God spoke to me....

[RecycleMichael]

My favorite Commandments are "do not commit adultary" and "don't covet thy neighbor's wife".


Don't do it and don't even think about it.

[cannon_fodder]

I agree spoonbill, it is impossible to not be influenced by such codes... but I chose which parts to accept (though shalt not kill) and which ones to ignore (stone adulterers).

and good call RM, I too am a big fan of thought crime.  []

[FOTD]

There are three groups of people in Tulsa. Church goers, bar goers, and everyone in between.

Agnostic not atheist. Big difference.

Atheists are angry because they seem to be a minority who follow our founders constitution  regarding seperation of church and state and atheists as others do not like it when hucksters throw their religious views at them by lobbying lawmakers.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

There are three groups of people in Tulsa. Church goers, bar goers, and everyone in between.

Agnostic not atheist. Big difference.

Atheists are angry because they seem to be a minority who follow our founders constitution  regarding seperation of church and state and atheists as others do not like it when hucksters throw their religious views at them by lobbying lawmakers.

Amendment I

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

I guess that's the decree of the Atheist?  Sounds fair to me.  Your semantics are at fault.  It's "Separation of church from state" that Mr. Ben Franklin discussed in his writings.

The constitution charges the government to allow the free exercise of religion.  

So to refute whatever point you were making (which seems to be my goal of late).  It is unconstitutional to in any way prohibit a candidate, citizen, or lobbyist for that matter, from the free practice of his or her religion.

For the liberal dogs to scream that a candidate should not be elected on the basis that he or she engages in the practice of a religion is exactly what the framers were trying to prevent.

Ben Franklin predicted this. . .As we slouch forward towards socialism (it is inevitable, all we can do is attempt to slow the process) we will see the three pillars of our society chipped away.   Religious freedom will be the first.  The right to bear arms the second, and the right to educate our children in the traditions of our fathers will be the last.

As I think I've said before, FOTD your side will eventually win, all we can do is slow the process.

"A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves money from the public treasure. From that moment on the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most money from the public treasury, with the result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's great civilizations has been two hundred years. These nations have progressed through the following sequence: from bondage to spiritual faith, from spiritual faith to great courage, from courage to liberty, from liberty to abundance, from abundance to selfishness, from selfishness to complacency from complacency to apathy, from apathy to dependency, from dependency back to bondage."  --Alexander Tyler writing about Athens.

[cannon_fodder]

The constitution also charges the government to NOT affiliate itself with religion.  "Make no Law Respecting the Establishment of Religion" has been interpreted as such.  What's more, the writings of the founders are decidedly less religious than most modern statesmen (on a national scale) but shared the same public bravado for religion when seeking office.

GW, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson - decidedly not Christian.  For as much as Franklin predicted a loss of many freedoms as a government aged (he had little concern for religious freedoms for himself), Jefferson predicted that religion would be used by government as a tool to take them away.  Lets see... gay marriage, bigamy, blue laws, prostitution, abortion, gambling.  Yep, seems like government is using religion to justify telling me what to do.

Jefferson's tombstone even brags about his creation of the separation of church and state.  Referring both to an institutional basis (COE, Vatican) and a spiritual one (only Christians in Whitehouse).  Not that I am at present particularly concerned with such a thing, and int he long term hope religions themselves see that institutionalizing their faith negates it.

And while the attribution of the quote is dubious (it is doubted it was an original quote), I could not agree more with it's content.

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The constitution also charges the government to NOT affiliate itself with religion.  

I am not an extremely religious person, nor a constitutional scholar.  

But as I remember, at least the way I was taught in my constitutional law class, the affiliation with religion is not the sticky point.  Establishment is.  Our government has always been affiliated with religion, as long as it does not impose the establishment of a religion as a matter of state.

Perhaps it's just semantics as sbill pointed out.

Sbill, I too like Franklin and his writings on the establishment of Democracy.  I recognize the paraphrase but I don't think he used the word "socialism"  I think it was "destruction" but it is the same thing.

[spoonbill]

quote:Originally posted by Gaspar

quote:Originally posted by cannon_fodder

The constitution also charges the government to NOT affiliate itself with religion.  

I am not an extremely religious person, nor a constitutional scholar.  

But as I remember, at least the way I was taught in my constitutional law class, the affiliation with religion is not the sticky point.  Establishment is.  Our government has always been affiliated with religion, as long as it does not impose the establishment of a religion as a matter of state.

Perhaps it's just semantics as sbill pointed out.

Sbill, I too like Franklin and his writings on the establishment of Democracy.  I recognize the paraphrase but I don't think he used the word "socialism"  I think it was "destruction" but it is the same thing.

Oh! my apologies. I was not quoting Franklin, but upon re-reading my little rant, I see it looks like it.  It is a paraphrase I have use quite often.  I just don't have my little Ben Franklin toilet book with me here at the office.

You are correct, where did you go to school?  The truth is a brave position for a professor of constitutional law these days.  Are you a lawyer?

[Gaspar]

quote:You are correct, where did you go to school?  The truth is a brave position for a professor of constitutional law these days.  Are you a lawyer?

TU and no.

[cannon_fodder]

TU and yes.  []

The amendment prohibits the official establishment of religion, but the Court has held that significant affiliation IS the establishment of religion.  Thus, public schools cannot require students to pray before school, courthouses must allow Wikan symbols along side Christmas trees, and a prohibition of discrimination based on religion.  Simply prohibiting an official declaration of a state religion would fall woefully short of actually protecting religious freedoms.

It is akin to the reconstruction amendments declaring an end to slavery and all men equal.  That large declaration was meaningless until the 1960's when black men were allowed to sit at the same counter as whites.  Even though the amendment did not specify such, it was the day to day activities that matters.  And with religion, it is not the large declaration that really matters, it is ensuring on a day to day basis even the appearance of an official religion is prevented.

I can try to go over old notes and dig up case law if you would be interested.  I'm sure I have a Con-Law outline somewhere.

[Ed W]

You guys are great!  It's wonderful to see how a thread that began somewhat tongue-in-cheek turned into a serious discussions of personal beliefs regarding religion and the intent of the establishment clause.  You have agile minds and it's truly a pleasure to know you.

[cannon_fodder]

The best part for me Ed, is thus far it has been a rational and calm while passionate discussion; completely devoid of personal attacks.  Proof that hot topics can be discussed with reason on the internet.

[RecycleMichael]

My God(s) will smite you for your comments.

Ed W and cannon fodder are false idols.

[restored2x]

"I have found over the years that Bible-believing Christians are oppressive and generally control freaks. "

"The best part for me Ed, is thus far it has been a rational and calm while passionate discussion; completely devoid of personal attacks. Proof that hot topics can be discussed with reason on the internet."

With the exception of the above - you are correct. Interesting discussion and reading so far.

However - place any other group into the above statement where it says "Bible-believing Christians" and it is an intolerant statement. I appreciate the candor and understand that it is just one person's perception and opinion, but it is offensive nonetheless to that particular group.

It may be a sign of tolerance and acceptance from those on this forum who happen to be "Bible-believing Christians" that no one has taken exception, or made the discussion "unfriendly".

Merry Christmas!

[cannon_fodder]

Good point, I tend to glaze over posts from AOX.  

I will take mild exception to the insinuation that I would somehow find the statement more offensive if it was directed at another group  Though I get what you are saying (picking on a majority is often seen as less intolerant).  Generally I would agree that religious people seek to be more controlling than non-religious when their doctrine tells them they are right and everyone else is wrong.  I would not, however, often phrase the behavior as oppressive.

Unless we are talking about alcohol sales on Sundays.  That's oppressive. []

[restored2x]

"I have found over the years that Bible-believing Christians are oppressive and generally control freaks. "

as:

"I have found over the years that Jews are oppressive and generally control freaks. "

Offensive? I would think that statement would qualify as offensive for most people. What is different about the first statement?

I'm not being argumentative - at least I'm trying not to be - just wanted to clarify what I meant.

That may be true of some "Bible-believing Christians" - and Jews, and Muslims, and whatevers.

Some people are controlling and gravitate towards a philosophy of life or theology easily warped and manipulated - it's not the theology, just the person's emphasis on certain aspects of the theology or philosohy that they naturally like because of their own personal idiocy or "warts".

Religion should not be a force of politics - only conscience. That's where American Christianity has effed up. Simple answer to a complex problem - but that's how I roll.

Alcohol sales on Sunday? WWJD? [] No wine? Gimme that pot of water!