Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast
Results 1 to 13 of 77
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,607
    nowhere in our Constitution does it say the Church must remain separate from the State.
    this is nothing more then a re-write of history and the people who spread this lie know it.

    when the nation was founded , 20% - 40% of the signers of the Constituion and the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers.

    it simply defies logic to believe the founders of the nation were trying to exclude themselves and their religion from government.

    one of the first actions of the newly formed government was to commision and distribute Bibles.

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    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.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    this refers only to Congress and it's laws,

    the reason why this is in the Constitution is because Europe was having problems with kings declaring themselves as head of the church and naming a particular sect of religion as the Nation's religion.

    in other words, anything the king did would be considered holy, and everyone in the country would have to change their religion to match the king's, other sects would often be persecuted.



    the First Amendmemt is a restriction on government , not the public.

    Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

    people may display religious symbols on their person or on their property, businesses , in their government posts, anywhere,
    ...form religious schools...preach in the public...

    the Federal government can not make laws against it , and State governments must abide by the "unalienable right"




  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    nowhere in our Constitution does it say the Church must remain separate from the State.
    this is nothing more then a re-write of history and the people who spread this lie know it.
    Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished in their short history.
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ligions64.html
    There it is, James Madisons ( the man who authored the first amendment) own words. What is so perplexing to you about this?

    Later on in the Detached Memoranda Madison says.. emphasis added by me.

    Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
    In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion.
    What is so perplexing to you about this? What Madison says is very clear.




    when the nation was founded , 20% - 40% of the signers of the Constituion and the Declaration of Independence were ordained ministers.
    Even if that is true ( which I doubt) it does not follow that they wanted government mixed with religon. Barry Lynn is a Church of Christ minister and he heads Americans United for the Seperation of Church and State.

    it simply defies logic to believe the founders of the nation were trying to exclude themselves and their religion from government.
    You think that a talking snake and magic apple is how things got started and you want to preach about what defies logic?



    one of the first actions of the newly formed government was to commision and distribute Bibles.
    Links?

    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    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.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

    this refers only to Congress and it's laws,
    Your assertion here has another implication that you are not considering. If only congress is prohibited from making laws that prohibit religon then the local government can prohibit it all they want. You can't have it both ways.


    the First Amendmemt is a restriction on government , not the public.

    Congress shall make no law ...prohibiting the free exercise thereof.
    And that applies ( according to you) to only congrees. Ergo local governments can restrict religion all they want. It's a double edge sword.

    people may display religious symbols on their person or on their property, businesses , in their government posts, anywhere,
    ...form religious schools...preach in the public...
    You (just like other dishonest findies) are obfucating between public and government property. My front yard is in the public but it's my private property so I can disply what ever religiou symbols I wish. Government property (which is paid for by all tax payers) is another story all together.


    The Federal government can not make laws against it , and State governments must abide by the "unalienable right"
    So if my religion is to place a worship center right under the intersection of two constilations and that happens to be your front yard does my religious rights trump your property rights?





  3. #3
    You know what I don't understand about these morons, (And I use the term loosely) is why they feel the need to have government support to spread the word of christ?

    Before you know it they'll be sponsoring federal laws to make every non-believer accept jesus as thier personal lord and savior under penalty of enslavement by the rightous.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Coastal Georgia
    Posts
    34,902
    Does it equally bother you that government school systems in California is teaching Islam ?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,607
    1) Madison's memoranda is not constitutional law
    2) it doesn't say what you think it says
    3) there is nothing that contradicts what i said
    4) "Religious freedom" means the right to choose which religion you want to be , to not be persicuted for it, or to not be religious,

    it does not mean, every time an atheist walks out his front door if he sees something religious he gets the ACLU to shut them down.


    yeah let's see what Madison says from thesame site you referred me to


    from transcripts of the Constituional meetings
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

    ...and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a NATIONAL religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely HURTFUL TO THE CAUSE OF RELIGION
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>



    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Livermore was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Madison conceived this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list. If there was any reason to RESTRAIN THE GOVERNMENT of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the State Governments. He thought that if they provided against the one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>





    they didn't want American government to declare one sect of religion as national and force everyone to be a part of it.

    you won't find anything in Constitutional law that justifies groups like the ACLU to go around ripping down everything that is Christian

    the ACLU is in clear violation of the law.


  6. #6
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,607
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Does it equally bother you that government school systems in California is teaching Islam ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    it wouldn't surprise me.

    the sickest part of this whole subject is,
    after the Liberals import hoards of extremist Muslims into the country, all of the sudden they will change their tune to support the violence.

    they will be making Christianity illegal with one hand and defending radical Islam with the other, and they will be defending both actions by quoting from the same Constitution.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Coastal Georgia
    Posts
    34,902
    I was asking Refer Madness

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,607
    i know

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    1) Madison's memoranda is not constitutional law
    Red herring. It is a straight from the mouth account of what the seperation of religion and government is and clearly proves that it exist in the first amendment.



    2) it doesn't say what you think it says
    Well because you say so I guess it is so!


    3) there is nothing that contradicts what i said
    Another nice unsubstantiated claim. But if you say so i guess your right!

    it does not mean, every time an atheist walks out his front door if he sees something religious he gets the ACLU to shut them down.
    Straw man. Every instance that I am aware of where the (as madison says) "encroachments by Ecclesiastical Bodies" takes place has been with tax payer funded entities.

    I am not however aware of any cases where the ACLU or anyone else is trying to tell someone what they can display on their own private property.




    yeah let's see what Madison says from thesame site you referred me to
    yes lets see your chopped up fragments.




    from transcripts of the Constituional meetings
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Madison said, he apprehended the meaning of the words to be, that Congress should not establish a religion, and enforce the legal observation of it by law, nor compel men to worship God in any manner contrary to their conscience.

    ...and the laws made under it, enabled them to make laws of such a nature as might infringe the rights of conscience and establish a NATIONAL religion; to prevent these effects he presumed the amendment was intended, and he thought it as well expressed as the nature of the language would admit.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ok this does nto appear to be on the page I linked. Would you be so kind to provide a link so i can read the full context?

    Not only that but there is nothing there that supports your case. care to specify?



    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Huntington said that he feared, with the gentleman first up on this subject, that the words might be taken in such latitude as to be extremely HURTFUL TO THE CAUSE OF RELIGION
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Ok so that's what Mr Huntington thought. How does this support your case?



    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Madison thought, if the word national was inserted before religion, it would satisfy the minds of honorable gentlemen. He believed that the people feared one sect might obtain a pre-eminence, or two combine together, and establish a religion to which they would compel others to conform.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Well this supports my case if anything.


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Livermore was not satisfied with that amendment; but he did not wish them to dwell long on the subject. He thought it would be better if it was altered, and made to read in this manner, that Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    STFW Mr Livermore thought?


    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Mr. Madison conceived this to be the most valuable amendment in the whole list. If there was any reason to RESTRAIN THE GOVERNMENT of the United States from infringing upon these essential rights, it was equally necessary that they should be secured against the State Governments. He thought that if they provided against the one, it was as necessary to provide against the other, and was satisfied that it would be equally grateful to the people.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    This is not Mr Madisons words this is someone elses conjecture. Why have you not included a link?





    they didn't want American government to declare one sect of religion as national and force everyone to be a part of it.
    This statement clearly contradicts madisons own view of what a violation of the first amendment is. Did you not read the part about congresional chaplins being a violation of the first amendment?

    Let me post it again for you to read.

    Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?

    In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a national religion. Madison, Detached Memoranda
    It's clear to anyone that can understand english that 1 .) madison says that simply appointing chaplins violates the constitution and 2. ) that doing so establishes a national religion.



    you won't find anything in Constitutional law that justifies groups like the ACLU to go around ripping down everything that is Christian

    the ACLU is in clear violation of the law.
    Strawman. The ACLU does not go around ripping down everything that is Christians. They are ripping down every violation of government entagelment with religion.

    The common thread you will find in all of these cases is that tax payer funded entities are being used to support one view over another. In no case will you find that someones private situation is being threatened.

    [Edited by braces4impact on 01-21-2006 at 10:15 PM]

  10. #10
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    Originally posted by wolfstrike
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    Does it equally bother you that government school systems in California is teaching Islam ?
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>


    it wouldn't surprise me.

    the sickest part of this whole subject is,
    after the Liberals import hoards of extremist Muslims into the country, all of the sudden they will change their tune to support the violence.

    they will be making Christianity illegal with one hand and defending radical Islam with the other, and they will be defending both actions by quoting from the same Constitution.

    And if Islam gains ground in this country and they start using the government to force their beliefs, on what gorounds could you argue against it? There is no seperation of religion and government according to you. So you would either have to take it or by hipocrites and be selective about seperating religion and government.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    California/Nevada
    Posts
    3,607
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ligions53.html


    i've done my best to point out what the founders of the nation intended in the First Amendment and why the ACLU is in clear violation.

    if you don't wish to see it then you don't wish to see it.


    Islam is naturally an intrusive religion, there are other factors in American law that make much of the practise illegal.
    respect for other people's rights is usually not part of they're thinking.
    but that is a future battle for another day.



  12. #12
    Originally posted by braces4impact
    And if Islam gains ground in this country and they start using the government to force their beliefs, on what gorounds could you argue against it? There is no seperation of religion and government according to you. So you would either have to take it or by hipocrites and be selective about seperating religion and government.
    Christians are quite intolerant of other religions. They are determined to maintain the majority position even if it means they have to put other belief systems down by force.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    May 2005
    Posts
    1,406
    Originally posted by wolfstrike
    http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/found...ligions53.html


    i've done my best to point out what the founders of the nation intended in the First Amendment and why the ACLU is in clear violation.

    if you don't wish to see it then you don't wish to see it.


    Islam is naturally an intrusive religion, there are other factors in American law that make much of the practise illegal.
    respect for other people's rights is usually not part of they're thinking.
    but that is a future battle for another day.


    wolf that link does nothing but show how the debate went. what matters is what was drafted and The Deatched Memoranda clearly reflects what was drafted. At least that's what madison says. But if you say your word carries more weight than the man who authored the first amendment then so be it.


Page 1 of 6 123456 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event