Guest
I realize this, and I fully agree with what you say.
I've always wondered why "the seperation of church and state" pharse, wasn't (least to my knowledge) heard by the surpreme court and "put to rest" once'n fer all.
YMHS
rollingb
-
Friends, our 2nd Amendment rights are always under attack and the NRA has been a constant for decades in helping fight that fight.
We have partnered with the NRA to offer you a discount on membership and Muzzleloading Forum gets a small percentage too of each membership, so you are supporting both the NRA and us.
Use this link to sign up please; https://membership.nra.org/recruiters/join/XR045103
Help Support Muzzleloading Forum:
I realize this, and I fully agree with what you say.
I've always wondered why "the seperation of church and state" pharse, wasn't (least to my knowledge) heard by the surpreme court and "put to rest" once'n fer all.
YMHS
rollingb
Guest
The Myth of
the Separation of Church and State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.
Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.
1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.
2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.
3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.
4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.
the Separation of Church and State
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anytime religion is mentioned within the confines of government today people cry, "Separation of Church and State". Many people think this statement appears in the first amendment of the U.S. Constitution and therefore must be strictly enforced. However, the words: "separation", "church", and "state" do not even appear in the first amendment. The first amendment reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..." The statement about a wall of separation between church and state was made in a letter on January 1, 1802, by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut. The congregation heard a widespread rumor that the Congregationalists, another denomination, were to become the national religion. This was very alarming to people who knew about religious persecution in England by the state established church. Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Congregation that the separation was to be that government would not establish a national religion or dictate to men how to worship God. Jefferson's letter from which the phrase "separation of church and state" was taken affirmed first amendment rights. Jefferson wrote:
I contemplate with solemn reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church and State. (1)
The reason Jefferson choose the expression "separation of church and state" was because he was addressing a Baptist congregation; a denomination of which he was not a member. Jefferson wanted to remove all fears that the state would make dictates to the church. He was establishing common ground with the Baptists by borrowing the words of Roger Williams, one of the Baptist's own prominent preachers. Williams had said:
When they have opened a gap in the hedge or wall of separation between the garden of the Church and the wilderness of the world, God hath ever broke down the wall itself, removed the candlestick, and made his garden a wilderness, as at this day. And that there fore if He will eer please to restore His garden and paradise again, it must of necessity be walled in peculiarly unto Himself from the world...(2)
The "wall" was understood as one-directional; its purpose was to protect the church from the state. The world was not to corrupt the church, yet the church was free to teach the people Biblical values.
The American people knew what would happen if the State established the Church like in England. Even though it was not recent history to them, they knew that England went so far as forbidding worship in private homes and sponsoring all church activities and keeping people under strict dictates. They were forced to go to the state established church and do things that were contrary to their conscience. No other churches were allowed, and mandatory attendance of the established church was compelled under the Conventicle Act of 1665. Failure to comply would result in imprisonment and torture. The people did not want freedom from religion, but freedom of religion. The only real reason to separate the church from the state would be to instill a new morality and establish a new system of beliefs. Our founding fathers were God-fearing men who understood that for a country to stand it must have a solid foundation; the Bible was the source of this foundation. They believed that God's ways were much higher than Man's ways and held firmly that the Bible was the absolute standard of truth and used the Bible as a source to form our government.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society. There will always be one dominant view, otherwise it will be in transition from one belief system to another. Therefore, to say Biblical principles should not be allowed in government and school is to either be ignorant of the historic intent of the founding fathers, or blatantly bigoted against Christianity.
Each form of government has a guiding principle: monarchy in which the guiding principle is honor; aristocracy in which the guiding principle is moderation; republican democracy in which the guiding principle is virtue; despotism in which the guiding principle is fear. Without people of the United States upholding good moral conduct, society soon degenerates into a corrupt system where people misuse the authority of government to obtain what they want at the expense of others. The U.S. Constitution is the form of our government, but the power is in the virtue of the people. The virtue desired of the people is shown in the Bible. This is why Biblical morality was taught in public schools until the early 1960's. Government officials were required to declare their belief in God even to be allowed to hold a public office until a case in the U.S. Supreme Court called Torcaso v. Watkins (Oct. 1960). God was seen as the author of natural law and morality. If one did not believe in God one could not operate from a proper moral base. And by not having a foundation from which to work, one would destroy the community. The two primary places where morality is taught are the family and the church. The church was allowed to influence the government in righteousness an d justice so that virtue would be upheld. Not allowing the church to influence the state is detrimental to the country and destroys our foundation of righteousness and justice. It is absolutely necessary for the church to influence the state in virtue because without virtue our government will crumble -- the representatives will look after their own good instead of the country's.
Government was never meant to be our master as in a ruthless monarchy or dictatorship. Instead, it was to be our servant. The founding fathers believed that the people have full power to govern themselves and that people chose to give up some of their rights for the general good and the protection of rights. Each person should be self-governed and this is why virtue is so important. Government was meant to serve the people by protecting their liberty and rights, not serve by an enormous amount of social programs. The authors of the Constitution wanted the government to have as little power as possible so that if authority was misused it would not cause as much damage. Yet they wanted government to have enough authority to protect the rights of the people. The worldview at the time of the founding of our government was a view held by the Bible: that Man's heart is corrupt and if the opportunity to advance oneself at the expense of another arose, more often than not, we would choose to do so. They firmly believed this and that's why an enormous effort to set up checks and balances took place. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. They wanted to make certain that no man could take away rights given by God. They also did not set up the government as a true democracy, because they believed, as mentioned earlier, Man tends towards wickedness. Just because the majority wants something does not mean that it should be granted, because the majority could easily err. Government was not to be run by whatever the majority wanted but instead by principle, specifically the principles of the Bible.
Our U.S. Constitution was founded on Biblical principles and it was the intention of the authors for this to be a Christian nation. The Constitution had 55 people work upon it, of which 52 were evangelical Christians.(3) We can go back in history and look at what the founding fathers wrote to know where they were getting their ideas. This is exactly what two professors did. Donald Lutz and Charles Hyneman reviewed an estimated 15,000 items with explicit political content printed between 1760 and 1805 and from these items they identified 3,154 references to other sources. The source they most often quoted was the Bible, accounting for 34% of all citations. Sixty percent of all quotes came from men who used the Bible to form their conclusions. That means that 94% of all quotes by the founding fathers were based on the Bible. The founding fathers took ideas from the Bible and incorporated them into our government. If it was their intention to separate the state and church they would never have taken principles from the Bible and put them into our government. An example of an idea taken from the Bible and then incorporated into our government is found in Isaiah 33:22 which says, "For the Lord is our judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our king..." The founding fathers took this scripture and made three major branches in our government: judicial, legislative, and executive. As mentioned earlier, the founding fathers strongly believed that Man was by nature corrupt and therefore it was necessary to separate the powers of the government. For instance, the President has the power to execute laws but not make them, and Congress has the power to make laws but not to judge the people. The simple principle of checks and balances came from the Bible to protect people from tyranny. The President of the United States is free to influence Congress, although he can not exercise authority over it because they are separated. Since this is true, why should the church not be allowed to influence the state? People have read too much into the phrase "separation of church and state", which is to be a separation of civil authority from ecclesiastical authority, not moral values. Congress has passed laws that it is illegal to murder and steal, which is the legislation of morality. These standards of morality are found in the Bible. Should we remove them from law because the church should be separated from the state?
Our founding fathers who formed the government also formed the educational system of the day. John Witherspoon did not attend the Constitutional Convention although he was President of New Jersey College in 1768 (known as Princeton since 1896) and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. His influence on the Constitution was far ranging in that he taught nine of fifty-five original delegates. He fought firmly for religious freedom and said, "God grant that in America true religion and civil liberty may be inseparable and that unjust attempts to destroy the one may in the issue tend to the support and establishment of both."(4)
In October 1961 the Supreme Court of the United States removed prayer from schools in a case called Engel v. Vitale. The case said that because the U.S. Constitution prohibits any law respecting an establishment of religion officials of public schools may not compose public prayer even if the prayer is denominationally neutral, and that pupils may choose to remain silent or be excused while the prayer is being recited. For 185 years prayer was allowed in public and the Constitutional Convention itself was opened with prayer. If the founding fathers didn't want prayer in government why did they pray publicly in official meetings? It is sometimes said that it is permissible to pray in school as long as it is silent. Although, "In Omaha, Nebraska, 10-year old James Gierke was prohibited from reading his Bible silently during free time... the boy was forbidden by his teacher to open his Bible at school and was told doing so was against the law."(4) The U.S. Supreme Court with no precedent in any court history said prayer will be removed from school. Yet the Supreme Court in January, 1844 in a case named Vidal v. Girard's Executors, a school was to be built in which no ecclesiastic, missionary, or minister of any sect whatsoever was to be allowed to even step on the property of the school. They argued over whether a layman could teach or not, but they agreed that, "...there is an obligation to teach what the Bible alone can teach, viz. a pure system of morality." This has been the precedent throughout 185 years. Although this case is from 1844, it illustrates the point. The prayer in question was not even lengthy or denominationally geared. It was this: "Almighty God, we acknowledge our dependence upon Thee, and we beg Thy blessings upon us, our parents, our teachers and our Country." What price have we paid by removing this simple acknowledgment of God's protecting hand in our lives? Birth rates for unwed girls from 15-19; sexually transmitted diseases among 10-14 year olds; pre-marital sex increased; violent crime; adolescent homicide have all gone up considerably from 1961 to the 1990's -- even after taking into account population growth. The Bible, before 1961, was used extensively in curriculum. After the Bible was removed, scholastic aptitude test scores dropped considerably.
There is no such thing as a pluralistic society; there will always be one dominant view. Someone's morality is going to be taught -- but whose? Secular Humanism is a religion that teaches that through Man's ability we will reach universal peace and unity and make heaven on earth. They promote a way of life that systematically excludes God and all religion in the traditional sense. That Man is the highest point to which nature has evolved, and he can rely on only himself and that the universe was not created, but instead is self-existing. They believe that Man has the potential to be good in and of himself. All of this of course is in direct conflict with not only the teachings of the Bible but even the lessons of history. In June 1961 in a case called Torcaso v. Watkins, the U.S. Supreme Court stated, "Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism and others." The Supreme Court declared Secular Humanism to be a religion. The American Humanist Association certifies counselors who enjoy the same legal status as ordained ministers. Since the Supreme Court has said that Secular Humanism is a religion, why is it being allowed to be taught in schools? The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment.
1. Thomas Jefferson, Jefferson Writings, Merrill D. Peterson, ed. (NY: Literary Classics of the United States, Inc., 1984), p. 510, January 1, 1802.
2. John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution (MI: Baker Book House, 1987), p. 243.
3. M.E. Bradford, A Worthy Company: Brief Lives of the Framers of the United States Constitution (Marlborough, N.H.: Plymouth Rock Foundation, 1982), p. 4-5.
4. John Witherspoon, "Sermon on the Dominion of Providence over the Passions of Men" May 17, 1776; quoted and Cited by Collins, President Witherspoon, I:197-98.
Wayne Combs
40 Cal.
- Joined
- May 23, 2004
- Messages
- 126
- Reaction score
- 0
The writers of the Constitution never intended the Judicial Branch be able to make laws.It seems though in the last 40 years or so that the Supreme Court has taken it upon themselves to make the laws of this country.You don't need to take my word for it,just read "The Federalist".Just my $.02,Wayne.
Damn straight! Legislating from the bench has become a widespread problem that needs to be STOPPED! We need to get the courts in this country back in line and doing what they were intended to do. The job of the Supreme Court is to interperet laws and to determine the constitutionality of laws based upon the strict standards set forth in the Constitution. The job of lower courts is to uphold these laws and prescribe punishments for those who break them. NO COURT HAS THE POWER TO MAKE LAWS! Yet, they're trying their damnedest to do just that! :shocking:
RollinB...WOW!!!!! whar jah git all them words????? :: To coin a pharse you always use:" History Does Repeat Itself"..in this case ,I hope you are right! It would be great to get back to where being a Christian and believing in God were the norm instead of the exception.
who ever said "god" told a few unhappy colonists to start a war? back in those times everyone had god shoved down their throats and anyone who didnt do the "i love god" [censored] was black listed. witchhunts were still taking placein europe
and the "unalienable rights" come from old greek philosophy not a bible.
furthermore i agree that the government has really screwed the country up. and it wont end becuase just about everyone in america has been taught since diapers to be a happy part of the system and follow beuracratic channels. wich means wever learned to be good little peons.
and the "unalienable rights" come from old greek philosophy not a bible.
furthermore i agree that the government has really screwed the country up. and it wont end becuase just about everyone in america has been taught since diapers to be a happy part of the system and follow beuracratic channels. wich means wever learned to be good little peons.
Guest
Thet's the way I unnerstand it too,.... and, I sure wisht they'd do it!!
YMHS
rollingb
Well, I hope you gents don't mind too much, but I figure that this discussion needed a little bit from a minority (non-christian) viewpoint... That Jefferson was not only writing of the freedom of religion- allowing all men to practice as they see fit for themselves, but also the freedonm FROM religion- the primary sentence of first amendment "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..." As a personal opinion, it is THIS very statement that seems to cause the most problems and some people have gotten a bit carried away with the "freedom from religion". They have taken a single cohesive thought; as a rabbinical teacher once told me- "the state isn't going to force a religion down your throat, but if you want one it's your choice" and split it in two.
Somewhere along the line someone forgot about the CHOICE part of it. They also seem to forget that state enforced or established DENIAL of religion is equally as dangerous as it removes that freedonm of CHOICE. As rollingb has so eloquently said- "The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment." Now, as a non-Christian I might want to change a few words like Humanism to agnosticism or atheism and Christianity to 'other beliefs', but from where I sit the meaning and intent is clear and not exclusive of those folk of my ilk that might frequent these forums.
It gets pretty tiresome hearing the assaults from both sides of the extremists, one side wanting to push their personal version of religion down everyone's throats and the ones that want to remove every trace of ANY diety anywhere it happens to appear. Maybe it's time to put them ALL in a cave somewhere and let the rest of us normal folks get back to enjoying life, liberty, and persuing whatever makes us happy- at least until the wife finds out :crackup:.
So from this Brooklyn-born, Chicago transplanted, slightly silly Jewish blackpowder fanatic I too say...rollingb for prez :applause: :thumbsup:.
Vic
(Yes, I once thought that Johnny Reb was a Civil War Rabbi from Georgia, but I was much younger then)
ps- Sure hope youse guyzzz don't hold dat Brooklyn thing against me none.
Somewhere along the line someone forgot about the CHOICE part of it. They also seem to forget that state enforced or established DENIAL of religion is equally as dangerous as it removes that freedonm of CHOICE. As rollingb has so eloquently said- "The removal of public prayer of those who wish to participate is, in effect, establishing the religion of Humanism over Christianity. This is exactly what our founding fathers tried to stop from happening with the first amendment." Now, as a non-Christian I might want to change a few words like Humanism to agnosticism or atheism and Christianity to 'other beliefs', but from where I sit the meaning and intent is clear and not exclusive of those folk of my ilk that might frequent these forums.
It gets pretty tiresome hearing the assaults from both sides of the extremists, one side wanting to push their personal version of religion down everyone's throats and the ones that want to remove every trace of ANY diety anywhere it happens to appear. Maybe it's time to put them ALL in a cave somewhere and let the rest of us normal folks get back to enjoying life, liberty, and persuing whatever makes us happy- at least until the wife finds out :crackup:.
So from this Brooklyn-born, Chicago transplanted, slightly silly Jewish blackpowder fanatic I too say...rollingb for prez :applause: :thumbsup:.
Vic
(Yes, I once thought that Johnny Reb was a Civil War Rabbi from Georgia, but I was much younger then)
ps- Sure hope youse guyzzz don't hold dat Brooklyn thing against me none.
Brooklyn! That's it, buddy! You're outta here! :: :crackup: Seriously, though, I am perphaps a minority myself. I believe in God, but I don't subscribe to any particular faith, though I find many admirable beliefs in Judaism, Christianity, and even Buddhism and Hinduism. Having said that, it's pretty clear that the Founding Fathers based much of our Constitution and the principles therein upon the Judeo-Christian tradition. That's cool with me! I certainly have never felt that I was being force fed any particular religion as an American. You're right, there are religious extremists and atheist/PC extremists. It's either ALL GOD ALL THE TIME or NO GOD EVER. Unfortunately, although extremist on either side are the exception rather than the rule, they tend to scream the loudest and get the most attention. I think most folks are grown up enough to quietly practice their own brand of faith (or lack thereof) and extend to others the same courtesy. To get back to the main topic, these folks who get upset because the Pledge, the Constitution, the currency, etc. have references to God in/on them need to grow up and get themselves a good hobby or something, anything to keep their little minds occupied! :: :thumbsup:
Guest
I wish I could take credit fer thet long "string'a words" I posted, but the fact is I borrowed'em 'cause I could find "NO FAULT" in'em. ::
I figgered everbuddy knew I didn't write'em, 'cause I'm not "ELOQUENT" with words! :redface:
Sorry fer tha mistake, I should'a made thet clear when I posted'em!!
Kin I still apply fer tha position of "Village Idiot", if'n my former over-sight disqualifies me from run'n fer "Prez"?? :cry: :nono: ::
YMHS
rollingb
Birdwatcher
45 Cal.
- Joined
- Dec 25, 2003
- Messages
- 643
- Reaction score
- 7
Well, I read this too a bit ago somewhere's and for me, being a public school teacher, red flags went up all over.
First off, EVERYBODY in a public school, including Administrators, has far too much to do. The fact that Ms. Vidmar was taking the time personally checking this Mr Wilson's lesson plans speaks of a much greater perceived problems with this guy.
Most likely a parent or parents complained which is why she got on this guy's case in the first place. Ya, I know this all took place on the Left Coast but even Kalifornia has Conservatives and religious types. I dunno what Ms. Vidmar is like, but if she got on Wilson's case just because he was mentioning "God" she would likely face a storm of parental complaints, even in California. Aministrators hate getting irate phone calls from parents.
I know a couple of Christians who just can't leave it alone, been seriously alienated by one in fact. Equally likely in this case Mr Wilson wore his Faith on his sleeve, maybe asking kids if they were saved or what not instead of just preaching by example. Parental complaints get to Ms Vidmar who talks to Mr Wilson. Mr Wilson, being a zealot, doesn't listen. Ms Vidmar, who is already very busy, now has to take the time to pull Mr Wilson's lesson plans preparatory to either fixing the problem or getting documentation to sent Mr Wilson down the road.
Wilson files the lawsuit, the Right Wing arm of the media gets word of it and trumpets what are at this point unproven allegations all over the airwaves and internet, not even waiting to hear the other side.
We Conservative types all get our collective knickers in a twist. Ms Vidmar now has even more to do, plus she can't use her email any more.
Just another perspective.
Birdwatcher
(Hey! I see some familiar names around these parts
)brushbuster
40 Cal.
- Joined
- Sep 14, 2004
- Messages
- 471
- Reaction score
- 0
rb we got a cowboy in office rat now what tends ta have trouble speakin oncet en awile an still manages ta run this country eace:so if he can do it you can.
this backwash of anti religion people (by right of our constitution)have the same rights as the rest of us but i think they were asleep in history class.
my understanding of the constitution being written as far as "freedom of religion" and "seperation of church and state"are...
1)this law was to protect the public from the government by not allowing said govt.to impose nor require the people to recognize any particular denomination as the only religion you can worship.
2)the largest number of colonists were either puritans or quakers .who left england because of religios oppression .
that being said;even then they realized that in order not to make the same mistakes they had the wisdom to allow citizens to worship in their own way.
they wanted to avoid the possibility of another holy war or spanish inquisition and installing the seperation of church and state into our constitution,thus preventing government oppression to recognize only one diety or doctrine.
3)to summerize: both opinions should be taught in schools and exemplified in general, if not we will have anarchy and our country will fall within.
to deny both priveliges in our schools and our homes is a clear violation of the guide lines set forth by our founding fathers adn i'll wager they are turning over in their graves to see what is happening to our country
:imo: :m2c:eace: :shocking: :shake: :cry:
eace:so if he can do it you can.this backwash of anti religion people (by right of our constitution)have the same rights as the rest of us but i think they were asleep in history class.
my understanding of the constitution being written as far as "freedom of religion" and "seperation of church and state"are...
1)this law was to protect the public from the government by not allowing said govt.to impose nor require the people to recognize any particular denomination as the only religion you can worship.
2)the largest number of colonists were either puritans or quakers .who left england because of religios oppression .
that being said;even then they realized that in order not to make the same mistakes they had the wisdom to allow citizens to worship in their own way.
they wanted to avoid the possibility of another holy war or spanish inquisition and installing the seperation of church and state into our constitution,thus preventing government oppression to recognize only one diety or doctrine.
3)to summerize: both opinions should be taught in schools and exemplified in general, if not we will have anarchy and our country will fall within.
to deny both priveliges in our schools and our homes is a clear violation of the guide lines set forth by our founding fathers adn i'll wager they are turning over in their graves to see what is happening to our country
:imo: :m2c:
eace: :shocking: :shake: :cry:Guest
I couldn't agree more. And "No Brainer" describes the medical condition these students and professors suffer from. I invite all of them to move to Iraq, Iran, Libya, Turkey, Korea, China, Bosnia or any other place of their choosing, just as long as they get out of the USA and take their way of thinking with them. I never thought of myself as a flag waver but dammit, I fought for that flag in Vietnam and I am repulsed by these ever growing attitudes that are weakening and dividing this country.
There may be more to whole story of this particular teacher, but the simple fact that the entire question is being raised is what I am angered over. We can't read about Tom Sawyer and Huck Finn anymore and now we can read about our history unless it passes some sort of censorship. WHO ARE THE CENSORS AND WHO PUT THEM IN PLACE is my question?
Vic is right. Which "Bibical principles" are going to follow? Making it illegal to eat shrimp? Making it a felony to wear two different kinds of cloth on the same body? Not allowing any work by anyone on the Sabbath? Allowing slavery again? All these things are Bibical principles. Let's keep in mind that we need freedom FROM religion. Graybeard :m2c:
Guest
couple things here .
speaking as a minority who
speaking as a minority who
Agreed....To sum up my feeling; Political affealiations and/or religious beliefs should not be FORCED on anyone! God gave us a brain to think,reason, and decide things on our own...not collectively. Some of our thinking is conveluted...some of our reasoning is not sound...and some of our decisions are foolish-but, we have the power to do them all by ourselves.I don't want to be told I HAVE to believe in the Bible no more than I want to be told I HAVE to be a democrate or a republican (or independant). I believe as I do based on my own ideals and convictions and I vote based on the same thing. Again, the DON'T TREAD ON ME flag should wave over any free thinking society.
When California falls into the ocean, I hope all the good people there escape and the liberal minority that wants to force their beliefs on the rest us enjoy Atlantis!
When California falls into the ocean, I hope all the good people there escape and the liberal minority that wants to force their beliefs on the rest us enjoy Atlantis!
I reckon I'll put a dog in this here fight. Doesn't the First Amendment say CONGRESS SHALL PASS NO LAW....... blah, blah, blah. If Congress isn't passing a law then it isn't a First Amendment issue. I don't think there is anything about separation of Church and State.
Didn't the Constitution simply empower the newly created Federal Government? Didn't the Constitution tell that government what it could and could not do and wasn't EVERYTHING ELSE reserved to the people and the States? The Constitution doesn't give us our rights, we already have 'em, the Constitution is just supposed to tell the newly created Federal Government they can't mess with 'em.
Seems if the various States had various laws about church matters or the people were openly practicing some sort of religion BEFORE the Constituion was signed, then such things ought to have been grandfathered in as a State power or right of the people already in existence.
Ben Franklin, in his writing spoke about the establishment of religion, it pertained to an official state run church, nothing else.
Didn't the Constitution simply empower the newly created Federal Government? Didn't the Constitution tell that government what it could and could not do and wasn't EVERYTHING ELSE reserved to the people and the States? The Constitution doesn't give us our rights, we already have 'em, the Constitution is just supposed to tell the newly created Federal Government they can't mess with 'em.
Seems if the various States had various laws about church matters or the people were openly practicing some sort of religion BEFORE the Constituion was signed, then such things ought to have been grandfathered in as a State power or right of the people already in existence.
Ben Franklin, in his writing spoke about the establishment of religion, it pertained to an official state run church, nothing else.
