Anyone need a wedding ring?

[Commissar]

Comissar read carefully what you just typed because it explains what I said exactly.  Why were they running from England again?  Religous persicution by a king who when he got in a fight with the pope started a church that answered to him and outlawed all other religions thus making it the only church people could attend with out fear of legal repercussion.  The reason that provision was written into the constitution was to keep that from happening in the new world.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah...to keep a church from becoming part of the state. To keep the state from the possibility of committing religious persecution.

 

You're making my point for me.

[Nartwak]

Yeah...to keep a church from becoming part of the state. To keep the state from the possibility of committing religious persecution.

You're speculating. A church is not required for a state to commit religious persecution.

 

See also: Soviet Union

[Commissar]

Yeah...to keep a church from becoming part of the state. To keep the state from the possibility of committing religious persecution.

You're speculating. A church is not required for a state to commit religious persecution.

 

See also: Soviet Union

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'm not speculating, I'm repeating the views of just about every Constitutional scholar in the world.

 

I never said a church was required for religious persecution by the state. I said the reason the Constitution was framed as it was was to avoid a church rising to dominance within the government. The church was an integral part of governments for thousands of years. They wanted to be different.

[Dakoth]

Yeah...to keep a church from becoming part of the state. To keep the state from the possibility of committing religious persecution.

 

You're making my point for me.

 

{Quote}Whoa, I completely missed that statement from Dakoth. That's just crap. The provision is in the constitution to protect the state from the church, not the other way around. You forget that many, many Americans ended up in America during the founding days to escape religious persecution. The founding fathers did not want church interference; they weren't worried about state interference with the church.

 

Those are 2 completely different statements Comissar which is right? I also don't see where it was there worry the church would take over the state as much as the other way around as they experienced that in England already.

 

Along those lines, I think it's about time that churches start getting taxed. They've completely blown the deal; they quite clearly supported candidates during this campaign, and that alone is enough to remove their tax-exempt status.

 

 

 

Please explain as I find it interesting? Do you also feel this way about the rainbow push coallition which is headed by Rev. Jackson?

[Nartwak]

I'm not speculating, I'm repeating the views of just about every Constitutional scholar in the world.

I'm soundly impressed by your appeal to authority. I actually vomited on myself in admiration!

 

Read: Please include a cite for your thesis.

[Commissar]

I'm not speculating, I'm repeating the views of just about every Constitutional scholar in the world.

I'm soundly impressed by your appeal to authority. I actually vomited on myself in admiration!

 

Read: Please include a cite for your thesis.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"The experience of the United States is a happy disproof of the error so long rooted in the unenlightened minds of well-meaning Christians, as well as in the corrupt hearts of persecuting usurpers, that without a legal incorporation of religious and civil polity, neither could be supported. A strong and mutual independence is found most friendly to practical Religion, to social harmony, and to political prosperity ."

-James Madison, Annals of Congress, Saturday, August 15th, 1789, page 730.

 

"The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man ."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to J. Moor, 1800.

 

"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government. This marks the lowest grade of ignorance of which their civil as well as religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes ."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to von Humboldt, 1813

 

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own."

-Thomas Jefferson, Letter to J. Fishback, 1809

 

 

Two of the biggest participants in the drafting of the Constitution right there. You want me to go into later scholarly analysis of the issue, too?

[Nartwak]

Yes. :D

[Commissar]

Yes.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Too bad. Ain't my fault you're uninformed. Do your own research.

[Nartwak]

Too bad. Ain't my fault you're uninformed. Do your own research.

Well fine then.

[Dakoth]

No because it is not later intrpritation that is in debate. Those are wonderful quotes but I noticed no oppositin to the church only to men in the church politically motivated. Those men believed in religion thats why we swear on the bible in court, congress is opened with a prayer as has been tradition, and the president still places his hand on the bible when sworn into office.

[Commissar]

No because it is not later intrpritation that is in debate.  Those are wonderful quotes but I noticed no oppositin to the church only to men in the church politically motivated.  Those men believed in religion thats why we swear on the bible in court, congress is opened with a prayer as has been tradition, and the president still places his hand on the bible when sworn into office.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And they believed religion should have nothing to do with civil government, and vice versa. How many goddamn times do people have to say this before you're going to understand it? Jesus Christ.

[Dakoth]

And they believed religion should have nothing to do with civil government, and vice versa. How many goddamn times do people have to say this before you're going to understand it? Jesus Christ.

 

No they did not which is why we get mixed messages. If they thought religion should have nothing to do with civil government they would have removed everything religous from said government. We would not swear the president in over the bible, our money would not say in god we trust, we would not swear an oath on the bible to tell the truth in court. What they were afraid of is like what happened in England were the state made a church and forced all to use it, and the church went along with it because it meant wealth and power. You notice no where in the constitution does it forbid a clergyman from running for public office, odd if they wanted complete separation of church and state. It also never forbid a person from running for office if backed by a church.

 

So please tell me again how your interpritation is right and mine is wrong? You think it is ok for the state to impose laws and taxes on the church but the church should have no opinion on government.

[Commissar]

And they believed religion should have nothing to do with civil government, and vice versa. How many goddamn times do people have to say this before you're going to understand it? Jesus Christ.

 

No they did not which is why we get mixed messages. If they thought religion should have nothing to do with civil government they would have removed everything religous from said government. We would not swear the president in over the bible, our money would not say in god we trust, we would not swear an oath on the bible to tell the truth in court. What they were afraid of is like what happened in England were the state made a church and forced all to use it, and the church went along with it because it meant wealth and power. You notice no where in the constitution does it forbid a clergyman from running for public office, odd if they wanted complete separation of church and state. It also never forbid a person from running for office if backed by a church.

 

So please tell me again how your interpritation is right and mine is wrong? You think it is ok for the state to impose laws and taxes on the church but the church should have no opinion on government.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Swearing on the Bible is simply custom, not law. A President could get sworn in on a copy of The Joy of Sex if he wanted to.

 

 

As for the rest, I think ol' TJ said it best with "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." Guy helped write the Constitution. Now tell me he was in favor of church and state merging.

[Dakoth]

Swearing on the Bible is simply custom, not law. A President could get sworn in on a copy of The Joy of Sex if he wanted to.

 

I don't remember having said it was a law. What I said was if they wanted complete separation of church and state it would not have been part of any government tradition or other wise.

 

As for the rest, I think ol' TJ said it best with "The clergy, by getting themselves established by law and ingrafted into the machine of government, have been a very formidable engine against the civil and religious rights of man." Guy helped write the Constitution. Now tell me he was in favor of church and state merging.

 

Once again that is not a problem with religion but how it is used by people. Again I never said he wanted a church state just that the total rmoval of religion from government was also not what he was looking for.

 

Amendment I

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

 

 

Seems to me he felt strongly enough about religion to put it in the first Amendment to the Bill of Rights along with freedom of the press and speech.

[Vincent_Valashar]

As far as I am concerned anyone has the right to practice whatever religion they want in the privacy of their own home and congregations. I draw the line when a Christian starts yelling at me to repent while I am just walking across campus or when a government official tries to use religion to justify any laws that effect my life.

 

If that person wants to get his congregation out in public and do a pray service in the park, I have no problems with that. I can just walk away and quietly ignore it. If that same person gets his congregation to force their bibles on me, that is where I have a problem.

[Commissar]

I don't remember having said it was a law.  What I said was if they wanted complete separation of church and state it would not have been part of any government tradition or other wise.

 

It's a government tradition because Washington chose a Bible to be sworn in on. No other reason. It's been personal choice ever since then. What you're saying is basically like suggesting that because presidents attend that reporter banquet thing (the official name escapes me), it's a part of the government. Presidents do things that aren't officially sanctioned US law or policy all the time.

 

Once again that is not a problem with religion but how it is used by people.  Again I never said he wanted a church state just that the total rmoval of religion from government was also not what he was looking for.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

"Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

 

-Thomas Jefferson' letter to the Danbury Baptists,

[Darque]

While I'm neutral in the whole political thing, I think the people responsible for the Daily Mirror need to be shot.

 

If anything, crap like that makes me wonder if the man should be supported. Of course I sometimes have a contrary nature... so I dunno.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ahh, I should probably clarify that what gave me a laugh was the clever and hysterically funny essay the woman on EBay wrote... not the Daily Mirror headline, which I found incredibly insulting even to a total Bush-hater like myself.

 

If the world wants Americans to come together as a group, all they need to do is continue to their moronic global insult fest. I'm frankly pretty sick of the arrogance being shown by this kind of garbage, and I doubt I'm the only American who feels that way.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Agreed.

 

One thing the rest of the world should have figured out by now, is the best way to get "all americans" on one side is to attack it or it's citizens somehow.

 

And the side they tend to join is the one getting attacked.

[Commissar]

Agreed.

 

One thing the rest of the world should have figured out by now, is the best way to get "all americans" on one side is to attack it or it's citizens somehow.

 

And the side they tend to join is the one getting attacked.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not all Americans. I was wondering the same thing as the Daily Mirror.

[Weiser_Cain]

I was offended.

[Dakoth]

It's a government tradition because Washington chose a Bible to be sworn in on. No other reason. It's been personal choice ever since then. What you're saying is basically like suggesting that because presidents attend that reporter banquet thing (the official name escapes me), it's a part of the government. Presidents do things that aren't officially sanctioned US law or policy all the time.

 

Uh how is that any different than the people that have gotten the pledge of allegence removed from public schools siting the separation of church and state as the basis. There is no law that said you had to say it, the pledge was a tradition, not only that but the school house is far from congress or the president.

 

"

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God, that he owes account to none other for is faith or his worship, that the legislative powers of government reach actions only, and not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church and State."

 

Now where does it mention the complete removal of all references to religion and god in there again? That last sentence with the part you underlined again shows that the founding fathers wanted to protect the church from the state more than vise versa. I know this will probably make you mad but i think a word in that sentence needs to be clarified.

 

Thus

1 : in this or that manner or way

2 : to this degree or extent : SO

3 : because of this or that : HENCE, CONSEQUENTLY

4 : as an example

 

He never said the US government would be void of any reference to religion, just that in order to protect the freedom of religious choice the US government shouldn't make laws governing the establishment, or exercise of any religion. Unfortunatly the extreme left uses that seperation of church and state to remove all refrences to any religion from anything that has to do even slightly with our government. After reading and quoting MR. Jefferson how do you think he would feel about removing the pledge of allegence because of the reference to God.

[Vincent_Valashar]

Well, just remove the part that references God. Simple.

 

How a historical figure might or might not feel about the issues of today is irrelevant for there is no way to gauge it accurately. I think we need to deal with the problems of today with the people we have today if we want to actually accomplish anything.

[Dakoth]

Well, just remove the part that references God.  Simple.

 

How a historical figure might or might not feel about the issues of today is irrelevant for there is no way to gauge it accurately.  I think we need to deal with the problems of today with the people we have today if we want to actually accomplish anything.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You just firmly stated that the constitution of the United States holds no meaning or Value you for you, because interpritation is all we have. So the US would be better off to scrap the constitution and start over?

 

Also why should God be removed last I heard religious folks out number the atheists and the principle our government normally ascribes to is majority rules.

[~Di]

Actually, our government is a constitutional republic, which means that although the majority rules when it comes to most kinds of votes, the majority cannot vote away the constitutional rights of others.

 

Which means that even though religious folks may outnumber non-religious folks, they cannot force their own religious beliefs on those non-religious folks through legislative means... because that would violate consitutional rights.

[Dakoth]

Actually, our government is a constitutional republic, which means that although the majority rules when it comes to most kinds of votes, the majority cannot vote away the constitutional rights of others. 

 

Which means that even though religious folks may outnumber non-religious folks, they cannot force their own religious beliefs on those non-religious folks through legislative means... because that would violate consitutional rights.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Just as they can not force their non belief on the Christians my problem with Vincent and Commissar ~Di is they seem not to understand that. Comissar flat out said the separation of church and state had nothing to do with the church being protected from the state and then said they should be taxed because they back political canidates, an odd statement since no atheist is taxed because he/she chooses to back a canidate. Also some atheists through the courts seek to remove all references to religion from government while claiming separation from church and state. I assert that a complete removal of anything that had to do with religion was never what the founding fathers wanted which is why through tradition or other wise we swear an oath to the truth on a bible in court, in God we trust is on our money, and the president is normally sworn in over the bible. Weather these things are just traditions or not is irrelevent to the arguemant if they wanted no religion references in our gooverment they would have never let them in in the first place.

[~Di]

Just as they can not force their non belief on the Christians my problem with Vincent and Commissar ~Di is they seem not to understand that.  Comissar flat out said the separation of church and state had nothing to do with the church being protected from the state and then said they should be taxed because they back political canidates, an odd statement since no atheist is taxed because he/she chooses to back a canidate.

 

Whether the church was supposed to be protected from the state or the state was supposed to be protected from the church is a moot point. The two institutions were supposed to be separate. Religion was not supposed to enter into government, and government was prohibited from entering into the practice of religion. That means that creating laws based on religious belief and forcing those laws on everyone is a no-no.

 

 

Also some atheists through the courts seek to remove all references to religion from government while claiming separation from church and state.  I assert that a complete removal of anything that had to do with religion was never what the founding fathers wanted which is why through tradition or other wise we swear an oath to the truth on a bible in court, in God we trust is on our money, and the president is normally sworn in over the bible.  Weather these things are just traditions or not is irrelevent to the arguemant if they wanted no religion references in our gooverment they would have never let them in in the first place.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

A lot of non-atheists also support the removal of theist language from government. The thing many religious folk ignore is that both the motto of the land and the Pledge of Alligience were created without "God talk." It was changed legislatively by conservative Christians in the 1950's during McCarthy's famous "godless commie" hunt. That was, in my opinion, the beginning of religion inserting itself into the law of the land. It was wrong, dammit. And it's still wrong.

 

It's also wrong for pastors to be telling their constituents how "God" wants them to vote... but they do it anyway. It's a violation of their so-called neutral tax-exempt status. So my position is that if the church wants to get into politics, it damned well better pay its taxes like any other citizen with the same right of political involvement.

 

What I am seeing right now is not a trend toward government taking away the rights of religion to worship as they see fit. But I am seeing a trend toward religions insisting that the rights of those who do not believe as they do are taken away, and replaced by laws enforcing their beliefs on the populace. This was created as a secular nation with religious freedom. For the past few decades, that has eroded substantially. It's little wonder that many folks are concerned about that, IMHO.