Quiet Secularism Leading Us Down the Wrong Path

So one bad apple in Texas is leading the country down the wrong path?

What a bunch of unmitigated crap.

This isn't even apple season. ;~)

Ali, one here, one there, this is exactly how it starts, although it already has. Every Christmas for example, when religious groups are not allowed to display manger scenes on public property, or children can no longer draw stars or exchange "Christmas" gifts or when employees in retail stores are disciplined for saying "Merry Christmas".

This is more than one bad apple my friend.

Delusional

Do you believe you should be able to erect religious icons on government held land that I help pay for with my taxes? If so, you need to read what the founders had to say about forced tithing, because that is what it amounts to. You would think churches had no grounds to do this on, from what you folks say.

Not the first to tell me that.
I don't like paying taxes to support people who are unwilling to work, yet I am forced to all the time.

Uh, you want to explain to me how that has any bearing on this, I pay taxes to support people unable to find work, too, and I fail to see how that is a fair trade, since you aren't trading me anything, jus sayin.

I didn't realize it was secularism. I was pretty dern sure it is right wing religious extremists who are leading us down the wrong path. I guess it depends on your path.

One path is the one which continues the values of the Founding Fathers and the Constitution, the other is the path of the Progressives which is to Socialism, Secularism and communism.

Oh, you mean the non Christian Deists and Theists that cored the founding of this country, and the Constitution that makes absolutely no reference to any God at all, and was purposely written that way?

Nope Ron,
Take a look at the list below, the founders were primarily Christian.

You are a child, Dan

See my reply below.

Your history of the Third Reich is kind of selective, and you fail to mention that it was no one but the Christians in Germany that put him in power, they were a vast majority, that he could not have come to power without the help and endorsement of the Christian religion and the Christian leaders of Germany, with very few dissenters. Oh, and the war criminals after the war had the church of Romes help escaping, as well. Jus sayin....

And to all accounts, most Christians were just fine with the Nazi spin on their religion you speak of.

Ron, I agree, but Hitler made promises to the Christians, signing an agreement with the Catholic Church saying he would allow all religions to practice freely. Same with the Protestants, who after Hitler came to power, actually split into a pro-Nazi and anti-Nazi party. After Hitler gained full power he broke his promises and established the Nazi church.

Hmm....The Catholic Church must not have noticed that he didn't do that, or they wouldn't have run that pipeline to South America for them. As for your pro Nazi and anti Nazi, they put up a hell of a fight, didn't they? I don't know where you studied your history at, but the opposition to Nazism in the Christian church consisted of a very few people, a fact that the Christian Churches have done all they can to hide. Of course, if you mean those that didn't like Nazis, but did absolutely nothing to oppose them, you might have a case.

No they didn't put up much of a fight, I am not saying I believe in what they did, but they were also intimidated once the Nazi's were in power. Many Priests, Ministers, etc. were placed in concentration camps until they were persuaded they were "wrong".

If we continue to let the Islamic faith and their Sharia Law become the law of this country, let's see how many of our believers in freedom from religion hold out.

To my knowledge, in no case has Sharia law been allowed to supercede our constitution, at least not on appeal.

When you say many, I think you would be amazed at what a small percentage that represents, Paul. I remember reading about this once, and the same kind of claim made me investigate, and though I cant quote you a number, at this point, it has been too long ago, I can tell you I was shocked at how few those many were.

One person thrown into a concentration camp because of what they believe is one too many.

Oh, nice save, Paul ;o)

But in reality is was closer to a thousand than 1

A religious census taken in 1925 revealed that of an overall German population of 65 million, 40 million belonged to the main Protestant (Evangelical Lutheran) church, 21 million to the Roman Catholic church, and 620,000 to various smaller, mostly Protestant denominations.

in violation of the Constitution

What violation would that be?

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of a religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof
The director is a government employee who is interfering with this free excercise.

You folks seem to be unable to read over half of that clause, fo some reason. Your free exercise is only limited, when you try to use government to endorse and promote your religion, which is the other half of that clause, which says government can not allow you to do that.

Silly Paul,
Don't you understand? It's the freedom from religion (don't you dare offend me) NOT the freedom of religion! LOL!

Because religious belief, or non-belief, is such an important part of every person's life, freedom of religion affects every individual. Religious institutions that use government power in support of themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths, or of no faith, undermine all our civil rights. - Thomas Jefferson

Yes, it is the freedom from religion, just as Jefferson says there

(or of no faith)

Ron, read the Constitution. It says there can be no establishment of a nationwide religion, or PROHIBITION of the free exercise thereof.

The Director of this cemetery is enforcing her views on others. If a non-Christian wishes to have no prayers said, they are perfectly free to express their view.

Well, how much do you know about constitutional law, Paul? Are you aware that the SCOTUS, when producing judgements on any constitutional issue has one purpose, and one purpose only? That purpose is to determine what the meaning was to the people that passed the law, and enforce it in that context, until someone changes the law. The founders that passed that law used the language of their time, not your modern interpretation of it. The number of writings from the founders that confirm the SCOTUS decisions on the establishment clause are legion, and the SCOTUS, unless it wanted to do what you folks always accuse it of doing, and make law from the bench, had no choice but to rule the way they have, because that is how the founders understood the meaning of establishment.

From Webster, to establish:

1 to make stable; make firm; settle !to establish a habit"
2 to order, ordain, or enact (a law, statute, etc.) permanently
3 to set up (a government, nation, business, etc.); found; institute
4 to cause to be or happen; bring about !efforts to establish a friendship"
5 to settle in an office or position, or set up as in business or a profession
6 to make a state institution of (a church)
7 to set up (a precedent, theory, reputation, etc.) permanently; cause to be accepted or recognized
8 to prove; demonstrate to establish one's cause at law"

The supreme court has interpreted "establishment of religion" correctly under definition 7, "cause to be accepted or recognized", because that is how the founders meant it. You really should read some of their writings beyond the cherry picked out of context quotes from Barton, Kennedy, and Federer, because you will discover that these men were no friends of Christianity, they had risen to power and prominence despite oppressive established religions that they did not believe in, and it showed. Government is prohibited from causing religion to be accepted or recognized. Therefor, while it is your right to practice your religion, it is governments responsibility to make sure they do not cause any religion to be accepted or recognized. Your lady in Texas may be overstepping her authority, I do not know the specifics, but if it is anything like the other claims of oppression of Christians I have seen, it has been exaggerated and sensationalized to get the faithfuls dander up, and go out there and fight for an establishment of religion. That fight is unconstitutional, as the SCOTUS has correctly ruled time and again.

Well, Guy, I didn't mean they would personally go out and beat people over the head if they violated it, and I thought it would go without saying that they rule on constitutionality of laws, I meant in relation to determining the meaning of the wording of the law, but thanks for the monumental display of anality, I had almost forgotten your proficiency.

I can't believe you're still using these definitions that prove our point of what establishment means much more than yours. Uh...wait a minute. Yes, I can.

There is a reason for that, Sue, its the SCOTUSs, where is your definition from?

I'm talking about those Webster definitions that I went through with you recently.

Well, if you don't like them Im sorry but I figure they are, along with the explanation of which definition they determined the founders were using, essential to explaining it to some people.

Congress shall make no law respecting the estabishment of religion.

So if you want to use definition #7 and replace the word extablishment with that definition, the clause would read that Congress shall make no law to set permanently a precendent or a theory, shall make no law to accept or recognize that precedent or theory in respect to religion.

You are not reading that clause correctly when you say, "it is governments responsibility to make sure they do not cause any religion to be accepted or recognized."

It is government's responsibility that no law is made to cause any religion to be permanently accepted or recognized, not that it is government's job that no religion will be accepted or recognized.

Tell it to the SCOTUS Sue, and I am sure they will agree you have come up with a brand new legal argument and will immediately see that you are their legal superior, and reverse all of their obviously flawed case law. Gad, don't bother with me, go for it, lol.

It's not brand new anything, Ron. It's primer reading. They know very well how it reads, but they bring in the separation of church and state into the interpretation illegally which changes the meaining, and we've been on that carousel. I just wanted to make my point one more time.

Well, you must mean illegal in Sueland, wherever that is, but in the United States of America, that is how constitutional law is decided, and according to everything Ive read of the peoples writings that wrote it, they could not have decided any other way, unless they, Gad forbid, legislated from the bench, and I didn't think you folks liked that kind of thing one little bit, but apparently that is only when doing so would go against you, not when it would work in your favor.

Ron, the First Amendment states: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof: or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"

In the case of the Director, she is interfering with the free exercise thereof.

The problem with the left is you feel the need to interpret the Constitution, it means what it says as written. Not what you want it to mean.

Paul,
The problem is that you did not write the laws, and it means what the people that DID write them meant it to, not how you would like to read it, and if you have a problem with that, you need to change the laws by sponsoring an amendment to the constitution. Nothing else will change it. It sounds to me from what I have read, and what Wil shared down below, you are doing that director an injustice, she is doing her job as the constitution mandates within the confines of her job as a government employee. Get off her case.

Every new & successful example of a perfect separation between ecclesiastical and civil matters is of importance.
-- James Madison, letter to Edward Livingston, July 10, 1822

The civil government ... functions with complete success ... by the total separation of the Church from the State.
-- James Madison, 1819

I must admit moreover that it may not be easy, in every possible case, to trace the line of separation between the rights of religion and the Civil authority with such distinctness as to avoid collisions and doubts on unessential points. The tendency of a usurpation on one side or the other, or to a corrupting coalition or alliance between them, will be best guarded by an entire abstinence of the Government from interference in any way whatever, beyond the necessity of preserving public order, and protecting each sect against trespass on its legal rights by others.
-- James Madison, letter to Reverend Adams

You my friend, according to the father of the bill of rights, are attempting to trespass on the legal rights of others

Otherwise, why would you be advocating Christian speech at a burial, against the wishes of the family of the man being buried?

Ron (Picking at nit....wits) W. Jul 10, 2011, 10:49am EDT
"You folks seem to be unable to read over half of that clause, fo some reason. Your free exercise is only limited, when you try to use government to endorse and promote your religion, which is the other half of that clause, which says government can not allow you to do that."

I didn't catch this earlier, but there are two separate clauses here. One is the establishment clause and the other is the free exercise clause. They are not half each. Once you get the first one down, you can move onto the 2nd, but you have a long way to go before you understand the first, Ron, history knowlege/spin or not.

So says the queen of Sueland, wherever that might be. Lucky I live in the USA, I guess. Whatever, Sue, even you knew what i meant.

Ron (Picking at nit....wits) W.

Hey, it just seemed appropriate, you know?

"Whatever, Sue, even you knew what i meant."

Like I said to you the other day, Ron, when they finally figured out they hadn't added the separation of church and state in the Bill of Rights, they just said the hell with it because there are sure to be people like Ron W. down the road who will know what we meant to include as long as TJ's letter to the Danbury Baptists doesn't get lost. They'll find a way to incorporate it later with some imaginative ingenuity. That's the American way.

Yeah, it was this huge conspiracy, Jefferson was born in Kenya, and Madison came across the border illegally.

Just to impose their godless socialist government on you over 200 years later..... I wonder who their psychic was.....

And what you did to piss them off....

Ron, you are the one who is reading into the First Amendment what you want it to say.

No one is trying to establish a state religion. You have said you are not a Christian, then if I may ask what religion, if any are you? If you are an atheist or agnostic, and you don't believe in religion, why does it bother you so that others do?

Paul, as I told Dan below, if you want to wallow in your ignorance, that is fine with me, up until you tread on my constitutional rights, with your imaginary ones. Then I have the law on my side, so good luck with that. I don't care what you believe in, Paul, I do care when you try to take over government, because history, as you might have guessed, a major interest of mine, shows, time and again, what happens when religion gets any influence with government, from Rome to our shores, and it has been, without exception, a tragedy for free men.

"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own. It is easier to acquire wealth and power by this combination than by deserving them, and to effect this, they have perverted the purest religion ever preached to man into mystery and jargon, unintelligible to all mankind, and therefore the safer engine for their purposes."
-- Thomas Jefferson, to Horatio G Spafford, March 17, 1814

As for no one trying to establish a religion, you may not be, but you are merely a pawn in a much larger game, and you do not have any idea what that game actually is, just as you have no idea of what the real history of this country is.

Ron,
Willful ignorance is when you ignore facts because they don't fit into what you wish was.

By their actions the founders showed that including faith and religion in government was not a violation of the first amendment.

Dan, you have no idea what you are talking about. Sign off the internet and pick up a book sometime, from a real historian, not one of your religious right shills.

Of course, look who I'm talking to, someone that thinks he knows more than the NAS, because he can read a few denialist blogs, why should this be different....

Sure I do Ron,
History reports to us that is how the founders lived their lives...You have nothing but denial.

Yes Ron there is a boat load of research out there that casts serious doubt on the theory of man caused global warming, a lot done by scientists as well credentialed as those anywhere on the planet.

With U.S. history you chose the facts that fit your biases....When it comes to the climate your just ignorant.

LOL, well, I see we share the same respect for each others opinions... As I told you on global warming, I will go with the credentialed professionals on history, too, sorry.

With U.S. history you chose the facts that fit your biases...

No Dan, with US History, the facts formed my biases, my biases were exactly like yours when I started studying it. That period was one of the most turbulent in our history, with very complex social and civil issues beyond the government we were working through, and you cannot even begin to understand it with a couple of days googling biased sites on the internet, sorry.

scientists as well credentialed as those anywhere on the planet.

Never mind many of them get their funding from Exxon, eh, and never mind that they represent a tiny, tiny percentage of the scientific community, with all of the credible scientific organizations on this earth signing off on GW and mans role in its development.

I just figure I don't have thirty years to study global warming, like I have history, so I have no bias on it, and I prefer to make the logical decision to listen to the overwhelming consensus, not make my own decisions based on ignorance. I have no bias on global warming, and if you turned out by some stretch to be right, I would say oops, and still know I had made the reasonable choice, based on the situation as it stands today, sorry.

Guy,
Thanks for the love letter, I love you too ;o) Its over a hundred with lots of humidity these past few days, and I have physical issues that say to stay in the air conditioning, so here I am. If that concerns you for my welfare, believe me, i am touched at your interest.

But stick around, Guy, as long as you are trying to bully me, it means you aren't bullying someone else that you could intimidate with your BS. That sort of makes it all worthwhile....

So, how bout that Obama, getting ready to sell us out on every successful social program fought for over the last hundred years, you should be proud.

Yes, those successful social programs. Like the war on poverty which has increased poverty and the number of people dependent on it, look at all the good it has done for those poor black folk they wanted to save.

Tell me the truth, you've never found a piece of right wing propaganda you didn't like, have you Paul? Religious or secular.

The war on poverty became a skirmish under Reagan, and under Clinton, it became a mere discussion. There is no war on poverty, unless you mean the class warfare by the rich on the middle class and poor.

Before Guy comes back, I better clarify I am speaking in relation to welfare (wouldn't want to trigger another anal attack), as that is what I assumed you referred to, by your reference to those poor black folks, which, by the way, is a little racist, as many whites have been on welfare, and I'm not entirely sure there were not more of them, though I don't know the figures

Yawn

Says it all

Rest assured Ron that any with notable intelligence can decipher the differences in character traits between the "debaters" here ... not to mention the adhominem "attackers" ...

Exactly why Guy doesn't bother me, Jerry.

Interesting Ron how you make assumptions about others reading all the right wing propaganda when it appears you read all the left wing propaganda.

But then this is what makes this country great we are allowed to speak what we like.

I read all of it, Paul..... Know thine enemy....

Each "side" accuses the other of propaganda ... but in truth there is one side that is more dishonest and thus needs to hide it through propaganda ... the other side tells primarily the truth in it's accusations and then the liars call them liars and sadly too many people believe the liars ... probably doing so to protect their own denials of truth ... the truth will win out in the end ... from an eternal perspective, but the battles will be rough on the path to ending by winning the war ... in the realm of dualists the hawks generally prey upon the doves ... the lions eat the sheep ... and the "sheeple" follow their designated hawk-lion leader because they are fearful of truth and need to hide behind such leaders.

IMnsHO

Oh, I do Ron

Keep reading, lol

The religious affiliations of these individuals are summarized below. Obviously this is a very restrictive set of names, and does not include everyone who could be considered an "American Founding Father." But most of the major figures that people generally think of in this context are included using these criteria, including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Samuel Adams, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams, John Hancock, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and more.

Religious Affiliation
of U.S. Founding Fathers # of
Founding
Fathers % of
Founding
Fathers
Episcopalian/Anglican 88 54.7%
Presbyterian 30 18.6%
Congregationalist 27 16.8%
Quaker 7 4.3%
Dutch Reformed/German Reformed 6 3.7%
Lutheran 5 3.1%
Catholic 3 1.9%
Huguenot 3 1.9%
Unitarian 3 1.9%
Methodist 2 1.2%
Calvinist 1 0.6%
TOTAL 204

Yeah, that would be accurate, except that there were established religions in those days, and all people were required to belong. Your list is meaningless, since we know from their writings that many on that list were not Christians at all, in anything but a book of church statistics

George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, James Madison, John Adams, not Christians, sorry

Experience witnesseth that eccelsiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution.
-- James Madison

I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented myself from Christian assemblies.
-- Benjamin Franklin

As I understand the Christian religion, it was, and is, a revelation. But how has it happened that millions of fables, tales, legends, have been blended with both Jewish and Christian revelation that have made them the most bloody religion that ever existed?
-- John Adams

I can do this all day, Dan, have you got anything else?

I hope you don't mind, Ron. I borrowed your excellent quotes to reply on another post!

Not at all, Cathi, i wish everyone knew what the hell they were talking about when they make the founders roll over in their graves and claim this was founded a Christian Nation. It was not, it was founded on Age of Enlightenment philosophy, period.

If you need any help, let me know.

Again, read the Constitution as it is written not in the way you want it to say.

Id advise you to do exactly that, Paul, and I have outlined above why you are most definitely the one in error here, sorry.

I can tell you with almost total certainty, that much of what you have been taught about the founding of this nation is a lie, foisted upon us when there was a concerted effort, during the second great awakening, to make Christianity a state religion. That attempt failed, because the preservation of the real history has been well maintained, and still is, today, but the amount of propaganda produced during that period endures and misleads to this day.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/OPINION/07/04/davis.jefferson.other.words/index.html
Why U.S. is not a Christian nation

"I can do this all day,"

So can I! LOL!

First Charter of Virginia (April 10, 1606),
We, greatly commending and graciously accepting of their Desires for the Furtherance of so noble a Work, which may, by the Providence of Almighty "God, hereafter tend to the Glory of His Divine Majesty, in propagating of Christian Religion to such People, as yet live in Darkness and miserable Ignorance of the true Knowledge and Worship of God, and may in time bring the Infidels and Savages, living in those Parts, to human Civility, and to a settled and quiet Government… [p.624]"

Mayflower Compact (November 11,1620),
"In ye name of God, Amen. We whose names are underwritten,… having undertaken, for ye glorie of God, and advancemente of ye Christian faith, and honour of our king, & countrie, a voyage to plant ye first colonie in ye Northerne parts of Virginia,"

First Charter of Massachusetts (March 4, 1629),
"For the directing, ruling, and disposeing of all other Matters and Things, whereby our said People… maie be soe religiously, peaceable, and civilly governed, as their good life and orderlie Conversation, maie wynn and incite the Natives of the Country to the Knowledg and Obedience of the onlie true God and Savior of Mankinde, and the Christian Fayth, which, in our Royall Intention, and the Adventurers free profession, is the principall Ende of this Plantation…” [p.424]"

"Fundamental Orders (Constitution) of Connecticut (January 14, 1639),
"Article III That all those who had desired to be received free planters had settled in the plantation with a purpose, resolution, and desire that they might be admitted into church fellowship according to Christ."

Constitution of the State of North Carolina (1776), stated,
"Article XXXII That no person who shall deny the being of God, or the truth of the Protestant religion, or the divine authority of the Old or New Testaments, or who shall hold religious principles incompatible with the freedom and safety of the State, shall be capable of holding any office or place of trust or profit in the civil department within this State. (until 1876)

In 1835 the word “Protestant” was changed to “Christian.” [p.482]"

Constitution of the State of Maryland (August 14, 1776), stated:,
" Article XXXV That no other test or qualification ought to be required, on admission to any office of trust or profit, than such oath of support and fidelity to this State and such oath of office, as shall be directed by this Convention, or the Legislature of this State, and a declaration of a belief in the Christian religion.” "

The Constitution of the State of Massachusetts (1780) stated:
"The Governor shall be chosen annually; and no person shall be eligible to this office, unless, at the time of his election… he shall declare himself to be of the Christian religion."

Constitution of the State of Vermont (1786), stated:
"Frame of Government, Section 9. And each member [of the Legislature], before he takes his seat, shall make and subscribe the following declaration, viz: “I do believe in one God, the Creator and Governor of the universe, the rewarder of the good and punisher of the wicked. And I do acknowledge the Scripture of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration, and own and profess the [Christian] religion. And no further or other religious test shall ever, hereafter, be required of any civil officer or magistrate in this State.” [p.623]"

The Constitution of the State of Delaware (until 1792) stated:
"Article XXII Every person who shall be chosen a member of either house, or appointed to any
office or place of trust… shall… make and subscribe the following declaration, to wit: “I, _______,do profess faith in God the Father, and in Jesus Christ His only Son, and in the Holy Ghost, one God, blessed forevermore; I do acknowledge the holy scriptures of the Old and New Testament to be given by divine inspiration.” [p.203]"

Gee, Dan, that's great, you can cut and paste massive amounts of totally unrelated material, now tell me how any of that has one thing to do with the constitution of these united states, and the bill of rights. Jeez, you're a honey, you are.

What Dan is doing is typical of the vast majority of the proponents of the religious faith do ... cut and paste (in effect) only what bits and pieces of so-called history supposedly proves their point ... it doesn't matter if it is true or not to them, all it takes is "faith" that nobody lied to them ... what a foundation for an eternity ...

Well, what it tells me is that Dans knowledge of the subject is limited to Christian blogs, which means very little at all.

That is a good link, Libramoon, except that he obviously didn't bother to research the religious convictions of the founders, who were most certainly not Christians, at least the core founders

LOL!
They have about as much to do with the Constitution as your quotes Ron....Except there a whole lot better than a few quotes of personal opinion.

Of course we weren't a Christian nation that's why the states enacted such legislation. ;-)
The intent of the Constitution is to limit the power of the federal government NOT the states.

Well Gee Jerry,
Maybe you have evidence that the several state constitutions really didn't contain those words?

I think the “opinions“, as you call them, of the people that wrote the laws mean a little more than the quotes of charters over a hundred years old, and state constitutions written by people that did not yet have those laws, in a state of uncertainty over whether there would be an established religion or not. In point of fact, some of them did still have state mandated religions at the time. Let me tell you about your Christian nation, Dan. The first great awakening petered out around 1760, and at its very height, church membership hit a HIGH of 30% in this country, and fell off from there. The second census of eighteen hundred asserted that the population of the US was 5,308,483 and in his own "Problem of Religious Progress", the good Reverend Dorchester ( a source that seems to get some play on religious sites, but not about this), himself, affirms that the entire product of Christian Churches, both ministers and congregants, in the entire US, in the same year, amounted to a paltry 364,872. There is your Christian Nation, Dan.

Historians called it the great religious depression, and the only religion growing in this country at all, during that period, Dan, was Deism, the religion of the Age of Enlightenment. It was not till the 1820s that Christianity started to grow in any amount again, due to an influx of money and bodies sent by the European Churches to try to reclaim this country for their sects

More cut and paste for your enjoyment!

"Congress appointed chaplains for itself and the armed forces, sponsored the publication of a Bible, imposed Christian morality on the armed forces, and granted public lands to promote Christianity among the Indians. National days of thanksgiving and of "humiliation, fasting, and prayer" were proclaimed by Congress at least twice a year throughout the war."

"The first national government of the United States, was convinced that the "public prosperity" of a society depended on the vitality of its religion. Nothing less than a "spirit of universal reformation among all ranks and degrees of our citizens," Congress declared to the American people, would "make us a holy, that so we may be a happy people.""

"The Liberty Window
At its initial meeting in September 1774 Congress invited the Reverend Jacob Duché (1738-1798), rector of Christ Church, Philadelphia, to open its sessions with prayer. Duché ministered to Congress in an unofficial capacity until he was elected the body's first chaplain on July 9, 1776."

"Proposed Seal for the United States
On July 4, 1776, Congress appointed Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson and John Adams "to bring in a device for a seal for the United States of America." Franklin's proposal adapted the biblical story of the parting of the Red Sea (left). Jefferson first recommended the "Children of Israel in the Wilderness, led by a Cloud by Day, and a Pillar of Fire by night. . . ." He then embraced Franklin's proposal and rewrote it (right). Jefferson's revision of Franklin's proposal was presented by the committee to Congress on August 20. Although not accepted these drafts reveal the religious temper of the Revolutionary period. Franklin and Jefferson were among the most theologically liberal of the Founders, yet they used biblical imagery for this important task."

"That religion was not otherwise addressed in the Constitution did not make it an "irreligious" document any more than the Articles of Confederation was an "irreligious" document. The Constitution dealt with the church precisely as the Articles had, thereby maintaining, at the national level, the religious status quo. In neither document did the people yield any explicit power to act in the field of religion. But the absence of expressed powers did not prevent either the Continental-Confederation Congress or the Congress under the Constitution from sponsoring a program to support general, nonsectarian religion."

"On September 28, 1789, both houses of Congress voted to send twelve amendments to the states. In December 1791, those ratified by the requisite three fourths of the states became the first ten amendments to the Constitution. Religion was addressed in the First Amendment in the following familiar words: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." In notes for his June 8, 1789, speech introducing the Bill of Rights, Madison indicated his opposition to a "national" religion. Most Americans agreed that the federal government must not pick out one religion and give it exclusive financial and legal support."

"It is no exaggeration to say that on Sundays in Washington during the administrations of Thomas Jefferson (1801-1809) and of James Madison (1809-1817) the state became the church. Within a year of his inauguration, Jefferson began attending church services in the House of Representatives. Madison followed Jefferson's example, although unlike Jefferson, who rode on horseback to church in the Capitol, Madison came in a coach and four. Worship services in the House--a practice that continued until after the Civil War--were acceptable to Jefferson because they were nondiscriminatory and voluntary. Preachers of every Protestant denomination appeared. (Catholic priests began officiating in 1826.) As early as January 1806 a female evangelist, Dorothy Ripley, delivered a camp meeting-style exhortation in the House to Jefferson, Vice President Aaron Burr, and a "crowded audience." Throughout his administration Jefferson permitted church services in executive branch buildings. The Gospel was also preached in the Supreme Court chambers.

Jefferson's actions may seem surprising because his attitude toward the relation between religion and government is usually thought to have been embodied in his recommendation that there exist "a wall of separation between church and state." In that statement, Jefferson was apparently declaring his opposition, as Madison had done in introducing the Bill of Rights, to a "national" religion. In attending church services on public property, Jefferson and Madison consciously and deliberately were offering symbolic support to religion as a prop for republican government."

"The first great awakening petered out around 1760, and at its very height, church membership hit a HIGH of 30% in this country, and fell off from there."

Some contrary information for you Ron.

"Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers' passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the "ascension rather than the declension"; another sees a "rising vitality in religious life" from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of "feverish growth." Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace."

You people seem to think time stopped when the Pilgrims landed, and didn't start again till the bill of rights was passed, and it would seem that is how your religious leaders would like to keep it. But it did not, and in the interim, persecution among the different sects had given people a belly full, thousands had come here from Europe seeking their fortune, that did not give a damn about religion, and the Age of Enlightenment philosophy had begun to make men question the wisdom of their faiths

"Historians called it the great religious depression, and the only religion growing in this country at all, during that period, Dan, was Deism,"

More contrary info Ron;

"Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are usually considered the leading American deists. There is no doubt that they subscribed to the deist credo that all religious claims were to be subjected to the scrutiny of reason. "Call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion," Jefferson advised. Other founders of the American republic, including George Washington, are frequently identified as deists, although the evidence supporting such judgments is often thin. Deists in the United States never amounted to more than a small percentage of an evangelical population"

Dan, I am already aware that there has been a chitload of lies fostered by the religious right, you don't have to print ALL of them here. Are you aware that Barton, Kennedy and Federer have been caught by real historians in so many lies, it is hard to keep track of them all?

What lies Ron?
Just because they counter what you believe, that doesn't make them lies.

Congress started the religious services before the passage of the Bill of rights, and as Madison said, very few attended anyway, so it was considered by him as a legal trifle, and he decided not to protest it, after the bill of rights was passed. Jefferson started attending to defuse the angry clergy's claims that he was an atheist in the press, the next service after he sent his Danbury letter, as he knew that would inflame them even more. They were already pissed that he would not declare a day of thanksgiving for them. He recommended it to Madison to keep them off his back, and he continued the practice.

Look at the figures I gave you, Dan, that is history, your quotes are nothing but declarations, with no provenance

"Congress started the religious services before the passage of the Bill of rights"

Sounds like a lot of supposition and conjecture Ron.

Although I will grant you, they had kind of a love hate relationship with Christianity, as with all the wealthy of the age, knowing the only education most would get was the Bible, they considered the morality of Jesus as a hedge against riot and rebellion of the lower classes

Dan, look it up fer craps sakes, if you dont believe me, you are obviously arguing about something you know nothing about.

"your quotes are nothing but declarations, with no provenance"

And you base that on what?

"Dan, look it up fer craps sakes,"

Look at what I've been posting Ron! I looked it up a long time ago! Sorry it counters the secularism ideal that you wish started our country.

Anyone can throw around figures Dan, I gave you the population of the united states, and the figures of how many church members there were in the United states the same year, taken from the book of a man of the cloth, that had written several volumes on the early history of Christianity in this country, that you can find from on Christian sites today. One i saw is hawking his books, even. One would think if he was going to lie, it would be in Christianity's favor, not to her detriment. He is only one source, though, and many respected historians have studied the issue, and concluded the same. Somewhere I have a link to the diary of a period clergyman lamenting the fact that he could look out across his parish, and see so many, yet no one came to services.

Now you are just playing games, look up when the services in congress were started, moron

Yes Ron,
Anyone can throw out numbers just like you are doing.

Of course, I know you would rather listen to a man that claimed Jefferson often signed his corespondence in the year of our lord, but neglected to note it was on a naval form that had boxes to fill in, and the year of our lord was part of the printing of the form, or a guy that attributed a prayer to Jefferson another man had written, or those that still claim the authenticity of the Washington prayer book, even though it was declared an unqualified fake clear back in the 1800s

There is a difference between numbers with a little provenance, and totally unsupported declarations

Have you seen me post any of that Ron?

What provenance Ron?
You claim provenance that's all.

Well, you have my reference to the census of 1800, and the title and author of the other figures I gave you, both items that can be looked up and checked for context, and what have you given me, Dan?

Other founders of the American republic, including George Washington, are frequently identified as deists, although the evidence supporting such judgments is often thin.

Are you aware that there is no instance of the word Jesus in any of Washington's private correspondence at all, and that the only record of him actually mentioning him at all is when he was directly addressed about him by a group of Indians on their way to Philadelphia, and he was put in the position of representing his government while he was merely a military leader at the time, not to mention that we have it on the authority of three separate of his clergy from churches he attended, one of which knew him personally, quite well, that tell us he was undeniably a Deist?

But if you think that is normal for a Christian, and think you know more about what he was than his own clergy, more power to you, Dan.

Dan?

You've got a whole mess of crap up there that happened before the constitution or the bill of rights, and as for your claims that there just didnt happen to be a mention of God in the constitution, you need to read the record of those debates. As the Reverend Bird Wilson, a man that did considerable research into our founding, and the founding fathers said, after he read them, they just didn't forget to mention God in the Constitution, he was summarily voted out of it.

Well considering how far off your sources are Ron,

I think I'll stick with mine.

LOL, right, Dan, I should have figured you would

Never known you to eschew ignorance yet. . . .

"Against a prevailing view that eighteenth-century Americans had not perpetuated the first settlers' passionate commitment to their faith, scholars now identify a high level of religious energy in colonies after 1700. According to one expert, religion was in the "ascension rather than the declension"; another sees a "rising vitality in religious life" from 1700 onward; a third finds religion in many parts of the colonies in a state of "feverish growth." Figures on church attendance and church formation support these opinions. Between 1700 and 1740, an estimated 75 to 80 percent of the population attended churches, which were being built at a headlong pace."

Well, the 75 to 80 percent is ludicrous, far beyond the figures of even the shameless I have read before, but this would stand to reason otherwise, since that period is what is called the great awakening. Its just that the great awakening didn't have any staying power and was a memory shortly after 1760. Great charismatic orators from Europe came over here during it, and they never failed to draw crowds, but then, there wasn't much entertainment in those days, and Franklin, a deist by his own word, explains that he went to see the spectacle several times.

"Its just that the great awakening didn't have any staying power and was a memory shortly after 1760."

And the state Constitutions that required a confirmation of belief in Christ dated from the late 1700s would seem to dispel your assumption that religion was on a downturn in the United States at the time.

Sorry Ron,
It's just that people like yourself who try to secularize the founding of our country look for those things that seem to support your position, try to reason away some of the information that does NOT support your position and ignore a whole lot that shows our country's beginning a very religious one.
You point to the Constitution and say 'Look it doesn't reference God' that proves that the first amendment means what I say it means.....Except it was O.K. at the time the constitution and bill of rights were written with two of the biggest proponents of the separation of church and state that the house was used as a church on Sundays, that right there suggests that they Jefferson and Adams did not think that the separation of church and state meant what you say it means....It also indicates that they wouldn't have agreed with the decision of the SCOTUS on the matter.
God help you liberal secularists if we ever get some constitutionalist justices on the Supreme court! ;-)

And the state Constitutions that required a confirmation of belief in Christ dated from the late 1700s would seem to dispel your assumption that religion was on a downturn in the United States at the time.

That would be your conjecture, but the reality is, those people probably were religious, since they were probably the same people still in office that had been put in office by state mandated religions

The census, and the good Reverend Dorchester, and a whole passle of well respected historians that don't have and ax to grind, and don't have to retract their fantasies every five minutes as real historians review them agree with me. I didn't make that up, religious depression is how they described it.

You point to the Constitution and say 'Look it doesn't reference God' that proves that the first amendment means what I say it means.....



No, I didn't say that, I said that the fact that a mention of God was debated and roundly rejected by that body would indicate to a reasonable man that they intended exactly what Jefferson so eloquently described as a wall, be erected between our government, and our religions. Can you explain to me another reason they would do that, Dan, these religious zealots, according to you, that you believe wanted church and state merged? That doesn't even make rational sense.

Except it was O.K. at the time the constitution and bill of rights were written with two of the biggest proponents of the separation of church and state that the house was used as a church on Sundays, that right there suggests that they Jefferson and Adams did not think that the separation of church and state meant what you say it means....It also indicates that they wouldn't have agreed with the decision of the SCOTUS on the matter.

No, it means they didn't expect people to change overnight in their customs (Madison talks about that), and didn't consider it worth making a stink over, since they knew few attended at the time, and I am assuming here, figured it would die out on its own, which it did, eventually. In the meantime, it gave them a little cover from the clergy that were actively seeking a link between church and state again, already.

God help you liberal secularists if we ever get some constitutionalist justices on the Supreme court! ;-)

I hate to break it to you, Dan, but if you do get some activist judges, willing to rule from the bench on this matter, a lot of your Christian brethren that see the wisdom of the wall, are going to be on my side, not yours.

PFAW, and several other organizations are full of Christians, that, unlike you, realize that the separation of church and state is the only thing that protects your religious rights, not tramples them. Madison put it this way:

Who does not see that the same authority which can establish Christianity in exclusion of all other religions may establish, with the same ease, any particular sect of Christians in exclusion of all other sects?
-- James Madison, A Memorial and Remonstrance

So, which of you would be state approved, and which of you considered heretics, forced to conform, or rot in prison?

This is what gets me about this debate. Around here, the fundies all split off into this myriad assortment of home based churches, they are like the blades of grass in number, based on their different beliefs about this or that, and all of them, every one of them, fights this fight for a merging of church and state. If they ever get what they wish, the majority would be crushed under the boot heel of whatever the flavor would be, of the favored government endorsement. Be careful what you wish for....

And make no mistake about it, you may think you are just fighting for religious freedom, but the people that fomented this debate, the Falwell organization, and many others, seek an establishment of religion, and nothing less.

And have something quite else in mind........

Aha ha ha ha!
It's quality NOT quantity of words that WIN Ron!

Either way, I win, Dan,..... as usual, lol.

Only in your mind Ron,

As you quote the founders support of the separation of church and state you ignore what they did, my favorite saying is;

"What you are speaks so loudly I can't hear what you are saying."

The founders allowed religion into government buildings and court rooms, churches served as the seat of government, they appropriated public money for the advance of religion. You have to ignore all of that to make your position valid. Support the first amendment....Of course they did....but their definition of the term 'separation of church and state' was a whole lot different than yours.

All I can tell you Dan, is you haven't convinced me, credible historians, and you haven't convinced the SCOTUS. Good luck with that. It always gratifies me to see someone that hasn't read chit about the history of this country, beyond the Barton fostered fantasies of the RR, that can sit and proudly affirm, I am ignorant, but I am right. But don't believe me, if you want to continue in your ignorance, its a free country that way too, up until you tread on my rights.

The founders allowed religion into government buildings and court rooms, churches served as the seat of government, they appropriated public money for the advance of religion. You have to ignore all of that to make your position valid.

BS, you have to know something about this country's history, like the fact that up until the Bill of Rights was passed, the age of enlightenment thinkers had no legal basis for objecting to what their errant state established religion brethren were doing. Even then, they knew that it would take a while for this country to grow into its new found freedom of religion, as Jefferson notes in his Danbury letter, and there was no reason to rush things. Things do not change overnight, when there has been over a thousand years of church and state collusion, established religion, that had dictated what social and public functions and customs were to be, ingrained in the social structure of the society. .

That comment wasn't really meant for you, Dan, it was meant for any open minded or objective reader that might happen by.

"All I can tell you Dan, is you haven't convinced me,"

Not important Ron,
I've put forth enough facts to show that your contention of a secular founding of our country is doubtful. That the founders version of freedom of religion included worship in the halls of justice and government in churches.

What I do is show others that your liberal leaning interpretations of the world is not all that there is. and that they need to look it up for themselves....think for themselves.

LOL, you have done nothing here, but show your ignorance, and the ability to Google a few Christian web sites, but you are an expert. Gdday, expert.

Try the library of Congress Ron.

Well who would know, you provided exactly zero references for all your quotes and BS. I'd say more like Wallbuilders, or one of the thousands of sites that echo their trash ad naseum

Of course, under Bush a lot of Christian crap got added to TLC site, too. While we are at it, you never did answer me either, on why you thought the founders voted any mention of God out of the Constitution, Dan.

Dan?........

And Dan, maybe you can explain how this got in there:

United States Constitution Article VI, paragraph 3:

The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution; but no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States.

And then there is this, in regard to your state constitutions:

Earlier in U.S. history, the doctrine of states' rights allowed individual states complete discretion regarding the inclusion of a religious test in their state constitutions. Such religious tests have in recent decades been deemed to be unconstitutional by the extension of the First Amendment provisions to the states (via the incorporation of the 14th Amendment).

LOL!

"Of course, under Bush a lot of Christian crap got added to TLC site,"

LOL! I see a lot of dancin going on Ron.

"While we are at it,"
I've already addressed your question Ron, here let me repeat myself;

"Support the first amendment....Of course they did....but their definition of the term 'separation of church and state' was a whole lot different than yours."

That is not an answer to the question I asked you Dan, and dancing seems to be your forte here. Why would they vote all reference to God out of the constitution of this country, and prohibit all religious tests to hold office, in it, if they did not intend to make government completely inviolate to religion? I would say in light of that, their definition was a lot closer to my understanding (and the SCOTUSs), than whatever your answer is supposed to mean. Not that it really matters.......

.

And under Bush a lot of inaccurate crap was added. I know because people like you have pointed it out.

"That is not an answer to the question I asked you Dan,"

Yes it is Ron,
More denial, that's all you are about.
You point at words and I show their actions. You try to reason away that which disproves your premise, how they lived their lives.
If we did not know how the founders lived their lives then you would have a point but we know that they allowed faith and religion in the houses of congress and the courts, we know that they appropriated funds for the propagation of religion and printed bibles.

The answer to your question is the same Ron, here let me put it in different words, they supported the first amendment in that their intention of the meaning of the establishment clause was exactly that and only that....Not establishing a state sponsored religion, NOT as you see it as an avoidance of religion.
Sorry Ron, actions speak louder than words and their actions spoke volumes and spoke it loudly!

Thomas Jefferson knew there would be people like you Ron;

""On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed."

* Quote from Jefferson Writings, Merril D. Peterson ed. (NY; Literary Classics of the United States, Inc.) 1984, p. 1475

I also found this from him;

"I, too, have made a wee-little book from the same materials, which I call the Philosophy of Jesus; it is a paradigma of his doctrines, made by cutting the texts out of the book, and arranging them on the pages of a blank book, in a certain order of time or subject. A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics I have never seen; it is a document in proof that I am a real Christian, that is to say, a disciple of the doctrines of Jesus, very different from the Platonists, who call me infidel and themselves Christians and preachers of the gospel, while they draw all their characteristic dogmas from what its author never said nor saw."

Dan, you read but you do not comprehend, because this is an example of how far your knowledge goes. He meant he values Jesus as a moral philosopher, and follows that ethical morality, as he follows age of enlightenment thought, while Christianity tramples that morality. Its an indictment of Christianity, not an endorsement. All of the founders valued Jesus as a moral philosopher, as his moral teaching, stripped of church doctrine, is right in line with Age of enlightenment philosophy, but they had nothing good to say about Christianity, itself. All of the quotes people love to take out of context when they see the phrase, basic principles of Christianity, or similar phrases, are not talking about Christianity, they are talking about the moral teachings of Jesus, which they felt the clergy perverted, and in point of fact, they did not consider Jesus divine, themselves. This is your problem, and your limitation, you are unable to understand the out of context quotes you find, because you have no idea of the actual situation, no idea, probably, of the philosophy that so affected literate men in this age. For a brief time, a pivotal time, reason and natural science trumped superstition and dogma, and allowed a government based on reason and nothing else to be born. As Adams said:

The United States of America have exhibited, perhaps, the first example of governments erected on the simple principles of nature; and if men are now sufficiently enlightened to disabuse themselves of artifice, imposture, hypocrisy, and superstition, they will consider this event as an era in their history. Although the detail of the formation of the American governments is at present little known or regarded either in Europe or in America, it may hereafter become an object of curiosity. It will never be pretended that any persons employed in that service had interviews with the gods, or were in any degree under the influence of Heaven, more than those at work upon ships or houses, or laboring in merchandise or agriculture; it will forever be acknowledged that these governments were contrived merely by the use of reason and the senses.
-- John Adams, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" (1787-88

A more beautiful or precious morsel of ethics

What Jefferson edited out of the Bible was all the miracles, all the church dogma, all the religion, and left nothing but Jesus speaking on morality, in effect.

Dan, I've also quoted that from Jefferson in the past, but it makes no difference to people like Ron. They are going to see only what they want to see, and if you see how Ron is not even able to read correctly the establishment clause above and thinks it's some kind of new interpretation on my part when it is the only way it reads and Supreme Court Justices have never said it didn't read that way, but only introduced other writings to change that meaning, should show you how futile it is to argue with the Rons of the world.

We find in the writings of his biographers ... a groundwork of vulgar ignorance, of things impossible, of superstitions, fanaticisms and fabrications.
-- Thomas Jefferson, to William Short, August 4, 1822, referring to Jesus's biographers, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John.

Wallow in your ignorance, if you must, Gad forbid you actually take the time to read a little real history, understand age of enlightenment philosophy, Deism, or how the people that gave you this gift of freedom looked at the world

On the dogmas of religion, as distinguished from moral principles, all mankind, from the beginning of the world to this day, have been quarreling, fighting, burning and torturing one another, for abstractions unintelligible to themselves and to all others, and absolutely beyond the comprehension of the human mind.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to Archibald Carey, 1816

The Christian priesthood, finding the doctrines of Christ leveled to every understanding, and too plain to need explanation, saw, in the mysticism of Plato, materials with which they might build up an artificial system which might, from it’s indistinctness, admit everlasting controversy, give employment for their order, and introduce it to profit, power and pre-eminence.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Adams, July 5, 1814, Lester Cappon, ed, The Adams-Jefferson Letters (1959) p. 433

Yes, Ron, Jefferson was a deeply religious man, and as with all people who are deeply religious, we do find discrepancies between the way people, including ourselves, act and the way Christ meant for us to be. He's not negating the principles of Christ, however. He did have a problem with the priesthood, as do I. This in no way changes my belief system and is irrelevant to any interpretation of the establishment or free exercise clauses. You can twist it any way you want to, but there are, have been, and hopefully always will be dissenting justices who do understand the meaning of those clauses and will continue to fight for their true interpretation.

Sue, why don't you people just admit it, you don't give a damn what is true, as long as you get your way, and can trample on anyone else’s rights you wish to, anytime you wish to, to spread your religion. The only way you can see it is that God wants it your way, in the face of massive evidence that the founders did not. Not surprising. . . .

there are, have been, and hopefully always will be dissenting justices

Of course there are, this country is over seventy percent Christian, but so far, the SCOTUS has not let that keep them from doing their job, like your others have... the day may come when they do, but they will be legislating from the bench when they do.

Jefferson had a problem with Christianity, not Jesus, yes, and in that vein he was very much like Ghandi (and me, at this moment), I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians, they are so unlike your Christ.

Well, that's your opinion. As I have already made very clear to you, it's the justices who have introduced the sepration of church and state into that amendment who are legislating from the bench.

I could ask you the same kind of question. "Why don't you people just admit it, you don't give a damn what is true, as long as you get your way, and can trample on anyone else’s rights you wish to, anytime you wish to, to thwart anyone's free exercise of religion?"

I guess that is just one of the many things that we see from an entirely different perspective and ne'er the twain shall meet.

He did have a problem with the priesthood, as do I.

The priesthood he had a problem with, went back to Saul, and the nonsense of Jesus being divine, is that anything like your problem with the preisthood? I sincerely doubt you have a leg to stand on, casting him as a misunderstood Christian, Sue

My aim in that was, to justify the character of Jesus against the fictions of his pseudo-followers, which have exposed him to the inference of being an impostor. For if we could believe that he really countenanced the follies, the falsehoods and the charlatanisms which his biographers father on him, and admit the misconstructions, interpolations and theorizations of the fathers of the early, and fanatics of the latter ages, the conclusion would be irresistible by every sound mind, that he was an impostor. I give no credit to their falsifications of his actions and doctrines, and to rescue his character, the postulate in my letter asked only what is granted in reading every other historian.... That Jesus did not mean to impose himself on mankind as the son of God, physically speaking, I have been convinced by the writings of men more learned than myself in that lore.
-- Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Short, August 4, 1820, explaining his reason for compiling the Syllabus of an Estimate of the Merit of the Doctrines of Jesus and referring to Jesus's biographers, the Gospel writers.

He denies the very foundation of your religion, in case you missed that

He does not, and because you don't even know the very foundation of my religion, you couldn't possibly assess that accurately. You've got some kind of convoluted notion of what Christianity is about because you had some kind of false indoctrination to it to which you rebelled at some point in the past. That's not my problem. Don't you have some grass to mow and some evangelicals to chase from your property today?

No Jefferson and Madison, and the men that wrote it introduced it into that amendment, and to make such an ignorant mistake as to ignore what they believed they were writing, and substitute your self interested convenient reading of it, would be to negate the very basis of constitutional law, but hey, you want what you want, and the constitution be damned, I know

I repeat:

As I have already made very clear to you, it's the justices who have introduced the sepration of church and state into that amendment who are legislating from the bench.

I could ask you the same kind of question. "Why don't you people just admit it, you don't give a damn what is true, as long as you get your way, and can trample on anyone else’s rights you wish to, anytime you wish to, to thwart anyone's free exercise of religion?"

I guess that is just one of the many things that we see from an entirely different perspective and ne'er the twain shall meet.

He denies the divinity of Christ, Sue. He denies the miracles, including the rising from the tomb, doesn't believe it is true, so tell me, dear, if Jesus is not the son of God, that died for our sins, and was raised up, and he denies that the only path to salvation is through Jesus, what, exactly does your "he does not" hing on?

As I have already made very clear to you, it's the justices who have introduced the sepration of church and state into that amendment who are legislating from the bench.

And as I have also made clear to you, that is what constitutional law does, in determining the meaning of the language of the law, so you, my dear, want it interpreted different, which would negate the very foundation of constitutional law, on this point, as I said. You are like children, screaming gimme, gimme, gimme, for craps sakes

I could ask you the same kind of question. "Why don't you people just admit it, you don't give a damn what is true, as long as you get your way, and can trample on anyone else’s rights you wish to, anytime you wish to, to thwart anyone's free exercise of religion?"

No, you cant, because I do give a damn about the truth, which is why I fight constantly against your lies. The truth is there, for everyone to see in the preserved history, but you not only choose not to look, when someone points it out to you you figure out another BS defense of what you want, whether it abides by the constitution, or not. Like I said, you can see it in only one light, that you think God is on your side, and the founders, history, and truth be damned.

"No, you cant, because I do give a damn about the truth..."

Lies Ron with the very statement. You're a hoot, that's for sure.

I repeat one more time:

As I have already made very clear to you, it's the justices who have introduced the sepration of church and state into that amendment who are legislating from the bench.

I could ask you the same kind of question. "Why don't you people just admit it, you don't give a damn what is true, as long as you get your way, and can trample on anyone else’s rights you wish to, anytime you wish to, to thwart anyone's free exercise of religion?"

I guess that is just one of the many things that we see from an entirely different perspective and ne'er the twain shall meet.

"founders, history, and truth be damned" [twisted beyond recognition] Yeah, that about sums up your position. I'm done with you for today, Ron. There's only so much I can take of your crap at one time.

No more time for your BS right now, be back later....

Sue, when I went into this, I was looking for justification of your present point of view, it was the truth that changed that, nothing else. bye

You got it, but your refusal to recognize the truth is the problem. Go ahead, Ron. I know it's your compulsion to have the last word. (prove me wrong this time, will you?) That'll make history anyway.

As I have already made very clear to you, it's the justices who have introduced the sepration of church and state into that amendment who are legislating from the bench.


And I repeat, that is their job, yours is not a legal argument, its not even a rational one, in light of constitutional law practice

I'm done with you for today, Ron. There's only so much I can take of your crap at one time.

Yeah, the truth seems to have that effect on you a lot

(prove me wrong this time, will you?)

Not my day to grant you wishes, answer your dreams, or fulfill your fantasies, Sue, ask someone else....