| Jul 6 @ 10:07 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Welcome to America. As you enter, remember, you do not have a right - not to be offended. Also, remember, the separation of church and state was directed to prevent the government from telling people how to worship,,,,not to insulate them from all worship. Constantly attacking the religious practices of others will weaken your power. And pulling down all of the icons of the country, will only serve to make you feel a personal rush, as a victor, not as a loving being in tune with the world around you. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of law which is Divine. . . far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution |
|
  |
|
| Jul 6 @ 10:44 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,554
|
Blah blah blah. Again with the efforts to turn the country into a fascist theocratic state. What do you have against democracy?
|
| |
|
| Jul 6 @ 10:49 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
blah blah blah. Again with the efforts to turn the country into a fascist theocratic state. What do you have against democracy? I have plenty against a democracy, since we are a Republic. Democracy = Mobocracy ruled by oratorial demogogues (Barack Who?) By the way, DO YOU BELIEVE that your views hold more constitutional gravitas than the below quoted Founders of the United States of America? Your humble Pinnacle Precision Thinker, Moi.It is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor. George Washington, signer of the U.S. Constitution and Commander in Chief of the American Revolution. We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbrideled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other. John Adams, Signer of the Bill of Rights and the Declaration of Independence. And can the liberties of a nation bethought secure when we have removed their only firm basis, a conviction in the minds of the people that these liberties are of the gift of God? That they are not to be violated with His wrath? Indeed I tremble for my country when I reflect that God is just; that His justice cannot sleep forever. Thomas Jefferson, Author and signer of the Declaration of Independence I've lived, sir, a long time,and the longer I live the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: That God governs in the affairs of men. Benjamin Franklin Signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution Providence has given to our people the choice of thier rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation, to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. United States Chief Justice John Jay, Co-Author of the Federalist Papers Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of law which is Divine. . . far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution One of the beautiful boasts of our municipal jurisprudence is that Christianity is a part of the Common Law. . . there never has been a period in which the Common Law did not recognize Christianity as lying at its foundations. I berily believe Christianity necessary to the support of civil society. US Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story, Father of American Jurisprudence. We are a Christian people. . . not because the law demands it, not to gain exclusive benefits, or toavoid legal disabilities, but from choice and education. US Senate Judiciary Committee Report. January 19, 1854 In this age there can be no substitute for Christianity. That was the religion of the Founders of the republic and they expected it ot remain the religion of their descendants. House Judiciary Committee Report, March 27, 1854 ". . .this is a Christian nation." unanimous decision of the United States Supreme Court Declaring America a Christian Nation, Church of the Holy Trinity v. U.S. 1892
[Edited on 7/6/2008 11:01 AM]
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 6 @ 11:14 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,554
|
Might want to read the book "Faiths of our Fathers." It'd do your deliberate ignorance a world of good.
We had a variety of belief systems among our founding fathers. Washington was a social Christian, one who went because of habit (and when confronted about his apathy about Christianity, he stopped attending that church). Jefferson was a deist, roundly denounced as the AntiChrist before, during, and after his presidency.
We had fundamentalists, mainstream (both believers and social-only), and lots and lots of deists. Different regions had different dominant religions. It was bad enough that in each region, the minority religions were discriminated against. As the country expanded, which religion would be the one to call the shots?
There's a reason there's a separation of church and state. Whenever someone calls for a theocracy, they always imagine it'll be THEIR brand of religion that will be running things. If the country had been the theocracy you wanted, from its foundation, all minor branches would have been stifled. Your cult would not have survived its first decade. We'd have only major branches, with each state favoring its own dominant religion (generally, the one favored by the societal elites, not always the same as what was practiced by the lower classes).
|
| |
|
| Jul 6 @ 12:39 PM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
eastham
Posts: 6,341
|
Washington was a social Christian, one who went because of habit (and when confronted about his apathy about Christianity, he stopped attending that church)
When Washington was President, the capitol was located in New York. There are dozens of churches in New York that claim that Washington was baptised there. Nnot nearly as many places that claim "Washington slept here," but close enough.
Jefferson was a deist and Adams was a Unitarian. That they had to speak the language of their constituents is clear, but they weren't anything close to today's modern evangelicals. They weren't even close to their Puritan countrymen in their approach to religion.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 6 @ 8:33 PM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
Jefferson was a deist and Adams was a Unitarian. That they had to speak the language of their constituents is clear, but they weren't anything close to today's modern evangelicals. They weren't even close to their Puritan countrymen in their approach to religion
That's why God is no where in the Constitution and religion is only mention in exclusionary terms.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:28 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
That's why God is no where in the Constitution and religion is only mention in exclusionary terms.
The Declaration of Independence, adopted by Congress assembled, does recognize Almighty God:
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.
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, And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor. Human law must rest its authority ultimately upon the authority of law which is Divine. . . far from being rivals or enemies, religion and law are twin sisters, friends, and mutual assistants. U.S. Supreme Court Justice James Wilson, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Constitution. |
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:34 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,554
|
Creator... Divine Providence
You are aware that those are Deist terms, yes?
That's NOT Christian.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:36 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
The references to God in the Declaration of Independence and also the American motto, "In God We Trust" are overtly plain language.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:42 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,554
|
Laws of Nature and of Nature's God
Deist terms. Not Christian. No reference to Christian theology.
Edit: You REALLY should read up on the Enlightenment, Deism, and the faiths of our founding fathers. (Note: Our founding mothers tended to be more orthodox.)
In God We Trust
Added to currency during the Civil War. Became US motto during McCarthy era.
Edit: Just like you weren't aware of the pedigree of the Pledge of Allegiance. (I.e. A socialist wrote it to bring about a Communist utopia. A flag salesman promoted it to sell flags.)
Any other retconning you care to try?
[Edited on 7/7/2008 10:49 AM]
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:47 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Napa, the point that you are attempting to make is obtuse. Exactly what are you attempting to promote? Whether the references in our founding documents are "Diest" or "Christian" is immaterial as my references were to God and were not an attempt to "respect any establishment of religion." with regard to any particular faction, denomination, or sect.
However, I do assert that it is NOT an attempt to "respect an establishment of religion" to recognize the existance of a divine being, God, or diety by whatever name that you may care to refer to when contemplating Heavenly Father.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:51 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,554
|
Para, you're attempting to say that this is a Christian nation. You keep posting stuff that is Deist. People who believe that there was a Creator, some 14 billion years ago, who hasn't been active since.
Keep retconning, Para. I'll gladly point out your complete ignorance of history again and again.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:52 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
Para, you're attempting to say that this is a Christian nation.
I don't think you can put those exact words in my mouth from anything I ever originally authored in these Forums.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 10:57 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
SweetNapaGuy
Posts: 4,554
|
I don't think you can put those exact words in my mouth from anything I ever originally authored in these Forums.
Uh huh. Para, what you post and what you imply are two separate things. Just because you don't say it outright, doesn't mean you're not posting the same crap posted by theocrats again and again.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 11:02 AM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
blah blah blah. Again with the efforts to turn the country into a fascist theocratic state. What do you have against democracy? I have plenty against a democracy, since we are a Republic. Democracy = Mobocracy ruled by oratorial demogogues (Barack Who?) By the way, DO YOU BELIEVE that your views hold more constitutional gravitas than the below quoted Founders of the United States of America? Your humble Pinnacle Precision Thinker, Moi.
You misinterpreted the plain intent to my postings, which was to REFUTE the Loon's assertion that: "It's about religious zealots who have hijacked our constitution." by simply showing that the Founders of the United States of America were religious people by their own admission.
But you, in your eagerness to cross swords with ANYTHING I post, or because you try to spin matters to your own ends, or perhaps due to mental defect or disease, simply missed the patent meanings of my plain language postings.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 2:49 PM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
It's like Obama has said. No matter what we once were, we are no longer just a Christian nation. And I would assume he knows what he's talking about sense he was a constitutional law professor. As if it's not just plain common sense.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 2:53 PM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
bamagary
Posts: 814
|
it always makes me laugh. when i here a repubican talk about god.after all this is the party that has killed over 100.000 people in iraq.made lots of people homeless.to all repubicans. all your moneys not going to get you closers to god. then the rest of us. must of you are hipocrites anyway.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 3:56 PM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...”
Our ancestors came to this country to escape the religious persecution of the Roman Catholic Church and the Church of England. The founding fathers responded to that desire to escape religious rule by establishing a republic that was free from Church entanglement with government affair and where the freedom to practice one's faith without fear of persecution from the government was guaranteed. It seems to me that the founding father advance universal truths over any one specific religious faction.
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 5:47 PM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated
|
|
Paralegal_at_Law
Posts: 5,068
|
It is NOT the advancement of any one particular religious denomination to acknowledge the existence of God without identifying the name of such diety.
For instance, the same God is revered by Christians, Moslems, and Jews, as Heavenly Father, Allah, and Jehovah.
|
|
| |
|
| Jul 7 @ 7:27 PM |
"It's not religious it's spiritual" aka your rights are about to be violated |
|
onoudn
Posts: 4,266
|
It is NOT the advancement of any one particular religious denomination to acknowledge the existence of God without identifying the name of such diety.
The Government doesn't have to advance any one particular religion in order to violate the establishment clause aka separation of church and state. All there needs to be is a perception by a "reasonable observer" that the government is endorsing or disapproving of religion.
O'Connor wrote:
The Establishment Clause prohibits government from making adherence to a religion relevant in any way to a person's standing in the political community. Government can run afoul of that prohibition...[by] endorsement or disapproval of religion. Endorsement sends a message to nonadherents that they are outsiders, not full members of the political community, and an accompanying message to adherents that they are insiders, favored members of the political community.
The proper inquiry under the purpose prong of Lemon, I submit, is whether the government intends to convey a message of endorsement or disapproval of religion.
O’Connor’s endorsement test has, on occasion, been subsumed into the Lemon test.
The endorsement test is often invoked in situations where the government is engaged in expressive activities, such as graduation prayers, religious signs on government property, or religion in the curriculum.
Pennsylvania Judge John E. Jones III cited the endorsement test in his 2005 decision in Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District. In a case where the school board required biology teachers to read a statement to the students about intelligent design as an alternative "explanation" to evolution, he wrote "The proper application of both the endorsement and Lemon tests to the facts of this case makes it abundantly clear that the Board’s ID Policy violates the Establishment Clause."
source
|
| |
|
|