state aid to relgious and private schools.
I am tired of this title. Stay tuned...
I am an atheist and I can tell you that I really don't care what you or anyone else believes in. But, you sitting here bashing atheists and not saying anything nice about them is contradictory to what you say about the abuse of our freedom of speech isn't it? You are doing exactly the same thing that you are bitching about when you sit here bashing what other people may believe in. Maybe you should take your own and advice which is....if you don't have anything nice to say, you shouldn't say anything at all as well.
P.S. We do have a right to express our opinions, point out faults if we want to and express our beliefs just like you did in your forum, hence.. the meaning of freedom of speech and religion. duh.
Shawn, it is also polemic to the Christin creed--the bashing. It's all a matter of education (not all formal).
As an atheist, Why do I have to put up with people constantly trying to preach at me. They knock on my door and wake me up just to listen to some drivel that I just don't believe in. Usually I just slam the door. Some times, however, I make them try to prove god actually exists, so far no one can.
A word to Christians - Don't waste a lot of time or energy trying to persuade atheists of the rightness of Christianity (any more than you could ever persuade me to be a Texas Longhorn fan - WPS!). These are people who have all ready concluded they don't need or want God himself in their lives, who refuse to acknowledge his very existence. What makes you think they care about what anyone below him has to say?
Another word - while the Constitutionally guaranteed freedom of religion we have enjoyed in this country has been a true blessing, it is not necessary for Christianity to survive and flourish. The early Christians had no such freedom, and Christians in many parts of the world today do not. Christians have been persecuted more often than not. Americans don't have much of a sense of Christian history because of the freedom we have enjoyed. As we lose that freedom, how will we respond?
One more - while we have traditionally looked to the US government as the protector of religious freedom, today the government (note I said the govt., not the Constitution) is the ENEMY and has been for at least 50 years. Look what it has done - banned prayer and Bible reading in school, allowed the barbaric practice of abortion, strongly supported the gay agenda. The courts have lead the way in quashing Christian expression in public life with endless rulings against it - the ACLU creates more legislation than Congress through lawsuits. American Christians must learn to SUPPORT THEIR BELIEFS THEMSELVES, as our federal government has abandoned that role and now implicitly and explicitly supports everything except Christianity while actively opposing Christianity.
I don't care what you choose to believe. I just don't want it pushed in my face every time I walk out the door! I let you believe in what you want with out pushing my beliefs on you. All I ask is the same respect I give you. Believe what you want just leave me out of it.
Stop skippingg every other page in a history book and you will see it was never the governments role to promote Christian beliefs.
People like you want to subjugate the whole country to your beliefs. You want your own version of sharia law.
Let me tell you this funny thing about abortion and being gay,
You don't have to do these things if you don't want.
In my opinion, people who concern themselves with what other people do are usually lacking in some form of accomplishment or fulfillment in their own lives. Just sad.
Funny thing about America's secularism. People speculate that if we had been founded on a flavor of Christianity and didn't have
Freedom of religion, we would have ultimately turned out very secular as a nation like many of our European friends.
by Mick Menous23 months ago
As far as this whole Separation of Church and State thing in the United States is concerned, I personally believe that it is necessary. For example, the words “Separation of Church and State” are not...
by Mick Menous22 months ago
You don't necessarily have to be a group that kills innocent people to be called a hate group.In 1963, the American Atheists group was founded by Madalyn Murry O'Hair. In 1976, a radical feminist named Annie Laurie...
by Dan Harmon2 years ago
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2014/09/bibl … a-schools/Seems that Orange county in Florida encourages Christian literature to be disseminated to students, but aren't so happy when other religions or groups want the...
by cooldad5 years ago
Were the founding fathers of this country Christians? I have always been under the impression that our country was founded by people who were escaping religious persecution. Why then, do so many people claim...
by Susan Reid2 years ago
Since when is America a "Christian" country? I challenge anyone to find a single mention of Jesus Christ in any of our founding documents."God" does not equal "Christ." I swear to God, yes....
by Leslie McCowen5 years ago
Dumb-a$$ Newty-Boy, who said "oral sex is not adultery", now says that judges are not being "American" by taking God out of schools.....Isn't he a "professor" or something? Like Beck?He is...
Copyright © 2016 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.