7 BJs and Kwanzaa OK, but not Santa, or Christmas, or.... [Archive] - Police Forums & Law Enforcement Forums @ Officer.com

nickg

12-09-2002, 08:52 AM

stupidity continues to run rampant. people need a good boot up their asses!!!!

<a href="http://www.tonguetied.us/" target="_blank">http://www.tonguetied.us/</a>

CinaC

12-09-2002, 09:14 AM

What's wrong with seven blow jobs? :confused:

The only place religion has in a public school - be it Islam, Judiasm, Buddhism, Satanism, Wiccan, Christianity (oh, I'm going to get it now!), Kwanzaa (I'm not clear if Kwanzaa is religious, or quite what Kwanzaa is) - is in history class, discussing the impacts of it.

[ 12-09-2002, 09:18 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 09:21 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sage Advice

Threats of legal action by the Florida chaper of American Atheists have not dissuade the city of Wildwood, Fla. from stationing two angels blowing trumpets in a Christmas display outside city hall this year, reports the Sumter County Times.

In a letter sent to the city, an atheist said he noticed the angels while driving through town last year about this time. “Angels are without question a religious symbol, and must be omitted this year and in the future,” wrote Greg McDowell.

Wildwood Mayor Ed Wolf and the city council there ignored the threat of litigation, however, and voted unanimously to display the angels again this year.

Wolf said if McDowell doesn’t like to look at angels, then he shouldn’t drive through downtown Wildwood.
<hr /></blockquote>At least SOMEONE still has some cajones, though...... :D

[ 12-09-2002, 09:23 AM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

CinaC

12-09-2002, 09:37 AM

Yeah, Shooter, those athiests do have balls to stand up for what they believe in -- the Constitutional seperation of Church & State.

I'd also like to point out that I didn't start this thread. :D

BrickCop

12-09-2002, 10:17 AM

You tell 'em CinJ!!!

Hey, isn't Santa Claus really SAINT NICHOLAS? Yet another Christian conspiracy no doubt. :rolleyes:

I just saw a cardboard cut out of that sneaky Saint (right next to Frosty the Snowman) on Town Hall property! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Somebody call the ACLU, I'm offended!!!

CinaC

12-09-2002, 10:27 AM

However you may feel when it's an icon of your own religion, what would you feel if it was an icon of another? Would you be offended if a public school sponsored a song praising Satan? Or displayed a symbol of the Wiccan faith on public property? What if, instead of a sign saying "Merry Christmas" across a door to a government building, it said "Praise be to Allah?"

If you wouldn't be offended by any of this, then fantastic. But of course the issue is deeper then being offended -- Thomas Jefferson coined the term "seperation of church and state", and it's quite clear that some people take that VERY seriously, and some people would rather ignore it all together.

I take it very seriously.

Shaky & Blue

12-09-2002, 11:00 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
Kwanzaa (I'm not clear if Kwanzaa is religious, or quite what Kwanzaa is)<hr /></blockquote>Kwanzaa is a non-religious holiday created in 1966 by Dr. Maulana Ron Karenga in celebration of the "Seven Principles" (Nguzo Saba). It was created primarily for Americans of African descent as a social/political statement in opposition to the commercial nature of the Christmas holidays, which Dr. Karenga believed involved exploitation of and discrimination against African Americans.

Celebration of Kwanzaa does not preclude the celebration of other, more religious traditions around the holidays. It isn't intended to work "against" Christmas, but to remind people of African descent of the Seven Principles by which Dr. Karenga believed they should live their lives:

UMOJA (UNITY) (oo-MOE-jah) - To strive for and maintain unity in the family, community, nation and race.

KUJICHAGULIA (SELF DETERMINATION) (koo-jee-cha-goo-LEE-ah) - To define ourselves, name ourselves, create for ourselves and speak for ourselves.

UJIMA (COLLECTIVE WORK AND RESPONSIBILITY) (oo-JEE-mah) - To build and maintain our community together and to make our brothers' and sisters' problems our problems and to solve them together.

UJAMAA (COOPERATIVE ECONOMICS) (oo-JAH-mah) - To build and maintain our own stores, shops and other businesses and to profit together from them.

NIA (PURPOSE) (nee-AH) - To make as our collective vocation the building and developing of our community in order to restore our people to their traditional greatness.

KUUMBA (CREATIVITY) (koo-OOM-bah) - To do always as much as we can, in the way that we can, in order to leave our community more beautiful and beneficial than when we inherited it.

IMANI (FAITH) (ee-MAH-nee) - To believe with all our hearts in our parents, our teachers, our leaders, our people and the righteousness and victory of our struggle.

Those who observe the holiday claim they have millions of observers. That number seems to be exaggerated, as it is often quite difficult to find any kind of local observance of the holiday in US cities.

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 11:16 AM

I am going to demand that all public schools discontinue the use of the letter T because it looks too much like a cross and that could be considered religious.

PelicanDriver

12-09-2002, 11:51 AM

C in a J,
There are a couple of points regarding Thomas Jefferson that are important.

He didn't consider himself an authority on the constitution since he had no part in its drafting. He was serving as ambassador to France at the time.

The context of the phrase "seperation of church and state" is an even more important issue. That phrase is contained in a letter to a Baptist congregation (Danbury, I believe) in which he was assuring them that the government would not interfere in the people's reigious activities. In other words, it was to assure them that they would be safe from the government, not that religion would have no influence on government.

The historical context of the establishment clause of the first amendment is also important. England had an official state religion, Church of England or Anglican. The Anglican denomination was also the official church of Virginia, and was supported by tax dollars. You could attend any church you wanted, but you were paying for the state church no matter what. That was the "establishment" the founders wanted to prevent, along with assuring that anyone could worship (or not) as they pleased.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 11:52 AM

What happened to the thick skin we Americans USED TO HAVE? We've been turned into a bunch of panty-bunching, foul-crying wussies.

SO WHAT if City Hall wants to have a CHRISTmas display, or schools want a CHRISTmas play?

America was founded on CHRISTian beliefs, not Islamic, Wiccan, Satanist or Aetheistic beliefs. While true that the colony of Rhode Island was founded as a 'safe haven' for NON-Puritan practitioners, they were all CHRISTian.

ALL the 1st Amendment means is that THE STATE cannot FORCE religion upon its citizens(such as King James I was doing in England ca 1619). It has NOTHING to do with City Hall displays, school plays or anything else left-leaning LIBERALS try to 'read into it'.

As the Eagle's song so aptly says Get over it!

[ 12-09-2002, 11:54 AM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

BrickCop

12-09-2002, 12:01 PM

Other offensive things that I'll be complaining to the ACLU about:

The comedian Gibert GODfrey(voice of Duck in Aflec TV ads). His last name has G-o-d in it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Johhny Carson has the SAME initals as Jesus Christ! Who does he think he is kidding?!Ok, so he's been retired for 10 years but his cult continues in re-runs! (I'm calling the FCC too!)

Seriously C&J, I really am with you. That "In God we trust" written on your US currency must be really offensive. Feel free to mail all your money to me, I'm here to help. :D

CinaC

12-09-2002, 12:57 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What happened to the thick skin we Americans USED TO HAVE? <hr /></blockquote>Uh, I'm right here, dude. Reminding people of the foundations of this nation. :D

<blockquote>quote:<hr />SO WHAT if City Hall wants to have a CHRISTmas display, or schools want a CHRISTmas play? <hr /></blockquote>If the attitude is, "so what if they do", then why not "so what if they don't?"

<blockquote>quote:<hr />America was founded on CHRISTian beliefs<hr /></blockquote>Shooter, you confuse the settlement of the continent by European settlers with the foundation of a secular nation by those who drafted the US Constitution.

They are NOT one and the same, no matter how some groups would like to claim that they are.

Are you familiar with the Treaty of Tripoli? It states quite clearly that the United States of America is not a nation founded on religious beliefs (even more importantly, it defuses the notion that the Constitution was drafted with the intent of making this a Christian nation). The Treaty says, in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was ratified by the Congress and signed by President John Adams on June 10th, 1797.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In other words, it was to assure them that they would be safe from the government, not that religion would have no influence on government.<hr /></blockquote>That's one way of looking at it. Jefferson was taking fire from religious groups who disliked his views of full religious liberty (even in this "enlightened age", certain people -- like a certain teacher/cop I could mention -- seem to bristle at giving Wiccans, Muslims, and other groups the Constitutional freedoms their religions are entitled too). Jefferson quite clearly showed what his views on religion and the government were in his response. Why is it so often that Jefferson is quoted favorably in pro-2nd Amendment debates, but as soon as the topic turns to this issue, he is dimissed?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It has NOTHING to do with City Hall displays, school plays or anything else left-leaning LIBERALS try to 'read into it'.<hr /></blockquote>No, but it does have EVERYTHING to do with the intentions of those who drafted the Constitution in the first place. It does have EVERYTHING to do with the religious organizations that have succeeded in making this issue not about the Constitution but rather calling those who dare oppose them "complainers" and "whiners." And it has EVERYTHING to do with the Treaty of Tripoli, which to the total and complete annoyance of those same religious organizations WILL NOT DISSAPEAR if they pray hard enough.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The Anglican denomination was also the official church of Virginia, and was supported by tax dollars. You could attend any church you wanted, but you were paying for the state church no matter what. That was the "establishment" the founders wanted to prevent, along with assuring that anyone could worship (or not) as they pleased.<hr /></blockquote>Massachussets was the last state to maintain an "official" religion. And it disestablished ... in 1833.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That "In God we trust" written on your US currency must be really offensive. Feel free to mail all your money to me, I'm here to help.<hr /></blockquote>There is, unfortunatly, nothing I can do about that, and since I don't relish living in a box on the street, it's an evil I must deal with. I certainly don't trust in God -- I don't understand why God does what It does, and the mistaken beliefs that It loves us, or that It can be trusted (to do what, I'd like to know) are, to my religious beliefs, in error.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />As the Eagle's song so aptly says Get over it!<hr /></blockquote>Here's an idea, Shooter. Why don't you?

[ 12-09-2002, 01:05 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

SpecOpsWarrior

12-09-2002, 01:06 PM

This thread is being moved to Various Topics.

Feel free to continue arguing in there.

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 01:39 PM

C in a J, very well put. I agree with everything you said and I'm also very impressed with the knowledge you have on the subject. That being said I now have to say who cares about some stupid religious themed Christmas decorations. People go on about this like a couple of angel decorations are going to bring about the downfall of the nation. How much freakin' time, energy, and money has been spent on such a petty little problem is embarrassing. Stuff like this is why the United States is looked at like one big Jerry Springer Show by the rest of the modern world. Not that I really give a crap about what some French snob thinks of me or this country. I know how great it is. But sometimes I just gotta' sit back and say "Damn we make a big deal about some stupid s#$t." If we put half this much effort into worring about the teaching going on in the classrooms instead of the decorations in them then maybe we wouldn't be intellectually falling behind countries like Japan. The PC Nazis are killing us while trying to protect us from ourselves. Maybe a few religious decorations in school are OK as long as every religion has an opportunity to be represented. Don't get me wrong, I think seperation of church and state is good. The govt. should not be allowed to influence religion or vice versa. As far as the arguement that we need religion in order to infuse positive values into our govt. goes that's a bunch of crap. My values are fine without religious influence.

CinaC

12-09-2002, 01:48 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That being said I now have to say who cares about some stupid religious themed Christmas decorations. <hr /></blockquote>I agree with you, but I also believe that Christmas has become a commericial holiday, and its original religious spirit has long ago been trampled by the drive to the shopping mall.

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 01:53 PM

Have you been to a mall lately? It's a religious expierence. In fact every time I go I think about sending some people to meet God (or that other guy).

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 02:10 PM

While toleration can be a good thing, too much toleration....of other's beliefs, religions, etc, etc, etc....has done much harm to our country.

No matter what politicians may decree, man was not made perfect, in that 'we' will get along with everyone. One cannot legislate human feelings.

It is not wrong for me to want to see Christian displays set up during the Holiday Season. It is not wrong for me to want to pray in school. It is not wrong for me dispise Satanists.

It IS wrong, however, for ANY person or group to DEMAND that I set aside MY beliefs because 'someone might get their feelings hurt.'

If someone wishes to practice voodoo, Islam or NOT practice any religion at all, FINE. Just don't go telling me that I have to sacrifice MY beliefs and traditions so you may 'feel better'.

jellybean40

12-09-2002, 02:16 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by BRICKCOP:

The comedian Gibert GODfrey(voice of Duck in Aflec TV ads). His last name has G-o-d in it. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />
<hr /></blockquote>He must have already taken care of that for you... his name is spelled Gilbert Gottfried :D

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 02:18 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by shooter1201:
It is not wrong for me dispise Satanists.<hr /></blockquote>No it's not. We have the right to hate anyone or thing we want. But we still have to give those people an equal opportunity to express themselves. (or at least we're supposed to)

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 02:21 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by SpecOpsWarrior:
This thread is being moved to Various Topics.

Feel free to continue arguing in there.<hr /></blockquote>Thank God, I thought this topic had been closed BEFORE I had a chance to get involved! :D

Some of this stuff is over the top. We've had Christmas for a long time, and I ain't gonna call it anything else.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 02:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />. But we still have to give those people an equal opportunity to express themselves. <hr /></blockquote>WHY? It is exactly this toleration of Satanists, gays, etc that is RUINING America.

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 02:28 PM

I was thinking of calling it "Super Great Present Grab-up Day (oh yea, and God's kinda cool too." or maybe "Christapalooza."

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 02:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />WHY? It is exactly this toleration of Satanists, gays, etc that is RUINING America.<hr /></blockquote>That's the way I see it as well. The thing about this so called tolerance, is that some groups want you to be tolerant of them, but they won't be tolerant of you. To be tolerant you have to be intolerant.

CinaC

12-09-2002, 02:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It IS wrong, however, for ANY person or group to DEMAND that I set aside MY beliefs because 'someone might get their feelings hurt.'<hr /></blockquote>Bull**** Shooter. Nothing about keeping government property clear of religious displays involves setting YOUR beliefs aside. Does the government come into YOUR church, or YOUR home and tell you how to worship?

If an organization has told your church to take down its Christmas decorations, or told you to take those lights off your house, or hide your tree so it can't be seen through the window, you MIGHT have a point.

But you don't have a point. Please explain to me how keeping government owned and/or operated buildings free of Christmas trees is an infringement on your faith. Or has either place of your employment been forcing you to remove any jewelry that might resemble religious ornamentation?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To be tolerant you have to be intolerant<hr /></blockquote>And to be intolerant, you have to be intolerant. This is like countering "guns don't kill people" with "bullets don't kill people."

My tolerance ends when religion and government intermingle. They've no business doing that, and it is forbidden by law, no matter how much some might wish it was otherwise.

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 02:44 PM

[/QUOTE]WHY? It is exactly this toleration of Satanists, gays, etc that is RUINING America.[/QB][/QUOTE]

YEA! LET'S GO LYNCH 'EM!!!! Oh wait, I'm a cop and a former soldier who is sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States. The WHOLE Constitution of the United States. Not just the parts that are convienient or popular. I hate that pesky 4th amendment sometimes. Especially when I know a bad guy's got dope but I don't have a reason to search him. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about trimming back the Constitution a little bit (again that 4th amendment thing). But until they do I'll uphold every bit of it. And for the record I tend to think that it's the ultra conservative retards (and the ultra liberal retards but I'll talk about them another time) that are ruining this country. They think that America is nothing but a bunch of WASPS and refuse to believe that anyone else's opinion should count but theirs when it's quite obvious that my opinion is the only one that should matter.

P.S. That last little thing about my opinion was a joke. (or was it?)

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 02:57 PM

Mike Tx, how did I know you would say something like that? Why is it that the people that think that the 2nd Amendment is the most sacred thing in this world would wipe their a$% with the 1st Amendment. It's like: "Nah, they were just kidding with that 1st one, but this 2nd one is good s#*t."

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 03:02 PM

Why was having Christmas displays in city parks and on governemnt grounds OK during WWII and on up until the 1970s, but now it's suddenly evil? What's happened to America in those 60 years? Some would have you believe we have 'grown up'. To borrow CiaJ's termonlogy, BULL****!!

Liberal, left-leaning politicians, judges and lawyers are hard at work driving nails into the coffin containing America and its once sacred values.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 03:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />“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.

<hr /></blockquote>Source: <a href="http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html" target="_blank">http://www.sunnetworks.net/~ggarman/tripoli.html</a>

[ 12-09-2002, 03:11 PM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

Shaky & Blue

12-09-2002, 03:31 PM

Why is tolerance important?

One of the greatest minds in Western thought was Socrates, often considered the father of modern philosophy despite the fact that he never wrote anything. Instead, he taught and questioned the people of Athens, relaying his thoughts by way of the spoken word. What we know of his teachings is set down in the writings of his students, Aristophanes and Xenophon, and most notably Plato.

Socrates was known for staying true to himself and his beliefs despite the whims of the masses. We would think of him as something of a hero. That stubborn adherence to what he believed was right resulted in his trial for "corrupting the youth and interfering with the religion of Athens." He was found guilty and executed in 399 BC, despite the absence of any youths, parents of youths or religious authorities who would testify that any corruption had taken place. He was convicted on the argument of his prosecutors, who successfully fooled the jury of 500 Athenians.

He was lost to the world by virtue of the intolerance and ignorance of the people of Athens. They did not like what Socrates had to say, or what his prosecutors CLAIMED he had to say, so they silenced him. Some 2400 years later, the intolerance and execution are generally viewed as a great mistake.

We in the Western world learned from Socrates and others (including Galileo, who was charged with heresy for believing the Earth was round), that tolerance of alternative views is actually quite important. While a viewpoint may be abhorrent to us now, we can't be certain that history won't go against us and find truth in that we wish to silence.

Sure, we all find it absurd that a Satanist's beliefs would have any real value in the face of truth; but if you silence the Satanist, you've opened the door to silencing anyone. Where will the line be drawn? Once you abandon a belief in tolerance, ANYONE is fair game. If you start on this path, soon all that will be necessary to silence YOU is to compare you to another group that has already been silenced. Priests molesting boys is evil, right? As evil as a Satanic ritual? Should we then get rid of Catholicism? But Catholics believe in the same god that Baptists do, so they must be evil as well. Perhaps we should censure the Baptist. See how easy that is?

Once you've discarded tolerance, all it really takes to destroy any belief are clever prosecutors like the three that had Socrates convicted. All they have to do is stand up before the masses and lie and misrepresent the people they oppose. If they're clever enough to cause the people to misunderstand the issues, the abolition of Catholics and Baptists, as mentioned above, is not that far-fetched.

Intolerance is a Pandora's box. Once you open it to get rid of one viewpoint, any belief or viewpoint is at risk.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 03:44 PM

'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'

In this case, 'evil' is represented by the toleration Americans have given to Satanism, homosexuality and other abhorent lifestyles....lifestyles the left-leaning Liberals are working overtime convincing Americans are normal.

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 04:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by shooter1201:
'All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.'

In this case, 'evil' is represented by the toleration Americans have given to Satanism, homosexuality and other abhorent lifestyles....lifestyles the left-leaning Liberals are working overtime convincing Americans are normal.<hr /></blockquote>Left-leaning Liberals. Say that 10x fast! By the way shooter, just because you say this is the "evil" doesn't make it so. You are representing your opinion as fact. But Iguss what I am most curious about is this: if you think tolerance is the problem then what is the solution? I guess that would be intolerance. But what would that entail exactly?

By the way you should probably chage your signature line to: "An imagination is a terrible thing to waste, as long as you only imagine things I agree with. Cuz then I'll get midevil on yer a$*"

[ 12-09-2002, 04:07 PM: Message edited by: Chief Wiggum ]

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 04:06 PM

I would like to see a RETURN to Pre-WWII values in America.

Chief Wiggum

12-09-2002, 04:12 PM

Yeah good ol' pre WWII values. Get women out of the work place and back in the kitchen where they belong. And get those black people out of my restaurant too, I'm tryin' to eat.

P.S. If you don't recognize this, it's called sarcasim (i can't spell either)

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 05:22 PM

Understood, Chief.... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Too bad Artie isn't in on this one. I could use a break from the heat. LOL

By returning to 'Pre-WWII values', I meant everything that made America STRONG during those hard times. Everything that ISN'T present today in America. I never implied that women or Blacks should be relegated to a lesser role in society.

Bill R

12-09-2002, 05:23 PM

The Treaty says, in Article 11: "As the Government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion." The treaty was ratified by the Congress and signed by President John Adams on June 10th, 1797.

Of course Crazy, we all know everything in treaties is true. Governments never tell the other party what they want to hear. Just ask the Indians...

CopInNY

12-09-2002, 05:43 PM

I'm not even going to bother reading all this nonsense. Some people look for a reason to **** and moan, that's all there is to it. I say ignore them.

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 06:58 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Mike Tx, how did I know you would say something like that?<hr /></blockquote>Most likely you have been looking for something to take issue with me and that was it. Whatever "it" was.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> Why is it that the people that think that the 2nd Amendment is the most sacred thing in this world would wipe their a$% with the 1st Amendment. It's like: "Nah, they were just kidding with that 1st one, but this 2nd one is good s#*t."<hr /></blockquote>I don't know why some people are like that. I cetainly am not, but I have a better question for you: Why do YOU seem to object to me exercising my first amendment right to reply with what I think? Is it because it doesn't fit YOUR agenda?

That's cetainly what it looks like to me, not that anyone cares. Besides, I did not make any statements that objected to any 1st amendment issue.

CinaC

12-09-2002, 07:19 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Of course Crazy, we all know everything in treaties is true. Governments never tell the other party what they want to hear. <hr /></blockquote>If the government chooses to ignore various treaties, then it does so illegally. I find it amusing that you seek to support your desire for religious intermingling with government, by having that government break its own laws, and its own constitution to do so. Damn good thing we have a Second Amendment - if they keep on this trend, we may all need it.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />does not exist at all [in the Arabic]. There is no Article 11 [in the Arabic].<hr /></blockquote>But it is not the Arabic translation of the treaty that we are concerned with. It is the English translation of the treaty of the translation that we are concerned with.

From your same source:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />a ratified copy of the Treaty with Tripoli’ [in the English language]<hr /></blockquote>And again, it is the English language translation that the Senate ratified, and that President Adams signed. Further,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which President John Adams signed and “ordered the premises [propositions] to be made public” included Article 11 in the English language. <hr /></blockquote>So you can't really claim they didn't know what they were signing, now can you?

I think you failed to read your source deeply enough. As the conclusion quite puts it quite well:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />they make much ado about the fact that Barlow’s version in English was a poor paraphrase of the version in Arabic; and they grind their teeth over the fact that it was the only English version in existence and the only one considered when the Senate of the United States read, accepted, approved, and ratified the 1797 Treaty with Tripoli. The fact which completely destroys their argument is that none of the Senators who read, accepted, approved, and ratified the Treaty could read Arabic. The official and only 1797 Treaty with Tripoli which was read, accepted, approved, and ratified by the Senate of the United States was the one penned by Joel Barlow in the English language. And, whether the so-called “religious right” revisionists like it or not, Article 11 of the official 1797 Treaty with Tripoli was in the Treaty in 1797 and is appropriately recorded in the official treaty book: “The government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion” <hr /></blockquote>***

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why was having Christmas displays in city parks and on governemnt grounds OK during WWII and on up until the 1970s, but now it's suddenly evil? <hr /></blockquote>There's a difference between something being evil, and something being Unconstitutional, Shooter. No one is saying Christmas displays in city parks and on government grounds are evil. They are saying they're Unconstitutional. And they're right.

And, for the record, this trend is not something that began in the 1970's. Did you know that in 1910, the Illinois Supreme Court ruled mandatory public school prayer ... Unconstitutional? There's one of your pre-World War II values, Shooter, adjusted for equal rights regardless of gender or race.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why do YOU seem to object to me exercising my first amendment right to reply with what I think<hr /></blockquote>Mike, you're making the mistaken belief that just because someone has told you that you're wrong, that they've objected to your statement. You are welcome to say whatever you wish, up to and including that you have personal information that Martians are about to invade. However, your right to free speech does not mean that what you are saying is the truth.

[ 12-09-2002, 07:32 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 07:22 PM

Santa Claus doesn't exist, so you wankers who want to ban him are off your rockers.

CinaC

12-09-2002, 07:30 PM

It doesn't matter if an icon of a religion truly exists or not. Do you really want to get into that kind of slippery slope? First Allah goes ... then Jewish symbols go. Then various Christian denominations get tossed out too.

All religious icons. All government buildings. It's plain. It's simple. And in the immortal words of John Adams, "I do hereby enjoin and require all persons bearing office civil or military within the United States, and all others citizens or inhabitants thereof, faithfully to observe and fulfil the said Treaty and every clause and article thereof."

So get with it. :D

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 08:12 PM

So the POTUS lied when he made the treatie with Tripoli. That was the beginning of a very long pattern of events(when it comes to treaties). The US broke all of its treaties with the Native Americans...what makes this one any better....not that it matters now?

CinaC

12-09-2002, 08:17 PM

So, Shooter, what you're saying is that the entire Senate, and John Adams, are liars?

You may not like the Treaty of Tripoli, and what it means for religion in this nation, but on that basis alone it does NOT give you the right to demean those men.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The US broke all of its treaties with the Native Americans...<hr /></blockquote>Completely unrelated. Here's an example you might understand. What if a colleague of yours robs a bank. Does that mean that you are equally as corrupt as he? Of course not. But you would have us belief that the actions of or towards one are indicitive of all, and this is not the case.

You have not proven that the Treaty of Tripoli was signed in bad faith. Rather, those who ratified it, and the President who signed it were very well aware of what they were doing -- making it harder for religious organizations to get a foothold in government, and hopefully vice-versa as well.

No one has said you have to like the Treaty of Tripoli. No one has said you have to like the Constitution of the United States of America. But they are what they are, and it's very unlikely that they will ever be changed. So you essentially have two options: the first is that you can ignore what I've said in this post and continue with the mistaken belief that this is a Christian nation. The second is that you can learn something new about this nation. Hey, it's never too late to learn something new, now is it?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Some people look for a reason to **** and moan, <hr /></blockquote>And certain people *cough*NickG!*cough* seem to love ****ing and moaning about certain other people who **** and moan.

[ 12-09-2002, 08:24 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 08:36 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />GEORGE WASHINGTON'S PRAYER

"Almighty God, we make our earnest prayer that Thou wilt keep the United States in Thy holy protection, that Thou wilt incline the hearts of the citizens to cultivate a spirit of subordination and obedience to government, and entertain a brotherly affection and love for one another and for their fellow citizens of the United States at large.

And finally, that Thou wilt most graciously be pleased to dispose us all to do justice, to love mercy, and to demean ourselves with that charity, humility, and pacific temper of mind which were the characteristics of the Divine Author of our blessed religion, and without an humble imitation of whose example in these things, we can never hope to be a happy nation.

Grant our supplications, we beseech thee, through Jesus Christ our Lord. Amen."

George Washington
Written at Newburg, June 8th, 1783
Sent to the governors of all the states.

<hr /></blockquote>Sure sounds like a Nation founded by a bunch of heathens to me......

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 08:40 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Washington, D.C.
March 30, 1863

By the President of the United States of America.

A Proclamation.

Whereas, the Senate of the United States, devoutly recognizing the Supreme Authority and just Government of Almighty God, in all the affairs of men and of nations, has, by a resolution, requested the President to designate and set apart a day for National prayer and humiliation.

And whereas it is the duty of nations as well as of men, to own their dependence upon the overruling power of God, to confess their sins and transgressions, in humble sorrow, yet with assured hope that genuine repentance will lead to mercy and pardon; and to recognize the sublime truth, announced in the Holy Scriptures and proven by all history, that those nations only are blessed whose God is the Lord.

And, insomuch as we know that, by His divine law, nations like individuals are subjected to punishments and chastisements in this world, may we not justly fear that the awful calamity of civil war, which now desolates the land, may be but a punishment, inflicted upon us, for our presumptuous sins, to the needful end of our national reformation as a whole People? We have been the recipients of the choicest bounties of Heaven. We have been preserved, these many years, in peace and prosperity. We have grown in numbers, wealth and power, as no other nation has ever grown. But we have forgotten God. We have forgotten the gracious hand which preserved us in peace, and multiplied and enriched and strengthened us; and we have vainly imagined, in the deceitfulness of our hearts, that all these blessings were produced by some superior wisdom and virtue of our own. Intoxicated with unbroken success, we have become too self-sufficient to feel the necessity of redeeming and preserving grace, too proud to pray to the God that made us!

It behooves us then, to humble ourselves before the offended Power, to confess our national sins, and to pray for clemency and forgiveness.

Now, therefore, in compliance with the request, and fully concurring in the views of the Senate, I do, by this my proclamation, designate and set apart Thursday, the 30th. day of April, 1863, as a day of national humiliation, fasting and prayer. And I do hereby request all the People to abstain, on that day, from their ordinary secular pursuits, and to unite, at their several places of public worship and their respective homes, in keeping the day holy to the Lord, and devoted to the humble discharge of the religious duties proper to that solemn occasion.

All this being done, in sincerity and truth, let us then rest humbly in the hope authorized by the Divine teachings, that the united cry of the Nation will be heard on high, and answered with blessings, no less than the pardon of our national sins, and the restoration of our now divided and suffering Country, to its former happy condition of unity and peace.

In witness whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the seal of the United States to be affixed.

Done at the City of Washington, this thirtieth day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and sixty-three, and of the Independence of the United States the eighty seventh.

By the President: Abraham Lincoln

<hr /></blockquote>More documentation that America isn't a Christian nation......or is it?

[ 12-09-2002, 08:44 PM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 08:43 PM

Shooter, no one cares what a bunch of dead white guys said. That seemingly is the left view anyway.

CinaC

12-09-2002, 08:43 PM

Shooter,

The government was founded as a secular nation. No one said it was founded that way by a secular people.

Frankly, I wish you would either post cold hard facts that this government was founded as a Christian government, or that you would just go away.

You remind me of those whiny ****ants crying "think about the children killed by guns" when they whine about taking away our RKBA. They play on emotion in their derision of firearms, not fact. They ignore history, and they ignore the Constitution when they do that.

Want to know something? It is the exact same thing that YOU'RE doing.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Shooter, no one cares what a bunch of dead white guys said. <hr /></blockquote>Certainly I care very much about what a bunch of dead white guys said. However, I care more about what they wrote, since that is the legacy passed to us. And the wall of seperation between church and state, backed up in the correspondance of the Founding Fathers and by the very legal Treaty of Tripoli is the sad evidence that certain forum members here most certainly DO NOT CARE - be it out of ignorance, or spite, or dislike, or plain religious prejudice - for what those "dead white guys said."

Mike, you have attempted to play not only the race card, but also the political ideology card in an attempt to prove "your" side of the issue. And yet it has back fired on you. How can you make the claim that liberals don't care for what a bunch of "dead white guys said", when it is I (a liberal!) using what a bunch of "dead white guys said" to so devestatingly tear down your arguements that you must attempt such a vain ploy?

Shooter, those speeches are nothing more then a declaration of the personal religious beliefs of their writers. As I have said at least three times in this thread, you are constantly and consistently confusing the colonization of the continent with the formation of the nation as a political unit. You are, sadly, 100% wrong. Despite what you might alledge, no one but the religious-right has ever held the notion that any employee of the government -- political leader or part time cop -- is forbidden from a personal political belief.

[ 12-09-2002, 08:54 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 08:46 PM

Who's the one that has resorted to name-calling in this debate?

CinaC

12-09-2002, 08:56 PM

Maybe I'm lost. Why don't you point it out to me? Or better yet, debate the issue on the merits of your case without trying to win with the old "waaah, he called me a name, I win by default!"

<blockquote>quote:<hr />You remind me of those whiny ****ants <hr /></blockquote>If this is what you're referring too, I didn't say you were a whiny ****ant ... merely that you (through your debating tactics) reminded me of them.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 08:59 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />
WHEN it was first perceived, in early times, that no middle course for America remained between unlimited submission to a foreign legislature and a total independence of its claims, men of reflection were less apprehensive of danger from the formidable power of fleets and armies they must determine to resist than from those contests and dissensions which would certainly arise concerning the forms of government to be instituted over the whole and over the parts of this extensive country. Relying, however, on the purity of their intentions, the justice of their cause, and the integrity and intelligence of the people, under an overruling Providence which had so signally protected this country from the first, the representatives of this nation, then consisting of little more than half its present number, not only broke to pieces the chains which were forging and the rod of iron that was lifted up, but frankly cut asunder the ties which had bound them, and launched into an ocean of uncertainty. 1
The zeal and ardor of the people during the Revolutionary war, supplying the place of government, commanded a degree of order sufficient at least for the temporary preservation of society. The Confederation which was early felt to be necessary was prepared from the models of the Batavian and Helvetic confederacies, the only examples which remain with any detail and precision in history, and certainly the only ones which the people at large had ever considered. But reflecting on the striking difference in so many particulars between this country and those where a courier may go from the seat of government to the frontier in a single day, it was then certainly foreseen by some who assisted in Congress at the formation of it that it could not be durable. 2
Negligence of its regulations, inattention to its recommendations, if not disobedience to its authority, not only in individuals but in States, soon appeared with their melancholy consequences—universal languor, jealousies and rivalries of States, decline of navigation and commerce, discouragement of necessary manufactures, universal fall in the value of lands and their produce, contempt of public and private faith, loss of consideration and credit with foreign nations, and at length in discontents, animosities, combinations, partial conventions, and insurrection, threatening some great national calamity. 3
In this dangerous crisis the people of America were not abandoned by their usual good sense, presence of mind, resolution, or integrity. Measures were pursued to concert a plan to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquillity, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty. The public disquisitions, discussions, and deliberations issued in the present happy Constitution of Government. 4
Employed in the service of my country abroad during the whole course of these transactions, I first saw the Constitution of the United States in a foreign country. Irritated by no literary altercation, animated by no public debate, heated by no party animosity, I read it with great satisfaction, as the result of good heads prompted by good hearts, as an experiment better adapted to the genius, character, situation, and relations of this nation and country than any which had ever been proposed or suggested. In its general principles and great outlines it was conformable to such a system of government as I had ever most esteemed, and in some States, my own native State in particular, had contributed to establish. Claiming a right of suffrage, in common with my fellow-citizens, in the adoption or rejection of a constitution which was to rule me and my posterity, as well as them and theirs, I did not hesitate to express my approbation of it on all occasions, in public and in private. It was not then, nor has been since, any objection to it in my mind that the Executive and Senate were not more permanent. Nor have I ever entertained a thought of promoting any alteration in it but such as the people themselves, in the course of their experience, should see and feel to be necessary or expedient, and by their representatives in Congress and the State legislatures, according to the Constitution itself, adopt and ordain. 5
Returning to the bosom of my country after a painful separation from it for ten years, I had the honor to be elected to a station under the new order of things, and I have repeatedly laid myself under the most serious obligations to support the Constitution. The operation of it has equaled the most sanguine expectations of its friends, and from an habitual attention to it, satisfaction in its administration, and delight in its effects upon the peace, order, prosperity, and happiness of the nation I have acquired an habitual attachment to it and veneration for it. 6
What other form of government, indeed, can so well deserve our esteem and love? 7
There may be little solidity in an ancient idea that congregations of men into cities and nations are the most pleasing objects in the sight of superior intelligences, but this is very certain, that to a benevolent human mind there can be no spectacle presented by any nation more pleasing, more noble, majestic, or august, than an assembly like that which has so often been seen in this and the other Chamber of Congress, of a Government in which the Executive authority, as well as that of all the branches of the Legislature, are exercised by citizens selected at regular periods by their neighbors to make and execute laws for the general good. Can anything essential, anything more than mere ornament and decoration, be added to this by robes and diamonds? Can authority be more amiable and respectable when it descends from accidents or institutions established in remote antiquity than when it springs fresh from the hearts and judgments of an honest and enlightened people? For it is the people only that are represented. It is their power and majesty that is reflected, and only for their good, in every legitimate government, under whatever form it may appear. The existence of such a government as ours for any length of time is a full proof of a general dissemination of knowledge and virtue throughout the whole body of the people. And what object or consideration more pleasing than this can be presented to the human mind? If national pride is ever justifiable or excusable it is when it springs, not from power or riches, grandeur or glory, but from conviction of national innocence, information, and benevolence. 8
In the midst of these pleasing ideas we should be unfaithful to ourselves if we should ever lose sight of the danger to our liberties if anything partial or extraneous should infect the purity of our free, fair, virtuous, and independent elections. If an election is to be determined by a majority of a single vote, and that can be procured by a party through artifice or corruption, the Government may be the choice of a party for its own ends, not of the nation for the national good. If that solitary suffrage can be obtained by foreign nations by flattery or menaces, by fraud or violence, by terror, intrigue, or venality, the Government may not be the choice of the American people, but of foreign nations. It may be foreign nations who govern us, and not we, the people, who govern ourselves; and candid men will acknowledge that in such cases choice would have little advantage to boast of over lot or chance. 9
Such is the amiable and interesting system of government (and such are some of the abuses to which it may be exposed) which the people of America have exhibited to the admiration and anxiety of the wise and virtuous of all nations for eight years under the administration of a citizen who, by a long course of great actions, regulated by prudence, justice, temperance, and fortitude, conducting a people inspired with the same virtues and animated with the same ardent patriotism and love of liberty to independence and peace, to increasing wealth and unexampled prosperity, has merited the gratitude of his fellow-citizens, commanded the highest praises of foreign nations, and secured immortal glory with posterity. 10
In that retirement which is his voluntary choice may he long live to enjoy the delicious recollection of his services, the gratitude of mankind, the happy fruits of them to himself and the world, which are daily increasing, and that splendid prospect of the future fortunes of this country which is opening from year to year. His name may be still a rampart, and the knowledge that he lives a bulwark, against all open or secret enemies of his country's peace. This example has been recommended to the imitation of his successors by both Houses of Congress and by the voice of the legislatures and the people throughout the nation. 11
On this subject it might become me better to be silent or to speak with diffidence; but as something may be expected, the occasion, I hope, will be admitted as an apology if I venture to say that if a preference, upon principle, of a free republican government, formed upon long and serious reflection, after a diligent and impartial inquiry after truth; if an attachment to the Constitution of the United States, and a conscientious determination to support it until it shall be altered by the judgments and wishes of the people, expressed in the mode prescribed in it; if a respectful attention to the constitutions of the individual States and a constant caution and delicacy toward the State governments; if an equal and impartial regard to the rights, interest, honor, and happiness of all the States in the Union, without preference or regard to a northern or southern, an eastern or western, position, their various political opinions on unessential points or their personal attachments; if a love of virtuous men of all parties and denominations; if a love of science and letters and a wish to patronize every rational effort to encourage schools, colleges, universities, academies, and every institution for propagating knowledge, virtue, and religion among all classes of the people, not only for their benign influence on the happiness of life in all its stages and classes, and of society in all its forms, but as the only means of preserving our Constitution from its natural enemies, the spirit of sophistry, the spirit of party, the spirit of intrigue, the profligacy of corruption, and the pestilence of foreign influence, which is the angel of destruction to elective governments; if a love of equal laws, of justice, and humanity in the interior administration; if an inclination to improve agriculture, commerce, and manufacturers for necessity, convenience, and defense; if a spirit of equity and humanity toward the aboriginal nations of America, and a disposition to meliorate their condition by inclining them to be more friendly to us, and our citizens to be more friendly to them; if an inflexible determination to maintain peace and inviolable faith with all nations, and that system of neutrality and impartiality among the belligerent powers of Europe which has been adopted by this Government and so solemnly sanctioned by both Houses of Congress and applauded by the legislatures of the States and the public opinion, until it shall be otherwise ordained by Congress; if a personal esteem for the French nation, formed in a residence of seven years chiefly among them, and a sincere desire to preserve the friendship which has been so much for the honor and interest of both nations; if, while the conscious honor and integrity of the people of America and the internal sentiment of their own power and energies must be preserved, an earnest endeavor to investigate every just cause and remove every colorable pretense of complaint; if an intention to pursue by amicable negotiation a reparation for the injuries that have been committed on the commerce of our fellow-citizens by whatever nation, and if success can not be obtained, to lay the facts before the Legislature, that they may consider what further measures the honor and interest of the Government and its constituents demand; if a resolution to do justice as far as may depend upon me, at all times and to all nations, and maintain peace, friendship, and benevolence with all the world; if an unshaken confidence in the honor, spirit, and resources of the American people, on which I have so often hazarded my all and never been deceived; if elevated ideas of the high destinies of this country and of my own duties toward it, founded on a knowledge of the moral principles and intellectual improvements of the people deeply engraven on my mind in early life, and not obscured but exalted by experience and age; and, with humble reverence, I feel it to be my duty to add, if a veneration for the religion of a people who profess and call themselves Christians, and a fixed resolution to consider a decent respect for Christianity among the best recommendations for the public service, can enable me in any degree to comply with your wishes, it shall be my strenuous endeavor that this sagacious injunction of the two Houses shall not be without effect. 12
With this great example before me, with the sense and spirit, the faith and honor, the duty and interest, of the same American people pledged to support the Constitution of the United States, I entertain no doubt of its continuance in all its energy, and my mind is prepared without hesitation to lay myself under the most solemn obligations to support it to the utmost of my power. 13
And may that Being who is supreme over all, the Patron of Order, the Fountain of Justice, and the Protector in all ages of the world of virtuous liberty, continue His blessing upon this nation and its Government and give it all possible success and duration consistent with the ends of His providence.
<hr /></blockquote>John Adams
Inaugural Address
In the City of Philadelphia
Saturday, March 4, 1797

Mike Tx

12-09-2002, 09:01 PM

Oh, I think they care, they care great deal, else they would not be having this debate. This country clearly was founded with religious influence and values. There can be no mistaking that.

Shooter most definatly should not go away. I for one agree with most of what he says, and let me re-iterate that I am not a religious person.

There is nowhere in the constitution that says religion cannot be part of the government. I do agree that we have freedom of religion however, and that includes doing what ever religious thing you like, and that the government can't stop you. It's ridiculous, and revisionist, to think otherwise, given the history readily available for reading.

Some people today don't believe in God, and they don't have to. They believe in themself, and that others like them are correct in thinking that way, so they try to justify it. and that's ok for them. They think that since it's old fashioned to go to church, or to abstain from sex, or to not covet thy neighbor, or any other things that are not moral to most, and since they want to do some of those things, the easy way out is to denounce religion, since religion is not supportive of immoral things. And they seek to gain others support by various methods.

However, the people who first came to this country had a different set of values. They may not have all worshipped God, but they knew right from wrong, and while they had to believe in something, they could not turn on MTV and see tits and aZZ flashing 24 hours a day, so they choose to believe in a higher authority that they modeled there life and a nation after that.

Now, why are we trying to demoralize it?

lone ranger

12-09-2002, 09:02 PM

Tolerance would go a long way to correcting this problem.

But it seems a religious discussion has a way of disolving into a political one. And the tolerance is a little one sided.

The reason things aren't the same as in Shooters "pre-WWII" America because now accusing someone of being "Christian" is the equivilant of calling someone a "racist" or a "witch."

(Ann Colter in her book Slander)
"Liberals hate religion because politics is a religion substitute for them and they can't stand the competition...Loathing the religious right becomes an end in itself, a consuming passion. Liberals denounce Christian conservatives for being moralistic, for imposing their morality on others, for not separating morality from politics, and for bringing religious zeal to public life--and then work themselves into a frenzy of rightous, moralistic zeal over their own moral excellence for being so rational, calm and detatched."

I think it's time for a little tolerance on both sides for a change.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 09:09 PM

lone ranger...

Yeah....I know. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Hey CiaJ...

If I found you stranded on the side of the road or saw you getting your azz kicked in a parking lot, I'd STILL stop and help you out. :D

CinaC

12-09-2002, 09:15 PM

Thanks for posting that huge long thing Shooter. Hoping to win simply by outposting me? Uh-uh, buddy pal. You're going to have to do a LOT better than that. :D

You point out to me in the Consitution where it says the US is a Christian nation. You point it out to me in the Treaty of Tripoli where it says this nation was founded on the practices of the Christian religion.

The irony may be lost on you that the last speech you posted is by a man you very publicly called a liar not very long ago. And yet now you hold his words to be (pardon the pun) gospel truth. Well if this is the truth, then kindly explain to me how the above speech is the lawful policy of the United States, and the Treaty of Tripoli is not. I'm dying for the answer. Of course, I know I'm not going to get it, because you're going to do your best to avoid the question with as many speeches as you can that mention God (or perhaps I should mention that the above Adams speech ... doesn't mention God? At all?) :D

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Now, why are we trying to demoralize it?<hr /></blockquote>No one is trying to demoralize or even demonize Christianity. Saying that you can't hang a banner saying "Praise Jesus" or "Glory be to Allah" in the County Court is not the same as saying National Guard troops to raze all the churches and execute all the religious leaders in the nation.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />They may not have all worshipped God, but they knew right from wrong, and while they had to believe in something, <hr /></blockquote>I agree with you. Many of our Founding Fathers were Christians, many were Deists (including Adams). But I do believe that they very much intended to found this government as being seperate from the church, and I don't believe they desired to found this nation on any religion, believing in TRUE religious freedom ... not just for non-Christian religions, but also to keep the Puritans, Catholics, Protestants et al from fighting to decide WHICH Christian religion it was founded on!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />America because now accusing someone of being "Christian" is the equivilant of calling someone a "racist" or a "witch."
<hr /></blockquote>I think it very much depends on the context. I know of no one who has called Mother Theresa in a derogatory manner. On the other hand, I know of quite a few who have called Bishop Law (among others) a Christian in a very derogatory manner (usually with a sneer and a snarl). Of course, "accusing" and "praising" can be affected by something as slight as tone of voice and body expression.

Even the simple phrase "What a Christian" can be read to mean a variety of different things depending on the tone and context.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I think it's time for a little tolerance on both sides for a change. <hr /></blockquote>Ask yourself how much "tolerance" you would give if some left-wing group asked for it in regards to gun control.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If I found you stranded on the side of the road or saw you getting your azz kicked in a parking lot, I'd STILL stop and help you out. <hr /></blockquote>Shooter, I'd do the same for you in a heartbeat. My offer for a beer if you're ever up in this area of the woods still stands.

[ 12-09-2002, 09:17 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

FLLawdog

12-09-2002, 09:21 PM

Religion played a huge part in the formation of this country. The settlers were looking for an alternative to the mandated Church of England. In other words, the King said what religion they followed. Hence, the term "seperation of church and state". The forefathers did nothing to homogonize and sanitize their beliefs to appease those didn't believe the same way. Instead they went forward and openly praised God, thanking him for the graces He bestowed upon them. They even used God's name in the documents they produced. God was, in every way, a part of their beliefs and the backbone of this country.

So, just remember seperation of church and state has nothing to do with the Celebration of CHRISTmas, and doesn't mean that government can't display objects associated with religion in their CHRISTmas displays. It simply means that Government can't dictate what religion you, as a private citizen, can and can't follow.

CHRISTmas is about the birth of Christ 2002 years ago. That's where our calendar comes from and that's where the observance of CHRISTmas comes from. If anyone is offended by Christ in Christmas or A.D on their calendar, then they have gone beyond the help of tolerance.

CinaC

12-09-2002, 09:24 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />CHRISTmas is about the birth of Christ 2002 years ago. <hr /></blockquote>Just to get slightly off topic here ... I seem to recall hearing that the monk who calculated the birth year of Christ made a mistake in his calculations, and that we are actually several years OFF (ahead, I think, making the assumption that the C.E. calendar begins the year Christ was born).

No one has said that the Christian religion did not influence the Founding Fathers in the formation of this nation, just that this nation was founded as a secular nation. Much as Turkey has a secular government governing a religious Muslim people, the United States has a secular government govering a wide variety of religious peoples of dozens of faiths and non-faiths as the case may be.

retired

12-09-2002, 09:26 PM

Fllawdog,

The SC has already ruled that the government cannot display religious scenes.

I agree with the decision since I don't believe the government should be endoring or sonsoring ANY religion.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 09:30 PM

FLLawdog....

I think I said pretty much the same thing earlier today. LOL

FLLawdog

12-09-2002, 09:30 PM

My point is, who said it was an endorsement? If Christmas is recognized as a holiday celebrating the birth of Christ, why can't the symbols of that holiday be displayed. Furthermore, how come there is suddenly this newly found age of enlightenment over the past 10 or so years? America was founded on the principals of religion. That religion was Christianity. The government is not calling any other religions heathens...we leave that up to narrow minded individuals.

FLLawdog

12-09-2002, 09:32 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The SC has already ruled that the government cannot display religious scenes.
<hr /></blockquote>And why is that? Because we've become the United States of the Offended.

Yeah, I know, Shooter, but it didn't seem to be coming across.

FLLawdog

12-09-2002, 09:39 PM

Damn...I hate having these disjointed thoughts.

Retired...

You say you agree with the decision because you don't want the Government endorsing a religion. I don't agree with it because I believe a Nativity set on the front lawn of the Town Hall is as much of an endorsement of a religion as a commercial for tampons gives me the undeniable urge to go out and buy a box of them.

CinaC

12-09-2002, 09:43 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />America was founded on the principals of religion. That religion was Christianity. <hr /></blockquote>No, it wasn't. See: Treaty of Tripoli.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Because we've become the United States of the Offended<hr /></blockquote>It's a bit more complicated than that. Even almost a century ago, school prayer was recognized as being Unconstitutional in Illinois.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I don't agree with it because I believe a Nativity set on the front lawn of the Town Hall is as much of an endorsement of a religion as a commercial for tampons gives me the undeniable urge to go out and buy a box of them.<hr /></blockquote>It doesn't say it has to be a SUCCESSFUL endorsement! :D

<blockquote>quote:<hr />why can't the symbols of that holiday be displayed. <hr /></blockquote>They most certainly CAN BE DISPLAYED. In PUBLIC, even! This you can see as you walk down the main promenade of your local shopping mall at this time of year.

However, a public display of religious ornamentation on public property, is another matter altogether.

[ 12-09-2002, 09:44 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

FLLawdog

12-09-2002, 10:02 PM

I don't know, Crazy. When you have people leaving a country to worship how they wish (among other freedoms) and include God in as many documents and quotes as possible, religion may have played a large part in the formation of the Colonies.

I also guess we have a different definition of endorsement. Tony Stewart says "by all your lumber at Home Depot" because he's "endorsed" by Home Depot. A Nativity set, angels and other Christian symbols should, in no way, be construed (by a free thinker, that is) that the Government is saying "hey, y'all, listen up....Christianity is the new official religion in these here parts".

CinaC

12-09-2002, 10:29 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />religion may have played a large part in the formation of the Colonies<hr /></blockquote>I'm not denying that, but I think the concept that no religion should hold favor over any other played a larger role.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />that the Government is saying "hey, y'all, listen up....Christianity is the new official religion in these here parts".<hr /></blockquote>We disagree. Many people think Christianity is the "official" (or, at the very least, unofficial) religion of this country. It's not. And I think it's important to keep our government free of any implication that it is.

FLLawdog

12-09-2002, 10:39 PM

No, it's not official, but I really do believe it's the dominant...or should I say, that which has the largest following.

My entire heartache with the removal of "Christian" symbols is based on principal. The principal that one person...or several...in a community has to think that their Right to religion is more important than the community's desire to demonstrate the historical and traditionally accepted meaning of Christmas.

Watchman

12-09-2002, 10:47 PM

I've read these posts and so far Ive managed to keep my mouth shut on the issue.

But there are a few things that Ive noticed that Im gonna bring up, these are just my observations.If anyone wants to argue about what I perceive thats fine by me,cause I'm not going waste my time posting anything else about this subject.

In the small city that my wife teaches in and one of my kids goes to school in,with a population of 23,000, we have over 300 churches. Out of this population,over 19,000 claim to be a member of a church. Over 12,000 of them attend church at least twice a week. Thats better than half the population that actively participates in church.
The predominate "religion" here would be the Babtist,with the Assemblys of God coming in second,the Methodists coming in third and the Church of Christ coming in 4th. The rest are a mix of Catholics, Lutheran, Presbyterian, and Church of God.Last time I checked, they ALL called themselves "Christian".

Of the softball leagues that we have,Industrial League, Church League,Womens League,Mens League and Co-Ed League,the Church League had by far the most partcipation.As a result, they had the best competiton and the tournaments that they have draw people from several different states.As a matter of fact,we had the Babe Ruth World Series here this summer and anybody care to guess where the kids stayed ? They stayed in the homes of those church familys that vounteered to keep them for a week or so.In fact,many of the familys stayed an extra day and attended church with their host familys.

I've also observed the graveyards around here, many of them several hundred years old. Its odd to me,that since Crazy says that we were never a "christian" nation,that many if not most of the headstones are in the shape of a cross. Would it be wrong to assume that the predominate religion of several hundred years ago was christian ? If one attends the gravesites of American soldiers the are all over Europe, one might note that they are all crosses.

I keep reading that we arent a Christian nation and that cristianity had nothing to do with this country yet everywhere I go the evidence is plain to see...for those that will.

Another observation that I have seen in my own church. We put on a Easter Play every year. Last year in several performances,we had over 7000 people attend.This play was about the life, death,and ressurection of Jesus.I would venture to say that a "fair" percentage of this town found it quite entertaining and uplifting.

As FLLawdog has noted, its only been in the last decade or so that people got their pantys in a wad over religious symbols that were publicly displayed. SO WHAT if they are on public property. The government did not make anyone volunteer their time to put those decorations up. People did so of their own accord.

Now, my thoughts thoughts about "tolerance". Tolerance is the biggest bunch of bull***** to ever hit the US. If we were were as "tolerant" of false teachings, beleifs and ideals in the 1700's as we are now, this great country of ours would have never been founded. If we had celibrated "diversity"like we do today we would have not accomplished the great things that we have. Their are many that would have us (and several on this forum) beleive that because we reconize a higher authority than ourselves,because we know the difference between right and wrong, because we were taught to be patriotic and proud of our heritage that we are being "intolerant". Intolerance is the new buzzword and mantra of those that beleive they descended from monkeys, those that believe its OK to be perverted, those that beleive our constitution means anything but what it says and many of these highly educated idiots have never learned to think for themselves and are basically liablitys to this great country of ours rather than assetts.

But what can we expect ? They have been educated by teachers and proffessors that think the socialist way is the best way. Most of them never had a mom or a dad.Most have never read a bible or even seen one. Many of them have no sense of commitment and have been divorced several times and of those that havent, they see it as a quick fix to a problem. Many of them grew up with a president that couldnt make a commitment to his wife, his country or anything but money and they think this is the norm. They are part of the most pampered and softest generation that this country have ever seen and most of them would be slaughtered like cattle if the SHTF. For those that are old enough to remember when it was ok to speak the truth without being accused of being racist,intolerant, bigotted or any of the other popular buzzwords that liberals worship, but they refused to stand and say enough is enough,if they refused to fight for good and whats right, I figure that they since they arent part of the solution, then they must be part of the problem.

History proves conclusively that this nation WAS founded on Christian principals.A generation of kids learning revisionist history isnt going to know that. They will argue about things and concepts that they have no clue of because they have been taught by godless heathens that it was that way from the beggining. You cant have an intelligent debate with them, you cant argue rationaly with them because they know it all.

As Forrest Gump said:

Thats all Ive got to say about that... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Bill R

12-09-2002, 10:51 PM

If the government chooses to ignore various treaties, then it does so illegally. I find it amusing that you seek to support your desire for religious intermingling with government, by having that government break its own laws, and its own constitution to do so.

Actually, I made no comment on migling religion. I only commented that you can't believe everything in treaties. You seem to think that a treaty with some pirates is THE defining document describing the nature of our country in regards to faith. I agree that we are a secular nation and support that. I do not agree that any reference to our creator needs to avoided like the plague. The Delaration of Independence certainly acknowledges a creator. Or how about Jefferson in the Virginia Declaration of Rights <blockquote>quote:<hr /> Section 16. That religion, or the duty which we owe to our Creator, and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence; and therefore all men are equally entitled to the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that it is the mutual duty of all to practise Christian forbearance, love, and charity toward each other.
<hr /></blockquote>That was before the Constitution though. How about The Gettysburg Address? <blockquote>quote:<hr />that this nation under God <hr /></blockquote>I'm not really a big fan of Lincoln but I think the Gettysburg Address is a more significant document in our history that the Treaty of Tripoli.

So, Shooter, what you're saying is that the entire Senate, and John Adams, are liars?

I'm not as familiar with the Senate at that time but I'd wager that everyone in our present Senate has lied. As somewhat of a Libertarian, the Alien and Sedition Act isn't one of my favorite acts either...Besides Adams was a yankee :D

[ 12-09-2002, 11:04 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

CinaC

12-09-2002, 10:56 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Its odd to me,that since Crazy says that we were never a "christian" nation,<hr /></blockquote>That's not what I said. What I said is that one should not confuse the colonizations of the continent by generally European Christians with the foundation of the United States as a politically secular entity.

This is, however, what you are confusing.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />History proves conclusively that this nation WAS founded on Christian principals.A generation of kids learning revisionist history isnt going to know that. <hr /></blockquote>History proves, via the Treaty of Tripoli, that the Founding Fathers and those who lived and worked and politiked along side with them, did not consider this nation to be found on the principles of any religion.

The only revisionists here are those claiming otherwise.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Tolerance is the biggest bunch of bull***** to ever hit the US. <hr /></blockquote>You're absolutely right. It is. We should take away a woman's right to vote, take away the minorities' rights to vote, and banish all non-Christian religions from the continent.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In the small city that my wife teaches in and one of my kids goes to school in,with a population of 23,000, we have over 300 churches. Out of this population,over 19,000 claim to be a member of a church. Over 12,000 of them attend church at least twice a week. Thats better than half the population that actively participates in church.<hr /></blockquote>Let me give you a brief lesson in Constitutional Law, since you seem completely oblivious to it.

The Bill of Rights, signed in 1791, upholds individual and minority rights. There is no such thing as majority rule when it comes to a question of Constitutionality, even though you appear to be operating under the erroneous belief that there is. Here's an example: if a majority in a certain town voted to segregate a group of people, say, based on skin color, this would be declared Unconstitutional.

Despite what you've been brainwashed to believe Watchman, THE MAJORITY HAS NO RIGHT TO TYRANNIZE THE MINORITY!

CinaC

12-09-2002, 11:04 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />but I really do believe it's the dominant...or should I say, that which has the largest following.<hr /></blockquote>I'm not saying it isn't. But the majority does not have more rights over the minority simply by virtue of BEING the majority. The law sides with the Constitution and the Constitution does not by default side with the majority.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The principal that one person...or several...in a community has to think that their Right to religion is more important than the community's desire to demonstrate the historical and traditionally accepted meaning of Christmas.<hr /></blockquote>Flawdog, if someone tells you, "hey, pull those Christmas lights off your house, I'm Jewish", feel free to ignore them, or tell them to **** off, or what have you. But to think that the community has the right to celebrate with religious icons ON GOVERNMENT PROPERTY is wrong. Decorate your homes, your cars, the shopping malls, whatever you want to do ... no one can stop you.

Until you start decorating the government buildings, or the government property.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The Delaration of Independence certainly acknowledges a creator. <hr /></blockquote>The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, and is no way, shape, or form law. Given that Jefferson was very well known as a Deist, and he refers to "Nature's God," "Creator," and "Divine Providence", it is impossible (at least, not without great stretching of the imagination) to hold this document to be an endorsement of Christianity.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />That was before the Constitution though.<hr /></blockquote>Indeed it was. Even if it were after, when Virginia became a state, they then fell under the Constitution of the United States.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />How about The Gettysburg Address? <hr /></blockquote>Although the Gettysburg Address is certainly better known, the Treaty of Tripoli had very real effect on American law and policy (the Gettysburg Address was a speech: not law, not policy). Given that its early drafts were overseen by George Washington, and that it was signed by John Adams and ratified by the Senate, Treaty of Tripoli clearly shows the legal position of the government regarding religion.

[ 12-09-2002, 11:07 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 11:05 PM

At the time the US Consitution was signed, neither minorities nor women had RIGHTS....as recognized today. Rights ONLY applied to WHITE men that OWNED property.

FLLawdog

12-09-2002, 11:06 PM

And the minority has no Right to Tyrranize the majority.

Bill R

12-09-2002, 11:11 PM

Crazy, then why do you think it's ok for the majority in other countries (UK,NZ,Aus) to tyranize the minority? <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
THE MAJORITY HAS NO RIGHT TO TYRANNIZE THE MINORITY!

CinaC

12-09-2002, 11:17 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And the minority has no Right to Tyrranize the majority.<hr /></blockquote>No, they're certainly not. The problem is that seperation of church and state is Unconstitutional. Hence, not being able to put up a nativity on government land can not even with Clintonesque definition be considered "tyranny".

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Rights ONLY applied to WHITE men that OWNED property.<hr /></blockquote>Indeed. One would think you'd be only too happy to use the Treaty of Tripoli to remind people that those aren't the Christian principles the nation was founded on. Rather, the nation was founded on secular principles that continue to provide more liberty for people regardless of skin color, religion, country of origin or sexual orienation (depending on how far to the right you are, some of these may be good or bad things).

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Crazy, then why do you think it's ok for the majority in other countries (UK,NZ,Aus) to tyranize the minority? <hr /></blockquote>Those nations have the United States Constitution? Wow. When did they do that? :D

[ 12-09-2002, 11:18 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Bill R

12-09-2002, 11:23 PM

Crazy, ok the Getysburg Address isn't a treaty. How about the Treaty of Guadalupe-Hidalgo?
<blockquote>quote:<hr />IN THE NAME OF ALMIGHTY GOD
The United States of America and the United Mexican States animated by a sincere desire to put an end to the calamities of the war which unhappily exists between the two Republics <hr /></blockquote>Those nations have the United States Constitution? Wow. When did they do that?

Yeah, only Americans can be victims of tyranny <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[ 12-09-2002, 11:28 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

CinaC

12-09-2002, 11:29 PM

Weren't you the one a few posts ago casting doubt on treaties? :D

This treaty does not say that the government of the United States was founded on Christian principles. It simply mentions God's name at the top of the document. It's ratification and signature does not destroy the fact that the Treaty of Tripoli has already established that the nation was not founded on Christian principles.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Yeah, only Americans can be victims of tyranny <hr /></blockquote>It'd be wonderful if everyone adopted the Constitution (I wonder how the Vatican would do things...). But, alas.

[ 12-09-2002, 11:31 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

retired

12-09-2002, 11:33 PM

FLLawdog,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by FLLawdog:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />The SC has already ruled that the government cannot display religious scenes.
<hr /></blockquote>And why is that? Because we've become the United States of the Offended.

Yeah, I know, Shooter, but it didn't seem to be coming across.<hr /></blockquote>There are some of us who agree with the decisions. I for one don't want the government involved in any way with religion. That means displays, songs, the Pledge etc.

I have a different opinion than you and others.

retired

12-09-2002, 11:35 PM

Fll

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by FLLawdog:
Damn...I hate having these disjointed thoughts.

Retired...

You say you agree with the decision because you don't want the Government endorsing a religion. I don't agree with it because I believe a Nativity set on the front lawn of the Town Hall is as much of an endorsement of a religion as a commercial for tampons gives me the undeniable urge to go out and buy a box of them.<hr /></blockquote>Suffice to say we have a difference of opinion.

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 11:51 PM

Article I, Section 7 of the US Constitution:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Every bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a law, be presented to the President of the United States; if he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the objections at large on their journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the bill, it shall be sent, together with the objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a law. But in all such cases the votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively. If any bill shall not be returned by the President within ten days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the same shall be a law, in like manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their adjournment prevent its return, in which case it shall not be a law.
<hr /></blockquote>Why were exceptions made for Sundays?

shooter1201

12-09-2002, 11:57 PM

Hey guys. Does any of THIS look familiar?

<a href="http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html" target="_blank">http://www.barefootsworld.net/founding.html</a>

FLLawdog

12-10-2002, 07:37 AM

The decorations placed on buildings were placed there by individuals, on their own accord. The government played no part in forcing them to put them, therefore it's a stretch to think that any display is an endorsement of Christianity. Now, should the Mayor, Governor or the President himself force the employees to decorate, then I'd have a problem.

Seperation of church and state had no bearing on this. It's simply an interpretation by certain groups to get their way. Seperation of Church and state had only one intention...to prevent the formation of a state sponsored religion. Period. Members of a faith who, by their own hand, decorate a state building, in my opinion, are not violating that.

nickg

12-10-2002, 08:45 AM

QUOTE FROM C IN A J:
"And certain people *cough*NickG!*cough* seem to love ****ing and moaning about certain other people who **** and moan."

i wouldn't have it any other way. :)
somebody has to bring their moronic issues to light, so maybe they will look in the mirror and say That comment was a little bit too much!

[ 12-10-2002, 02:47 PM: Message edited by: SpecOpsWarrior ]

CinaC

12-10-2002, 08:56 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Why were exceptions made for Sundays?<hr /></blockquote>Maybe they picked the day at random. But comparing this day off to the Treaty of Tripoli, it still doesn't hold water. Why DID they make an exception for Sunday? Why DID they sign a treaty saying this nation was not founded on a particular religion's principles?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Members of a faith who, by their own hand, decorate a state building, in my opinion, are not violating that.<hr /></blockquote>And certain city laws, which ban people from owning handguns *cough*Boston*cough* are JUST as Unconstitutional as what you propose above. Religious symbols have no business on government buildings or government property, and no matter how you try to cover for it, it is still Unconstitutional.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />somebody has to bring their moronic issues to light, so maybe they will look in the mirror and say "hey...i really AM an @$$hole!!" <hr /></blockquote>Yes, I know you are. You still haven't explained what seven blow jobs have to do with the thread.

Uh, nice link Shooter. Here's a quote I liked.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We have Fundamentalists today, insisting that this nation was founded on Christianity. It was not, although the moral and ethical values common to many of the world's religions were espoused in the founding documents. Almost to a man, the Founding Fathers were Deists, as opposed to Theists, realists and well educated, opposed to tyranny in any form, whether the tyranny of secular governments or the tyranny of ecclesiastic theocracies, cults, orders and sects. The Fundamentalists of all nations would establish tyrannies over their fellowman, insisting that "their way to God, their way of governance, is the ONLY way". <hr /></blockquote>I think that last sentence is a pretty good explanation of why the government must remain strictly secular.

[ 12-10-2002, 08:58 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

BrickCop

12-10-2002, 09:21 AM

c&J,

Are you saying it is unlawful for someone to own a handgun in Boston today?

If so, that's simply not true. Where did you get this misinformation? :confused:

Note: I did not read every message on this thread so bear with me on this one. :D

CinaC

12-10-2002, 09:30 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If so, that's simply not true. Where did you get this misinformation? <hr /></blockquote>I thought I read it off the NRA's little fact-sheet on individual states, so I went back and checked, and I guess I was mistaken. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Niteshift

12-10-2002, 09:38 AM

CiaJ,

Let me ask you this.......you've chanted "Treaty of Tripoli" over and over. Is there anything ELSE you can point to that will support your claims or is that the only document in history.

BrickCop

12-10-2002, 09:41 AM

No problem bro'..... :cool:

Hey, wait a minute! Did you "rush to judgement" or were you just "profiling" Boston?! :D :D

Shaky & Blue

12-10-2002, 10:33 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Niteshift:
CiaJ,

Let me ask you this.......you've chanted "Treaty of Tripoli" over and over. Is there anything ELSE you can point to that will support your claims or is that the only document in history.<hr /></blockquote>Can I help?

Our Founding Fathers actually had a variety of religious philosophies. Many were considered Deists, a term which includes many levels of faith or non-faith in a creator, but generally indicates an aversion to embracing a single religion as right above all others.

John Adams was an admitted agnostic, and some of his writings indicate a leaning toward atheism. He is credited with saying that, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!" (He went on to say, however, that religion is in some manner necessary to maintain peace among the masses; he looked at it as a tool for social order.)

Thomas Jefferson called Christianity a "superstition... founded on fables and mythology." He went on to say that Christianity was "the most perverted system that ever shone on man."

Thomas Paine embraced the title of "Deist" and wrote accordingly: "It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible." Note that he DID believe in A GOD, just not in the Christian Bible.

I wish James Madison could join this discussion. He said, "Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Furthermore, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, only 7% of the people living in the thirteen colonies belonged to a church. Most of them worshiped in their own way, just happy to be free of the state-established religions of Europe. The Founding Fathers were quite representative of the first citizens of the newly formed United States.

The prohibition against Congress establishing a state religion is in the Constitution; and the Supreme Court, that entity charged with the duty of interpreting that document, ruled that the prohibition established a "separation of church and state." All this was done in accordance with the wishes and wisdom of our Founding Fathers, but NOT in service of the Christian faith.

nickg

12-10-2002, 10:52 AM

QUOTE FROM C IN A J:
"You still haven't explained what seven blow jobs have to do with the thread"

oops...sorry bout that. the original story link mentioned the 7 BJs vs. NOT running a Christmas themed story for fear of "offending" someone.
:rolleyes:

here's the link:

<a href="http://www.tonguetied.us/archives/000095.php#000095" target="_blank">http://www.tonguetied.us/archives/000095.php#000095</a>

nickg

12-10-2002, 11:00 AM

NEW YORK CITY SUED FOR RELIGIOUS DISCRIMINATION [Menorah? Good. Manger? Bad.]
Thomas More Law Center / Catholic Lague ^ | 12-10-2002 | Bill Donohue

A lawsuit has been filed by the Thomas More Law Center against the City of New York, Schools Chancellor Joel Klein and another school official challenging the Department of Education’s policy regarding “Holiday Displays”: the policy allows the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent while banning the Christian religious holiday symbol, the Nativity Scene. Catholic League president William Donohue helped arrange the lawsuit and issued the following remarks today:

“Last December and January, I wrote several letters to then-Schools Chancellor Harold Levy and Chad Vignola, General Counselor to the Chancellor, protesting the Department of Education’s ‘Holiday Display’ policy. That policy expressly allows the display of ‘secular holiday symbol decorations’ such as ‘Christmas trees, Menorahs and the Star and Crescent.’ It was this policy that was used to justify the banning of a Nativity Scene. But it is disingenuous to maintain that the Menorah is not as fully religious in heritage as the Nativity Scene is (the Thomas More brief also asserts the religious nature of the Star and Crescent).

“The disagreement I had with Mr. Vignola on this matter did not result in a lawsuit last year because I did not have time to find a plaintiff that would grant us standing. But we did find someone early this year, Andrea Skoros, a Catholic League member from Queens. I then contacted my friend at the Thomas More Law Center in Michigan, Richard Thompson (the Center’s president), to see if he wanted to take the case. He agreed and put attorney Robert Muise on it. So when the Catholic League learned this fall that Mr.Vignola was not going to change the ‘Holiday Display’ policy, a decision to file suit was made.

“It is outrageous that New York City public school officials allow some religious symbols in the schools every December while banning others. Catholics are sick and tired of being discriminated against by bureaucrats who tell us we should be satisfied with a Christmas tree in the schools. No, we want the real thing—the manger scene—and will not accept a secular substitute. All we want is parity with Jews and Muslims.”

CinaC

12-10-2002, 11:51 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />the policy allows the display of the Jewish Menorah and the Islamic Star and Crescent <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />satisfied with a Christmas tree in the schools<hr /></blockquote>This is an Unconstitutional policy, Nick. It doesn't matter if the religious symbols are Christian, Jewish, or Satanic. They are NOT allowed on government buildings or government property. And this INCLUDES the Christmas Tree!

[ 12-10-2002, 11:52 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Oregon Mike

12-10-2002, 12:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
They are NOT allowed on government buildings or government property. And this INCLUDES the Christmas Tree!<hr /></blockquote>Doesn't the Forest Service charge people to harvest a Christmas tree in a National Forest? If these good Christians are simply removing offensive symbols from government property, shouldn't the government pay them for their service?

Mike

[ 12-10-2002, 12:34 PM: Message edited by: Oregon Mike ]

CinaC

12-10-2002, 12:36 PM

I see nothing wrong with a PINE tree being on government property. But when it is decorated by religious symbols and BECOMES a CHRISTMAS tree, that's a whole 'nuther story!

shooter1201

12-10-2002, 01:43 PM

Would passing out Christmas cookies in City Hall or in a public school teachers' lounge also be considered 'unconstitutional'?

FWIW, MY school has a BIG, fully decorated Christmas tree in the lobby, and EACH classroom has a plaque bearing 'In GOD We Trust' hanging on the wall....right under the American flag. :D

[ 12-10-2002, 02:50 PM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

CinaC

12-10-2002, 02:26 PM

If you want to debate why you feel Christmas trees on government property are not a violation of the Constitution, make the arguement. If you'd like to pretend I am the Supreme Court ...

SpecOpsWarrior

12-10-2002, 02:44 PM

Anymore name calling and this thread is finished!

[ 12-10-2002, 02:45 PM: Message edited by: SpecOpsWarrior ]

Niteshift

12-10-2002, 03:01 PM

I guess since he's ignored my question, CiaJ has no other documents.

Shaky: Nice try, but you missed the point. CiaJ is presenting the Treaty of Tripoli as "proof" of our "official" policy. What you presented were a bunch of unofficial comments and private thoughts. I don't see anything you quoted that was "official policy", so it doesn't help much to fulfill my request to see something else besides the Treaty of Tripoli.

CinaC

12-10-2002, 03:11 PM

Nite,

With respect, how many documents do YOU have that were ratified by the Senate, and signed by the President, that actually spell out in no uncertain terms that this nation was NOT founded as a Christian nation?

And since the Founding Fathers are called the FOUNDING Fathers for a reason, and since it is their intent we look at when trying to determine if or if not this nation was founded as a Christian nation, their feelings and thoughts on the manner are VERY important.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />so it doesn't help much to fulfill my request to see something else besides the Treaty of Tripoli.<hr /></blockquote>Also, and correct me if I'm wrong, but I doubt your opinion on this matter could be swayed no matter how many treaties, laws, court opinions, or personal opinions of "old dead white men" I referenced.

[ 12-10-2002, 03:15 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-10-2002, 03:28 PM

I think CiaJ and Artie must be twins, separated at birth and having different mommies.

CinaC

12-10-2002, 03:39 PM

Actually, Shooter, since Artie is arguing that gun control (which is blatantly Unconstitutional) is Constitutional, and you are arguring that a mingling of church and state (which is blatantly Unconstitutional) is Constitutional, you'd do better to compare yourself to him. :)

shooter1201

12-10-2002, 03:45 PM

You know CiaJ....if you, I, Artie and MikeTX teamed up together on a project, we'd be unstoppable. :D

CinaC

12-10-2002, 03:47 PM

I think it depends on the project. If it was "cleaning Crazy's apartment", we'd be stopped. :)

Shaky & Blue

12-10-2002, 04:00 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Niteshift:
CiaJ is presenting the Treaty of Tripoli as "proof" of our "official" policy. What you presented were a bunch of unofficial comments and private thoughts. I don't see anything you quoted that was "official policy", so it doesn't help much to fulfill my request to see something else besides the Treaty of Tripoli.<hr /></blockquote>CiaJ already said this, but to reinforce: The assertion was made that this country was founded as a Christian nation. The writings of the Founding Fathers provide strong evidence otherwise. It would be a stretch to believe that men who were not Christians would create a Christian state.

Further, the Treaty of Tripoli is, in fact, the only official document that spells it out, one way or the other. The Declaration of Independence, the founding document for this country, is intentionally vague on this point and does NOT endorse the Christian faith in any way.

Bill R

12-10-2002, 05:36 PM

Justice Crazy, <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />
If you want to debate why you feel Christmas trees on government property are not a violation of the Constitution, make the arguement. If you'd like to pretend I am the Supreme Court ...

How could the court possibly object to a decorated pine or fir tree being on public property when the court has on it's own walls the Ten Commandments? Does not Congress have a chaplain? Is not every session of Congress opened with a prayer? Is there not the statement on our national currency that " In God We Trust"? How can a mere decorated tree resting on public property constitute establishment more than these other examples? As best I can recall Christmas is designated a national holiday.

[ 12-10-2002, 05:37 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

CinaC

12-10-2002, 05:42 PM

Just so I understand you Bill ... are you saying that religion symbols do not violate the wall of seperation between church and state? Or are you trying to say that the country was founded on Christian principles as proved by, among other things, the Ten Commandmants hanging on the Court wall?

I'm a bit tired, and I just want to make sure I know what it is you're argueing. I've got to get back to my ten-page term paper: "To Thwart or not to thwart: Homoeroticism in Shakespeare." Yay.

Mike Tx

12-10-2002, 06:59 PM

"Maybe they picked the day at random"

Lmao.

Shaky & Blue

12-10-2002, 08:06 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill R:
How could the court possibly object to a decorated pine or fir tree being on public property when the court has on it's own walls the Ten Commandments?<hr /></blockquote>The frieze depicting Moses and the Ten Commandments was dedicated in 1958 and has nothing to do with the founding of this country. It was put there over 40 years ago in a conservative time when blacks couldn't use the same restrooms and restaurant entrances as white people. It has been allowed to remain because it does not actually contain the words of the Ten Commandments. Members of the Court opined that the scene itself, without the religous message inscribed on the tablets, did not constitute an endorsement of any particular religion.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill R:
Does not Congress have a chaplain? Is not every session of Congress opened with a prayer?<hr /></blockquote>There are two: one each for the House and Senate. They are elected by the members of each respective body. However, the position of chaplain is NOT a Christian office. From the Senate's own website:

"Chaplains are chosen by each chamber as individuals and not as representatives of any religious body or denominational entity."

In other words, the chaplain could be a Christian, a Jew, a Muslim, a Buddhist or even an atheist under the rules of the Senate and House. Likewise, the prayer offered is supposed to be non-denominational and should not endorse any one religion above others.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill R:
Is there not the statement on our national currency that "In God We Trust"?<hr /></blockquote>According to the <a href="http://www.ustreas.gov/education/fact-sheets/currency/in-god-we-trust.html" target="_blank">U.S. Treasury Department</a>, that statement did not appear on coins until 1864, in response to "the increased religious sentiment existing during the Civil War." Notice the use of the word "increased," implying that the sentiment had not had sufficient support to warrant putting it on the money until then. Regardless, its use was almost a century after the founding of the country, and cannot serve as evidence that this country was founded a Christian nation.

Further, the Supreme Court found that "In God We Trust" did not violate the establishment clause because it only recognized a deity, but did NOT indicate a preference of one religion over another. It doesn't say "In the Christian God We Trust." "God" is a generic Deist term applied to anything, possibly even unknown, that is higher than man.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill R:
How can a mere decorated tree resting on public property constitute establishment more than these other examples?<hr /></blockquote>Here I will agree with you, quite simply because the Christmas tree is not a Christian symbol at all. It's actually a holdover from Pagan traditions that has lost its original religious connotations through the years. It is, in fact, a perfect secular symbol of the celebration of the continuation of life. If a tree is decorated with Christian symbols, those symbols may violate the establishment clause; but the tree itself does not.

But forgetting the tree for a moment, none of the examples given lend any weight to the assertion that this country is, or was founded as, a Christian nation. This country was founded on secular ethics, which included the freedom for its citizens to worship or not worship as they see fit.

shooter1201

12-10-2002, 08:07 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> In 1783 the US and Britain ended the war with the Paris Peace Treaty. The treaty was written by John Adams, John Jay, and Ben Franklin. Its very first words are:

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts . . .

<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />George Washington stated that "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." <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, not any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness of individuals and to the well-being of communities.... I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]."

<hr /></blockquote>John Adams, 1799

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.
Runkel v. Winemiller; 4 Harris and McHenry 276, 288 (Sup. Ct. Md. 1799) <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813:

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.
Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40 <hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious commitment of the nation, then it's essential that we look at all of the treaties. In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a "Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814." (16) It begins -- as many treaties did -- with these words:

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity."

Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. If the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does in fact make Christianity null and void in America (which it does not), the Treaty of 1822 reestablishes Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the United States.

(16) Malloy, TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, INTERNATIONAL ACTS, PROTOCOLS AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OTHER POWERS, 1776- 1909, 1:634
<hr /></blockquote>

CinaC

12-10-2002, 08:54 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />If the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does in fact make Christianity null and void in America (which it does not), the Treaty of 1822 reestablishes Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the United States.<hr /></blockquote>Here's the key word: IF. However, since the Treaty of Tripoli does not, and since no one has argued that the Treaty of Tripoli made Christianity "null and void" (including the author, who admits that it "does not"), his arguements are "void" of logic.

What the Treaty of Tripoli did was to state that the nation was not founded on Christian principles. If it is the quoted author's intent to show that the treaty of 1822 "reestablishes" an "official" religion, he fails for three reasons: one, because he makes a false assumption about the Treaty of Tripoli (that it "banned" a religion, when in fact, it simply states that the nation was not formed under the precepts of a religion), two he makes the assumption that the Founding Fathers formed this nation as a country with freedom of CHRISTIAN religion. And yet the Constitution makes no mention of freedom only for CHRISTIAN religions. And third, if this nation has been formed WITH an offical religion that had been overturned by the Treaty of Tripoli and thus REESTABLISHED by the Treaty of 1822, it would have been mentioned in the Constitution -- and yet, it is not.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Did you "rush to judgement" or were you just "profiling" Boston?!<hr /></blockquote>Actually, I love Boston. I think it is probably one of the most beautiful cities on the east coast. For a time, before they transfered, I had two friends at Emerson College. I spent a week with them both fall and spring semester ('99 and '00) at the "Little Building" dorm right off of Tremont and Boylston. I haven't been back since (sadly), but certainly I would love to return to visit or live.

[ 12-10-2002, 09:03 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-10-2002, 09:02 PM

It seems to me that you are the only person relying SOLEY upon the Treaty of Tripoli to make your argument.

If so, then why was the Treaty of Tripoli REwritten 8 years later making NO MENTION of 'the USA not being a Christian Nation'?

[ 12-10-2002, 09:05 PM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

CinaC

12-10-2002, 09:05 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />'the USA not being a Christian Nation'<hr /></blockquote>If I had to guess, I'd say revisionists. But since we're concerned over the version of the document ratified by the Senate and signed by the President, that little fact is sadly inconsequential.

Also, here's the thing: you seem to me to be consistently confusing the majority of the population's religious faith with the political entity of the country. They are NOT one and the same, and the fact that so many use that little bit to further their arguement only proves how weak their arguement, in reality, is.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />It seems to me that you are the only person relying SOLEY upon the Treaty of Tripoli to make your argument.<hr /></blockquote>And it seems to me that you're having to rely on a wide variety of arguements to debunk the Treaty of Tripoli, all of which have so far failed :D

If you'd like, I could start quoting Shaky & Blue?

[ 12-10-2002, 09:09 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

shooter1201

12-10-2002, 09:17 PM

CiaJ...

In research, it's far better to be able to provide MULTIPLE sources to bolster your argument than to cite only ONE. At least that's what I was taught in college...'way back when'.

I've provided multiple sources stating America is indeed a Christian nation, yet you can provide only ONE stating it isn't...and THAT 'proof' was rewritten 8 years latter removing your evidence. Why is that?

shooter1201

12-10-2002, 09:24 PM

You know...I just realized this whole debate has been over a 'treaty' the United States of America made with a bunch of PIRATES! :rolleyes:

Bill R

12-10-2002, 09:37 PM

Crazy,
Just so I understand you Bill ... are you saying that religion symbols do not violate the wall of seperation between church and state? Or are you trying to say that the country was founded on Christian principles as proved by, among other things, the Ten Commandmants hanging on the Court wall?

Actually, I was accepting your challenge as to arguing the case that a Christmas tree on govt. property is not un-Constitutional.

Shaky,
Regardless, its use was almost a century after the founding of the country, and cannot serve as evidence that this country was founded a Christian nation.

I was not arguing that the U.S. is a Christian nation. I was arguing that a Christmas tree on govt. property is not a violation of the Constitution and that there are things that would be easier to justify as treading on establishment. I didn't even go into the Great Seal on the back of the dollar bill...

Further, the Supreme Court found that "In God We Trust" did not violate the establishment clause because it only recognized a deity, but did NOT indicate a preference of one religion over another.

I agree completely. God capital G is universal to Christians, Jews and Muslims. All believe that they worship the God of Abraham. As a noun god is universal to all deities. That's why I take exception to those that object to the use of Under God in the pledge. I have not stated that our government prefers one religion over another. My point has been that the Constitution does not ban the mention of a supreme being.

I also believe it is a big stretch for someone to claim that the Constitution would ban the mention of the name Jesus in school for example or for that matter discussing his teachings. Most Jews, Muslims even Atheists will admit that there was a man in Israel named Jesus and that there were people that followed his teachings. Whether someone chooses to accept that Jesus is the Lord or not, it is difficult to deny that his teachings have had a tremendous influence on the world and America. Just because some of us accept that Jesus is Lord does not mean we are forcing others to.Why should his teachings and philosophy be banned any more that Plato or Aristotle? And since someone will probably ask, I would have no objections to the discussions of Buddha, Mohammed or other figures.

[ 12-10-2002, 09:43 PM: Message edited by: Bill R ]

retired

12-10-2002, 10:12 PM

I for one am happy that the SC will not allow the government to endorse, sponsor, or coerce any religion on me. Thanks SC!

Watchman

12-10-2002, 10:18 PM

TREATY OF TRIPOLI, 1806

APRIL, 1806

ARTICLE XIV. AS the government of the United States of America has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion, or tranquillity of Mussulmen, and as the said States never have entered into any voluntary war or act of hostility against any Mahometan except in defense of their just rights to freely navigate the high seas, it is declared by the contracting parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two nations. And the consuls and agents of both nations respectively shall have liberty to exercise his religion in his own house. All slaves of the same religion shall not be impeded in going to said consul's house at hours of prayer.

no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two nations.

What religious opinions ? If the US was not founded by Christian principle and really was founded by a bunch of atheists and deists, why would they feel the need to include this statement ?

I contend that the language of this particular treaty that dealt with the nation not being founded on Christian Principle was included ONLY to aleviate the fears that the Muslim Chiefs had about the potential conflicts that stemmed from the age old Muslim/Christian conflict.

To use this treaty as an excuse that proves the government was NOT founded on Christian principal is a stretch of the imagination to say the least.

Treatys have a way of saying things to the interested parties that they want to hear just to achieve a goal or objective.

Dont beleive it ? Tell it to whats left of the Indian Tribes here in the states. Ask them how much weight a "treaty" carries.

To give any weight at all to a treaty written in 1796 is another stretch that liberals grasp at to further their cause.

But hey, what do I know ? :rolleyes:

[ 12-10-2002, 11:33 PM: Message edited by: Watchman ]

Shaky & Blue

12-10-2002, 11:12 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
If the US was not founded by Christian principle and really was founded by a bunch of atheists, why would they feel the need to include this statement ?<hr /></blockquote>Um, they weren't atheists. They were Deists. Big difference.

Deist is a loose term that applies to anyone who believes in a supreme god, power or being but does not subscribe to a particular religious creed. Most of the prominent figures in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence, our founding document, believed wholeheartedly that there was a being of some sort that existed above and beyond us, which would preclude them from being atheists. These same people, however, did NOT believe that the Bible revealed that supreme being, but that it was simply a book of stories and myths that had been used by the church to corrupt and control the relationship between the supreme being and the people. Some of them supported the teachings of Jesus, while at the same time declining to believe that Jesus was in any way of divine origin.

Refusing to follow a particular organized religion, Christian or otherwise, does not make one an atheist.

Watchman

12-10-2002, 11:35 PM

Shaky and Blue...

You are exactly right. My mistake, I meant to include that but I spaced it out. As a result, I edited my post to include that.

retired

12-10-2002, 11:55 PM

Well I should stay out of this, but sometimes I just don't know when to keep my mouth shut.

The constitution is a secular document and contains no mention of God or Christianity. If we were founded as a Christian nation, why doesn't our constitution say that?

The Treaty of Tripoli that has been mentioned several times was written under Washington, and approved by the Senate under John Adams. Sounds like a solid document to me.

The Declaration of Independence makes reference to Nature's God, Creator, and Divine Providence. But the DOI does not endorse Christianity,and we are not governed by the DOI. The DOI was written to dissolve the political bonds to England, not to establish a religion.

The constitution doesn't even require the president to swear, or take an oath on the biblefor office, he may affirm.

America is one nation under a constitution, not a bible. Everyone has the right to practice their choice of religion without interference from government.

Well that is my two cents, and with that I'll bid the topic a fond adieu! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

[ 12-10-2002, 11:55 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

CinaC

12-11-2002, 12:18 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I've provided multiple sources stating America is indeed a Christian nation, yet you can provide only ONE stating it isn't..<hr /></blockquote>Except that my source was signed into law, and close enough to the writing and signing of the Constitution that many key participants of the first took place in the writing and signing of the second. The vast majority of your "evidence" was written WELL after both of these documents, and I think you'd be hard pressed to find the numbers of Founding Fathers involved in the later documents as you do the first. George W. Bush may go on TV tomorrow and say that the country was founded on Christian beliefs, but looking at what he said versus what the Founding Fathers themselves said and believed, the distinction is ... or should be ... clear.

Sorry, but your sources seem akin to Artie's tactics in another thread. Post "evidence" of Unconstitutional documents, or out of context references, and present them as Constitutional law.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />In research, it's far better to be able to provide MULTIPLE sources to bolster your argument than to cite only ONE. At least that's what I was taught in college...'way back when'.<hr /></blockquote>Shooter, have you been skipping over the evidence prestended by Shaky & Blue and Retired and Chief Wiggum? The Treaty of Tripoli is most certainly the strongest evidence, especially given who wrote and signed it. If you truly believe the Treaty of Tripoli is the only item presented in the defense of the notion that this nation was not founded on Christian precepts, you need to read this thread more carefully.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I just realized this whole debate has been over a 'treaty' the United States of America made with a bunch of PIRATES! <hr /></blockquote>Stupid Founding Fathers!!!! :rolleyes:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />What religious opinions ? If the US was not founded by Christian principle and really was founded by a bunch of atheists and deists, why would they feel the need to include this statement ?<hr /></blockquote>I'll give you a clue to figuring this out for yourself. Two nations signed the document. Only *one* was not founded on the precepts of a religion.

It would be akin to, in today's hectic times, a nation with a large body of Muslim citizens but a secular government (say, Turkey), signing a treaty with the United States confirming that no matter the religious beliefs may be held by the citizens, that the government would not allow those beliefs to dictate policy.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To use this treaty as an excuse that proves the government was NOT founded on Christian principal is a stretch of the imagination to say the least.<hr /></blockquote>Well, that's a possibility, but very slim, unless you're saying that the entire Senate, and that President John Adams were perfectly comfortable signing their names to something that states that the United States was not formed on Christian precepts. Do you believe those men to be scum, or liars, or something along those lines? For some reason, I believed you held the Founding Fathers in high esteem. Or would you, in their place, sign something similar to appease a bunch of pirates?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />To give any weight at all to a treaty written in 1796 is another stretch that liberals grasp at to further their cause.<hr /></blockquote>And to ignore it is simply to give one more foot to the religious fundementalists who are rewriting this nation's history so effectively that the majority of this boards' members believe the propaganda they have spread.

Or, how about the next time Artie gets into a debate with you about the Second Amendment, I tell him he should say "to give any weight to a Constitution written in the 18th century is another stretch that conservatives use to further their cause." I fail to see how you can demean one document written over two hundred years ago, especially without demeaning another document written in the same time period. Especially since the younger of the two discusses in specific the intent of those who wrote the first, and was actually written and signed by some of those same people.

Ignoring that is yet more proof that some right-wingers are perfectly happy to re-write history to further their own anti-freedom causes.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Ask them how much weight a "treaty" carries.<hr /></blockquote>Prove that the Treaty of Tripoli was signed in bad faith, and you might have a point. Since you can't, and haven't, you don't.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />But hey, what do I know ? <hr /></blockquote>You can't handle the truth!

[ 12-11-2002, 12:48 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

n567

12-11-2002, 01:19 AM

Ya know, I think I said this once before...

In regards to the United States being a Christian nation. I don't dispute the fact that it was,even a mere 75 years ago. What many people fail to realize is that the United States is a rather amorphous entity whose government is not set in stone. Everything changes, and that includes our government.

The United States is nothing more than its people. And its people today are not all Christian, in fact, the number of practicing Christians are losing their share of the pie little by little to other religions.

[ 12-11-2002, 01:21 AM: Message edited by: n567 ]

Oregon Mike

12-11-2002, 05:10 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by retired:
The constitution is a secular document and contains no mention of God or Christianity.<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally written by our Founding Fathers:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...<hr /></blockquote>This certainly doesn't settle the arguement at hand, but let's keep our facts straight.

Mike

shooter1201

12-11-2002, 05:31 PM

Now you've done it, Mike....you've gone and set the stage to confuse CiaJ with facts. :rolleyes:

CinaC

12-11-2002, 05:33 PM

Well, Shooter, at least you won't be confused with them since you don't even bother with facts in your rebuttals :D

Shaky & Blue

12-11-2002, 05:37 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Oregon Mike:
Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...

This certainly doesn't settle the arguement at hand, but let's keep our facts straight.
<hr /></blockquote>Oh come on. "Year of our Lord" is the English translation of Anno Domini, AD for short, which indicates the calendar being used. It's not a direct reference to a particular god, but a reference to a system of counting years.

To pick this out as some evidence of a belief in a particular deity is akin to insisting you're eating French food when you eat french fries with your Extra Value Meal, just because "French" is in the name.

shooter1201

12-11-2002, 05:45 PM

CiaJ....

Show me ONE NONfact here:

<blockquote>quote:<hr />quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In 1783 the US and Britain ended the war with the Paris Peace Treaty. The treaty was written by John Adams, John Jay, and Ben Franklin. Its very first words are:

In the name of the most holy and undivided Trinity.
It having pleased the Divine Providence to dispose the hearts . . .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
George Washington stated that "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."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As no truth is more clearly taught in the Volume of Inspiration, not any more fully demonstrated by the experience of all ages, than that a deep sense and a due acknowledgment of the growing providence of a Supreme Being and of the accountableness of men to Him as the searcher of hearts and righteous distributor of rewards and punishments are conducive equally to the happiness of individuals and to the well-being of communities.... I have thought proper to recommend, and I hereby recommend accordingly, that Thursday, the twenty-fifth of April next, be observed throughout the United States of America as a day of solemn humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that the citizens on that day abstain, as far as may be, from their secular occupation, and devote the time to the sacred duties of religion, in public and in private; that they call to mind our numerous offenses against the most high God, confess them before Him with the sincerest penitence, implore His pardoning mercy, through the Great Mediator and Redeemer, for our past transgressions, and that through His Holy Spirit, we may be disposed and enabled to yield a more suitable obedience to His righteous requisitions in time to come; that He would interpose to arrest the progress of that impiety and licentiousness in principle and practice so offensive to Himself and so ruinous to mankind; that He would make us deeply sensible that "righteousness exalteth a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people" [Proverbs 14:34]."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

John Adams, 1799

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Religion is of general and public concern, and on its support depend, in great measure, the peace and good order of government, the safety and happiness of the people. By our form of government, the Christian religion is the established religion; and all sects and denominations of Christians are placed upon the same equal footing, and are equally entitled to protection in their religious liberty.
Runkel v. Winemiller; 4 Harris and McHenry 276, 288 (Sup. Ct. Md. 1799)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, June 28, 1813:

The general principles, on which the Fathers achieved independence, were the only Principles in which that beautiful Assembly of young Gentlemen could Unite....And what were these general Principles? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all these Sects were United: . . . Now I will avow, that I then believe, and now believe, that those general Principles of Christianity, are as eternal and immutable, as the Existence and Attributes of God; and that those Principles of Liberty, are as unalterable as human Nature and our terrestrial, mundane System.
Lester J. Capon, ed., The Adams-Jefferson Letters 2 vols. (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 2:339-40
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
If treaties are going to be used to establish the religious commitment of the nation, then it's essential that we look at all of the treaties. In 1822, the United States, along with Great Britain and Ireland, ratified a "Convention for Indemnity Under Award of Emperor of Russia as to the True Construction of the First Article of the Treaty of December 24, 1814." (16) It begins -- as many treaties did -- with these words:

"In the name of the Most Holy and Indivisible Trinity."

Only Christianity teaches a Trinitarian view of God. If the 1797 Treaty of Tripoli does in fact make Christianity null and void in America (which it does not), the Treaty of 1822 reestablishes Trinitarian Christianity as the official religion of the United States.

(16) Malloy, TREATIES, CONVENTIONS, INTERNATIONAL ACTS, PROTOCOLS AND AGREEMENTS BETWEEN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND OTHER POWERS, 1776- 1909, 1:634

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
<hr /></blockquote>

[ 12-11-2002, 05:51 PM: Message edited by: shooter1201 ]

retired

12-11-2002, 06:38 PM

Mike,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Oregon Mike:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by retired:
The constitution is a secular document and contains no mention of God or Christianity.<hr /></blockquote> <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally written by our Founding Fathers:

Done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven...<hr /></blockquote>This certainly doesn't settle the arguement at hand, but let's keep our facts straight.

Mike<hr /></blockquote>Now is that reaching! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

The constitution ends with "as in the year of our Lord" because that is how people dated documents at the time. It had nothing to do with establishing America as a Christian nation! :p Using Christian dates then is a reflection of the influence Christianity has had on our culture, and not a basis for our political system. Nice try Mike. <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

I have my facts straight! :D

[ 12-11-2002, 06:39 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

Oregon Mike

12-11-2002, 09:41 PM

I specifically said that that line doesn't answer the question of whether or not this country was founded as a Christian nation. But the Constitution does refer to the Lord.

As has been stated, the Founding Fathers had different religious views. The freedom to exercise religion freely was an important concept to the Founding Fathers, and it would seem they made it a point to avoid specific religious content in government documents. But there are other ways to express the year 1787. They could have used AD, or they could have left it off altogether.

I think this line of the Constitution shows that despite not wanting to endorse any religion, they also weren't afraid of anything that might be conceived as religious. Does anybody want to go on the record saying that they really believe that Colonial agnostics and diests would have taken offense at a simple Christmas tree on public property?

Mike

lone ranger

12-11-2002, 11:32 PM

All references? From all government buildings?

Grab your sledge hammer. The Lincoln Memorial will have to go since it is an obvious recreation of the Parthanon. A memorial to the Goddess Athena.

While we are at it. I petition that we, in order to provide for better seperation of church and state, and to not offend athiests and agnostics, that we remove the following phrases from the Declaration of Independence.

Since they are obvious references to a God or Higher Being, and were overlooked upon editing by our secular Founding Fathers.

"The seperate and equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and Nature's God entitle them."

"endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights,that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness."

Pass the white out?

Of couse if the Life and Liberty part gets removes it becomes a worthless piece of paper.

Forget the white out, anyone have a match?

CinaC

12-12-2002, 11:02 AM

Lone Ranger,

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, not the other way around. And given the Deist views of Jefferson, the DoI still is not irrefutible proof that the nation was founded on the precepts of the Christian religion.

[ 12-12-2002, 11:03 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

retired

12-12-2002, 11:49 AM

C,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
Lone Ranger,

The Declaration of Independence predates the Constitution, not the other way around. And given the Deist views of Jefferson, the DoI still is not irrefutible proof that the nation was founded on the precepts of the Christian religion.<hr /></blockquote>The DOI isn't at all indicative of how the country was formed, but why. It was used to tell England to butt out, not to establish a religion or anything else. It told England what we didn't like about England.

Good point!!

lone ranger

12-12-2002, 12:03 PM

It's been a while since I've been in school, but I do know which one came first.

My point, Or maybe I was trying to make more than one...

There would have been no reason for a Constitition if we didn't first declare and fight for our freedom.

If we weren't "Endowed by our Creator....etc"
There would have been no reason for the whole shebang.If there was no DoI then there would be no need for the documents that came afterward. We'd still be speaking the Queen's English instead of this version that we have.

The other point, or question is "how far do you go?" I think CIJ may have touched on this.

If you want to remove all offensive references?
The Lincoln Memorial with have to be demolished, the DoI will have to be burned. I'm sure the list would be extensive. And why is it that there is never a movement to remove references offensive to Christians? Just other religions and non-religions.

And the deeper question (that Shooter brought up)is what changed in America in the last fifty or so years?

We used to be a country that stood for something. If you didn't like it too bad! Now we are in danger of standing for nothing. Because declaring that we stand for something may offend somebody that doesn't like what we stand for.

The film noir private eye, Phillip Marloe used to be every guy in America. "I know my manners are bad, I grieve for them on those long winter evenings."

Now we've become Oprahized to the extent that the majority of us are asking "what did we do to cause these attacks upon us?" If we could only stop offending people, everybody would like us and there would be peace and harmony.

No matter how hard you try, you're not going to please everybody.

Oooops! Almost forgot.

The point I was trying to make regarding the DoI, was that..

Some of the Founding Fathers were indeed Christians. And they wern't afriad of offending someone by admiting it in writing. And the non-religous Founding Fathers didn't suffer from rightous indignation and refuse to sign it until the offensive remarks were removed.

[ 12-12-2002, 12:33 PM: Message edited by: lone ranger ]

FLLawdog

12-12-2002, 12:49 PM

OK, let's go back to the beginning of this whole thing. The whole point of contention was wether or not the U.S. used religion, most notably Christianity, as the basis for its formation.

While Crazy continues to point out the Treaty of Tripoli...the only document I've also been able to find...as the compounding evidence that we weren't formed by religion, others have shown pieces and parts to several other documents...as well as various quotes...saying that religion was a reason for colonization and that religious terms (like God, Creator, He, etc.) were used.

Lone Ranger's point was that if it is Unconstitutional to display religious references, why hasn't the Lincoln Memorial been razed or modified and why hasn't the DoI been altered? I'm sure there are other things out there that include religion in them, but only one faction is using one treaty as their sole proof.

retired

12-12-2002, 02:45 PM

FLL,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by FLLawdog:
OK, let's go back to the beginning of this whole thing. The whole point of contention was whether or not the U.S. used religion, most notably Christianity, as the basis for its formation.

While Crazy continues to point out the Treaty of Tripoli...the only document I've also been able to find...as the compounding evidence that we weren't formed by religion, others have shown pieces and parts to several other documents...as well as various quotes...saying that religion was a reason for colonization and that religious terms (like God, Creator, He, etc.) were used.

Lone Ranger's point was that if it is Unconstitutional to display religious references, why hasn't the Lincoln Memorial been razed or modified and why hasn't the DoI been altered? I'm sure there are other things out there that include religion in them, but only one faction is using one treaty as their sole proof.<hr /></blockquote>The Lincoln Memorial, in my opinion doesn't represent government sponsoring a religion. But if it did, it would stay there until someone decided to challenge it to the SC.

I think the topic has worn itself out, and I am one who will continue to believe that we were not formed as a Christian nation, and those who believe otherwise will do the same.

It has been interesting reading other opinions, on the subject, and that is one of the reasons for this board.

Regards, :)

[ 12-12-2002, 02:46 PM: Message edited by: retired ]

nickg

12-12-2002, 02:59 PM

the point of this thread really wasn't a religion thread per se.

it was based on the fact that the lefty libs think that "7 blowjobs" in a family newspaper is ok, but Christ in Christmas (anywhere OTHER than the church, and THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE IT IS ALLOWED apparently according to their swiss cheese frame of mind) isn't.

how long will it be before houses of worship are torn down and replaced with sex clubs?? you can't go around espousing God and Jesus when sex makes more money now, can you??

xyneshia

12-12-2002, 06:30 PM

I am soooooo tired of people demanding that "this & that" be changed because they are offended because their faith is different than so & so's! Yes, there is a separation of church and state. The state shall not "endorse" a specific faith. Sometimes I think people forget what our American Rights ARE: We are garaunteed freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion. Sorry folks but if you live in America will be exposed to Crosses, The Star of David, Buddah statues! get over it already! Just had to get in my 2 cents.

CinaC

12-13-2002, 08:22 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Sorry folks but if you live in America will be exposed to Crosses, The Star of David, Buddah statues! get over it already!<hr /></blockquote>And just so long as they're not on government property, that won't be an issue.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />it was based on the fact that the lefty libs think that "7 blowjobs" in a family newspaper is ok, but Christ in Christmas (anywhere OTHER than the church, and THAT IS THE ONLY PLACE IT IS ALLOWED apparently according to their swiss cheese frame of mind) isn't.<hr /></blockquote>No, Nick. Religion is allowed ABSOLUTELY anywhere ... just not on government grounds (and even then it's only a matter of not displaying religious icons, not forsaking your religion altogether). Unless this newspaper was a government run or operated business (and you have yet to prove that), you have no legal grounds to complain. Maybe you should exercise your freedom of choice and give business to a newspaper that better reflects your politicial ideology. As it stands now, you're mad that some people "whined and cried" for the paper to remove religious references, and then you came here and "whined and cried" about it.

The cycle must stop, Nick, the line must be drawn HERE! The cycle of whining and crying must stop HERE and NOW, and only YOU can stop it!

<blockquote>quote:<hr />the point of this thread really wasn't a religion thread per se. <hr /></blockquote>You're absolutely right, Nick! This thread is not about what religion or denomination of a religion is correct, but rather about the Constitutionality of religious icons on government property, and about whether or not this nation was founded on the precepts of a certain religion.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We are garaunteed freedom OF religion not freedom FROM religion.<hr /></blockquote>Xyn, no one is suggesting that churches and synagogues and mosques be torn down and replaced with sex clubs (well, Nick is). Too many people attempt to equate the seperation of church and state as being an infringement on "freedom of religion", and it's not. No one is preventing you from practicing religion in your church, in your home, or even standing on the street corner with signs. No one (except for Nick) has in this thread advocated banning religion from the nation.

On the contrary, in order to keep the nation free for ALL religions (yeah, even those Mormons insisting on baptizing the Jewish Holocaust dead) the government must emphatically steer clear of even the perception that it favors any religion over any other.

[ 12-13-2002, 08:31 AM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

xyneshia

12-13-2002, 01:11 PM

CiaJ,
I have no idea what makes you interpert what i said as tearing down places of worship. I'm simply saying that people are going to be exposed to religion, a lot. We aren't garaunteed freedom from religion. Some people think that God should only exist in the minds of those who worship and never be seen anywhere else. Seeing religous symbols or books in a public setting is not coercing someone to beleive it, people are waaaay too sensitive. The other day while in the mall a stranger approached me & said that I was infringing on his constitutional rights simply because I was both in public and have a tattoo of a cross with the words Jesus Saves and Gal 6:17! I ignored him and walked away while he yelled at me. Where is the world going to when a person can't say Merry Christmas or have a cross on her arm? We are going to be exposed to religion, get over it!

CinaC

12-13-2002, 01:28 PM

XYN,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />I have no idea what makes you interpert what i said as tearing down places of worship.<hr /></blockquote>Whenever someone says "we have freedom of religion, not from religion", I usually interpret it to mean that someone believes my position is to ban all religious icons and mentions from public, when in reality, I only want to keep government property free from such.

<blockquote>quote:<hr /> I'm simply saying that people are going to be exposed to religion, a lot. <hr /></blockquote>Oh, clearly. I drive past quite a few churches on my way to and from wherever, and quite a few people up around here have religious bumperstickers of one sort or another. I saw an amusing mix the other day: pickup truck had both a "Pro-2nd" sticker, plus a "What would Jesus do?" sticker. Kind of amusing, all that could go through my head was: "turn the other cheek!"

:)

<blockquote>quote:<hr />We aren't garaunteed freedom from religion. Some people think that God should only exist in the minds of those who worship and never be seen anywhere else.<hr /></blockquote>I don't think religion should be advertised on government property. Clearly, this has its limits, as I'm not suggestion religious employees remove any religious tatoos or jewelry. Just that I don't care to see the Star or David, the cross, or whatever on the wall of the local post office.

I understand this is not a popular opinion to hold, but I do things by what I think is right, not by what is popular.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Seeing religous symbols or books in a public setting is not coercing someone to beleive it, people are waaaay too sensitive.<hr /></blockquote>Certainly people ARE way too sensative. Just because something is public, it does not mean it is owned by the government. Indeed, even I would not suggest that a military family living on a government installation wouldn't have a right to put a Christmas tree in their living room. Privacy is privacy, government property or not. And public is public, and those truly out to ban all religion from the nation fail to realize that the seperation of church and state does not apply in a usually privately-owned shopping mall.

<blockquote>quote:<hr />The other day while in the mall a stranger approached me & said that I was infringing on his constitutional rights simply because I was both in public and have a tattoo of a cross with the words Jesus Saves and Gal 6:17! I ignored him and walked away while he yelled at me. Where is the world going to when a person can't say Merry Christmas or have a cross on her arm? We are going to be exposed to religion, get over it!<hr /></blockquote>Clearly, this person needs to spent a little time researching the subject, since they are absolutely in the wrong.

[ 12-13-2002, 01:31 PM: Message edited by: C in a J ]

Bill R

12-13-2002, 04:41 PM

Crazy,
<blockquote>quote:<hr />I saw an amusing mix the other day: pickup truck had both a "Pro-2nd" sticker, plus a "What would Jesus do?" sticker. Kind of amusing, all that could go through my head was: "turn the other cheek!"
<hr /></blockquote>Depends on the situation... The two stickers certainly do not conflict.
Luke 22:36
He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one.

CinaC

12-14-2002, 11:12 AM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />And the non-religous Founding Fathers didn't suffer from rightous indignation and refuse to sign it until the offensive remarks were removed.<hr /></blockquote>I missed this. How do you equate being a Deist with being non-religious? Do you equate being a Muslim or being a Jew with being non-religious because they don't worship the Christian faith?

<blockquote>quote:<hr />He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <hr /></blockquote>Wow, that Jesus fella' sure ain't consistent.

Chief Wiggum

12-16-2002, 03:13 PM

WOW! I've been gone a while. This thread has gone all over the place! Any hoo, after reading the last couple of statements I guess that what I'm wondering is why does it matter if the country was founded on Christian principles or not? I don't know the answer to that question and I doubt that anyone else here could really answer it either. What I do recall is that two of the ideas that this country was founded on was equallity and freedom (slavery dosen't really fit in with that but I think we can all agree that was a BIG mistake). I mean I've been through quite a few history/govt. classes and I don't remember discussing religion very much. I sure do remember talking about the settler's desire for freedom and equallity a lot though. The concept of the seperation of church and state has been around for a long time as well. I guess partially to avoid the appearance that the govt. supports one group of citizens over another and to maintain equallity. We have freedom to decorate our homes or other private property any way we see fit. There just shouldn't be religious decor on public (govt.) buildings. Or if they do alow it then there should be equal oportunity for other religions to decorate as well. That being said i still think people make too big a deal about some of these religious symbols. Are a couple of angels on a public school tecnically a violation? Yes. Should a freakin' federal case be made out of them? No. I think that as a country we have a few more pressing problems.

Bill R

12-16-2002, 03:33 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />

[QUOTE]He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <hr /></blockquote>Wow, that Jesus fella' sure ain't consistent.<hr /></blockquote>Of course Jesus is consistent. Turn the other cheek means we should forgive minor transgressions. We are allowed to defend ourselves.

retired

12-16-2002, 06:33 PM

Bill,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Bill R:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by C in a J:
 <blockquote>quote:<hr />

[QUOTE]He said to them, "But now if you have a purse, take it, and also a bag; and if you don't have a sword, sell your cloak and buy one. <hr /></blockquote>Wow, that Jesus fella' sure ain't consistent.<hr /></blockquote>Of course Jesus is consistent. Turn the other cheek means we should forgive minor transgressions. We are allowed to defend ourselves.<hr /></blockquote>Your God isn't real interested in power is he?

Luke: 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.

Bill R

12-16-2002, 06:53 PM

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by retired:
Bill,
Your God isn't real interested in power is he?

Luke: 12:5
But I will forewarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him.<hr /></blockquote>Retired,
My God IS power! I'll continue where you left off. Hope you don't mind I prefer the NIV...

6Are not five sparrows sold for two pennies[1] ? Yet not one of them is forgotten by God. 7Indeed, the very hairs of your head are all numbered. Don't be afraid; you are worth more than many sparrows.
8"I tell you, whoever acknowledges me before men, the Son of Man will also acknowledge him before the angels of God. 9But he who disowns me before men will be disowned before the angels of God.

It's really simple.

xyneshia

12-16-2002, 07:37 PM

Bill,
Amen! God is power! He is the Almighty for a reason!

retired

12-16-2002, 09:54 PM

Bill,

Your God sure doesn't want anyone to love their mother and father! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="wink.gif" />

Luke: 14:26
If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple.

Watchman

12-16-2002, 10:35 PM

retired:

you forgot the verse that goes with it:

14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

and this...

14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

that ought to help you to figure it out.. :D

retired

12-17-2002, 02:52 AM

Watchamn,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
retired:

you forgot the verse that goes with it:

14:27 And whosoever doth not bear his cross, and come after me, cannot be my disciple.

and this...

14:33 So likewise, whosoever he be of you that forsaketh not all that he hath, he cannot be my disciple.

that ought to help you to figure it out.. :D <hr /></blockquote>I'm not trying to figure anything out, I'm just being a pest! :p

I don't have a problem if someone believes in the bible or God, that is their choice, and I'm not really trying to change their mind.

I don't believe in either, and no one is going to change my opinion.

Watchman

12-17-2002, 11:34 PM

I don't believe in either, and no one is going to change my opinion.

Only YOU can change your opinion and I know that someday you will...I just hope its not too late... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Merry CHRISTMAS... :D

retired

12-18-2002, 01:08 AM

Watchman,

<blockquote>quote:<hr />Originally posted by Watchman:
I don't believe in either, and no one is going to change my opinion.

Only YOU can change your opinion and I know that someday you will...I just hope its not too late... <img border="0" title="" alt="[Eek!]" src="eek.gif" />

Merry CHRISTMAS... :D <hr /></blockquote>I hope someday you will change your opinion also, hopefully it's not too late for you! :p