CA court strikes down pledge

[Lunar Shadow]

Finally CA is coming to its senses :stappchic :dancing:

SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - A California atheist who last year lost a Supreme Court fight to remove the phrase "under God" from the Pledge of Allegiance on Wednesday won an initial round as he revived his cause in the courts.

A U.S. district court rejected a motion to dismiss his case to get the words excised from the pledge, recited by millions of schoolchildren every day, citing the precedent of an earlier ruling by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals.

In June 2004, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Californian atheist Michael Newdow could not challenge the pledge's phrase "under God" on behalf of his daughter because he did not have full legal control over her.

Newdow immediately filed a new federal case in which he offered to represent two families against the Elk Grove Unified School District, the same Sacramento-area district he had previously sued.

In the Wednesday decision, Judge Lawrence Karlton said: "The court concludes that it is bound by the Ninth Circuit's previous determination that the school district's policy with regard to the pledge is an unconstitutional violation of the children's right to be free from a coercive requirement to affirm God."

In effect, the decision reopens the way for Newdow and others to argue the merits of the case before higher courts. The Supreme Court did not decide on that when it ruled Newdow did not have standing to bring the case.
click here for source (http://today.reuters.com/news/newsArticle.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyID=2005-09-14T200859Z_01_YUE472449_RTRIDST_0_USREPORT-RIGHTS-PLEDGE-DC.XML&archived=False)

[Lunar Shadow]

and no big surprise it is already on appeal the 9th Circut court of appeals (one of the most liberal courts in the country) will make the last decision on this before it goes before the US supreme court.

IMHO either they should do away with the pledge or they should return it to they way it was originally written with out the phrase "under god". That phrase was added during the "Red Scare" and has remained since.

[RMadd]

for once, i'm partially in agreement w/ you there. i think that the addition of "under God" in the Fifties, while meaning well, does constitute (no pun intended) government endorsement/support of one religion over another. i suppose if that phrase was part of the pledge as it was first written i wouldn't have much of a problem with it; and truthfully i have no problem with it as it is now. but i certainly do see how it could ruffle the feathers of a few citizens.
i guess my main problem with this issue is newdow's right to bring suit in the first place. if i'm not mistaken, he did so because his daughter was forced to recite the pledge in class. on the surface, there seems to be nothing strange about this. however, mr. newdow, an atheist and divorcee, had lost the custody battle to his ex-wife, who had no problem with her daughter's daily comulsory recitation. so the question here is, does mr. newdow have right to bring suit on behalf of a minor over whom he has no custody? i'd like to say no, but i'm not sure what precedent & such have dictated in recent cases.

[Lunar Shadow]

the case in which you are refering to has long been thrown out... You see Newdow is an attorney and this time around he is representing a group of Atheist parents and parents of other faiths. this is and entirely different case although with the same out come he wished for his own the last time around.

[Steve]

Should we do away with our current monetary system since our currency mentions 'God' then?

[Ana4Stapp]

^
LOL!!!!!! Very good question, Steve... ;)

[RMadd]

how long has "in god we trust" been on our currency?

[Lunar Shadow]

to answer your qestion steve I believe we should

the original "mottow" the was on the bill was "E Pluribus Unum"
the new "mottow" has been there since about 1861

Source http://www.atheists.org/flash.line/igwt1.htm

[creedsister]

[QUOTE=RMadd]how long has "in god we trust" been on our currency? i dont mean to sound strange or anything but why did they put In God We Trust On Currency i could really freaking careless if they do away with it YAYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY :bounce: PRAISE THE LORD PRAISE THE LORD!!!!

[uncertaindrumer]

Should we do away with our current monetary system since our currency mentions 'God' then?

What I have always wanted to know.

[RMadd]

i think asking "should we do away with the current monetary system" is rather ludicrous. should we edit a few words on our money? sure, why not. ever since we've been off the gold standard, the trust (or, more appropriately, faith) in currency has been in itself, that it will remain strong. again, i feel that this, as with the pledge, constitutes government endorsement of a particular religion (namely Christianity).

[uncertaindrumer]

i think asking "should we do away with the current monetary system" is rather ludicrous. should we edit a few words on our money? sure, why not. ever since we've been off the gold standard, the trust (or, more appropriately, faith) in currency has been in itself, that it will remain strong. again, i feel that this, as with the pledge, constitutes government endorsement of a particular religion (namely Christianity).

I wouldn't mind if they got rid of God refernces but I don't mind that they stay. One could make the claim that by taking God off they are endorsing atheism. Either way, there is no way you can make the claim that God only refers to the Christian God. I am sure other believers in God are not offended by the American dollar.

[Lunar Shadow]

But you see Uncertain it IS an endorsement of A god which automatically rules out the Agnostics and Atheists which violates the supposed stance the government has on religion (because of the fact that they are say in that "there is a god and we trust in him/her/it"). Sure it seems fair to anyone who believes in a god but what about the 15-20% of Americans who don't?? Just because we are a minority are we supposed to be kicked around by the system?? They did it to the Blacks, they did it to women, they are doing it to the Homosexuals and they have been doing it to the Atheists and Agnostics for over a century now. Where does it end? Do you have to be a WASP (white Anglo Saxton protestant) to get a fair deal in this county??

These are just a few questions I have when it comes to our "Great Nation"


--JESTER

[RMadd]

I wouldn't mind if they got rid of God refernces but I don't mind that they stay. One could make the claim that by taking God off they are endorsing atheism. Either way, there is no way you can make the claim that God only refers to the Christian God. I am sure other believers in God are not offended by the American dollar.
two things:
1) not having "God" on there does not constitute atheism. it merely shows that a state will not endorse any particular religion over another. so, in a sense, the federal government should be atheist in that it, in and of itself, believes in no single god/deity/religion/etc.
2) well, God is the Christian name for our deity. he is different from the Jewish Yahweh in that most Christians believe in Jesus Christ as part of a Triune God. I'm not a scholar on the "make-up," if you will, of Yahweh, but i would conclude that, even if there is present a son (a savior promised many times in the OT), he has not yet been manifested as has been Jesus in Christianity. Islam, meanwhile, worships Allah. pretty much the same deity as in Judaism & Christianity, but not identical. to Muslims, Jesus is no more than a great prophet, but certainly no greater than Muhammed. so to call this "shared" deity "God" is a bit Eurocentric or Anglocentric or whatever you'd like to call it. likewise, Buddhists, Hundus, and atheists, among any other number of world religions, do not believe in the Christian God, nor in the Jewish Yahweh or the Muslim Allah, so they, too, though likely in the vast minority in the US, may well not like "in God we trust" printed on their money. just because a minority group doesn't like something doesn't mean their qualms should be overlooked by the majority; though democracy is based on the principle, more or less, of majority rule, this rule of the many does not extend to the point that the beliefs or faiths of the minority can be oppressed.

[Lunar Shadow]

Very well put Rmadd you seem to have a good grasp on the seperation that needs to exist between church and state. For if we let any religion (at this point it would be Christianity) start making the rules then this country is a failure in what it set out to do.

[RMadd]

exactly... in my mind, i wouldn't be too happy if, for example, Christianity became a minority religion, and something as close as Islam became #1, and the leaders, the majority of whom would be Muslim, began putting "In Allah We Trust" on our currency. Not precisely the same god, and it bears a whole other meaning.

[creedsister]

But you see Uncertain it IS an endorsement of A god which automatically rules out the Agnostics and Atheists which violates the supposed stance the government has on religion (because of the fact that they are say in that "there is a god and we trust in him/her/it"). Sure it seems fair to anyone who believes in a god but what about the 15-20% of Americans who don't?? Just because we are a minority are we supposed to be kicked around by the system?? They did it to the Blacks, they did it to women, they are doing it to the Homosexuals and they have been doing it to the Atheists and Agnostics for over a century now. Where does it end? Do you have to be a WASP (white Anglo Saxton protestant) to get a fair deal in this county??

These are just a few questions I have when it comes to our "Great Nation"


--JESTER W.A.S.P I thought you were talking About The Guy That Set His Privates On Fire Blacky Lawless :jam: :jam: :jam: White Anglo Saxton Prostestant Let Me tell ya something Darling Anybody Dat BLACK Knows that some kinda conspiracy Against Theme And Just Because The Nation Wants To Take In God We Trust Of The Money That Dont Mean Really That They For Yo Ass !!! And Futhermore I dont Why Christans Are So Upset About It And Got Their Underwear All In A Bunch!!! Do They STAND BEHIND THE GOD ON DA MONEY Of Course Not No They ll Work Together The Goverment Knows That Its Going Upset 99 percent of the christian majortiy Because They Think It Is There GOD And I agree It Can Be A She Or A He But To God Fearing USA Citizens ITS THERE GOD And You Cant Make,em Believe No Other Wise So Its Their Job To Confused About It And For Others We Aint Buying

[RMadd]

<<<~~~ God Damn People Who Capitalize Every Fucking Word Really Piss Me The Fuck Off Especially If They Type in One Big Massive Run On Sentence That Is Twenty Lines Long And You Can't Find Any Natural Pauses Anywhere And Also Have Difficulty Determining What Ever The Fuck That Person Is Trying To Say So You Basically Just Ignore Their Posts Altogether Shit PRAISE THE LORD

[creedsister]

PRAISE THE LORD!!! Come On You Could Read That I Cant Help It Because My Opions<<<<<< PUSHES BUTTONS :D :kick: :kick: HA HA

[Lunar Shadow]

<<<~~~ God Damn People Who Capitalize Every Fucking Word Really Piss Me The Fuck Off Especially If They Type in One Big Massive Run On Sentence That Is Twenty Lines Long And You Can't Find Any Natural Pauses Anywhere And Also Have Difficulty Determining What Ever The Fuck That Person Is Trying To Say So You Basically Just Ignore Their Posts Altogether Shit PRAISE THE LORD





I know who you are talking about only it does not bug me because I don't see it (she is ignored on my list) it is one of the greatest little inventions just go to ypour user CP and click on buddy/ignore list and type in the name of the person you'd like to ignore

[creedsister]

I DONT CARE :syncdance :syncdance :syncdance STICK OUT TOUNGE>>>

[Chase]

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists all believe in one God, one supreme being. So... by appeasing the atheist few... we basically slap the majority of America's people of faith in the face. Just to make the guy, who hates nativity scenes in front yards of people's private property, happy.

[RMadd]

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists all believe in one God, one supreme being. So... by appeasing the atheist few... we basically slap the majority of America's people of faith in the face. Just to make the guy, who hates nativity scenes in front yards of people's private property, happy.
wow, Chase, that's pretty interesting. i certainly was unaware that Hindus (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hinduism) believed in the same God we, as Christians, do. From the hyperlinked article:
"Religion to the Hindu is the eternal search for the divine Brahman, the search to find the One truth that in actuality never was lost, only hidden." Well, what about Buddhism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism), you say? It, quite naturally, follows the teachings of Buddha. And "While Buddhism does not deny the existence of supernatural beings (indeed, many are discussed in Buddhist scripture), it does not ascribe power for creation, salvation or judgment to them. So, it would seem to me that they don't really believe in God either (at least not in the Christian way, which is sort of what Anarkist & I are saying here). That leaves Judaism & Islam. And, as I said a few posts ago, it's not precisely the same God we worship. And given the fact that this country has WASP origins, it can be pretty easily concluded that the "God" inscribed on our money and in the pledge refers only to the Christian God.
Once we get past the fact of who worships whom, you must also turn to what the US Government has to say about it in various official documents. The first amendment, protecting freedom of religion, comes to mind right away. If you conclude that our federal government's placement of the words "God," such that it readily endorses a single religion--Christianity--then it's not right. Plain and simple, the words "under God" and "In God we trust"--neither phrase an original part of those things to which it eventually became a component (pledge, money)--constitute the federal government's support of a single religion. Unlike other forms of government, democracy is supposed to be fair to all people, whether you're in the minority or the majority. It doesn't matter if the majority of Americans get slapped in the face by this issue. If you want to be part of a majority that always gets what it wants, I'll suggest a more authoritarian system of governance for you.
In sum, democracy should promote equality of all its denizens, just as the Declaration says, and these key phrases do not uphold this desire for true equality.

[creedsister]

well said

[Lunar Shadow]

Jews, Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and Buddhists all believe in one God, one supreme being. So... by appeasing the atheist few... we basically slap the majority of America's people of faith in the face. Just to make the guy, who hates nativity scenes in front yards of people's private property, happy.


but thats the thing chase.....


If you appease one god (as a government) you are showing preferential treatment to that belief structure. Jews do not use the same god (as they see it) as the Xtians do or the muslims do for that matter. no 2 gods are the same. better and safer for the government not to endorse any god and the way to do that is not comment on god at all besides do you really think that all of our presidents have believed in the same god? NO! quite a few of the founding fathers were in fact Deists and some argue (no me becasue I have not researched it) that some of the presidens were in fact Atheists. so for the government to change their view with every chaging persident is absolutly rediculous. it would make us a Theocracy rather than a psudo-socialistic democracy that we are.

[Chase]

They're all monotheistic religions and this nation had it's share of Jewish settlers. The United States does not recognize a religion and if you object to it that much then why aren't you protesting the fact that we have national days of prayer to mourn for those lost in tragic events. The terms "God bless America ," "God bless Texas," and "So help you God" must give you nightmares at night. I still hate to break it to you... but the majority of Americans still trust in God... whether it be Allah or Yahweh.


Names of God:

The noun God is the proper English name used for the deity of monotheistic faiths. Different names for God exist within different religious traditions.

Allah—Islam/Arabic. See also the Ninety-nine names of Allah

Cao Đài is the name of God in Caodaism.

Jehovah is a name often used in Christianity (it is often used as a transliteration of Yahwah.

Yahweh Hebrew: 'YHVH' (יהוה) and Elohim are some of the names used for God in the Christian Bible
See The name of God in Judaism for Jewish names of God. (Note: when written or typed as a proper noun, some observant Jews will use the form "G-d" to prevent the written name of God from becoming desecrated later on. Some Orthodox Jews consider this unnecessary because English is not the Holy Language.)

The Holy Trinity (meaning the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit/"Holy Ghost"). Denotes God almost all mainstream Christianity.

Most Hindus worship the personal form of God or Saguna Brahman, or Hindu trinity, as Vishnu, Shiva, or directly as Brahman through the Gayatri mantra. A common prayer for Hindus is the Vishnu sahasranama, which is a hymn describing the one thousand names of God.

Ayyavazhi asserts Ekam,(The Ultimate Oneness) as supreme one and Ayya Vaikundar the Incarnation of Ekam. There are also several seperate lesser gods who were all later unified into Vaikundar.

Sikhs worship God with the name Waheguru.

Anu the supreme God in Sumerian mythology.

Jah is the name of God in the Rastafari movement.

God is called Igzi'abihier (lit. "Lord of the Universe") in the Ethiopian Orthodox Church.

Some churches (United Church of Canada, Religious Science) are using "the One" alongside "God" as a more gender-neutral way of referring to God (See also Oneness).

The Maasai name for "God" is Ngai, which occurs in the volcano name Ol Doinyo Lengai ("the mountain of God").

The Mi'kmaq name for "God" is Niskam.
I
n Surat Shabda Yoga, names used for God include Anami Purush (nameless power) and Radha Soami (lord of the soul).

SubGenius literature defines "(Gg)od" as a malevolent Space Frankfurter.

I guess if it makes Joe Atheist happy... we could put all of these names on our currency.

[RMadd]

Chase, you're confusing "God" and "god." "God" is the name of the Christian god, much in the same way that "Yahweh" is the name of the Jewish god, and "Allah" the most common name for the Islamic god. I, therefore, do not find it necessarily accurate that, when describing the various gods of other religions, you refer to them as "God" when, in fact, they should be referred to as "god." "God" is a name; "god" is the, more or less, generic term used to desribe any deity of a given religion. And by placing the name "God" in capitalized form, and by referencing him in a singular fashion, rather than plurally, that suggests a federal preference for one religion over another.
I still don't think you understand what we're getting at here with regards to democracy & religion, either. Democracy is supposed to treat all people equally, regardless of whatever you can come up with. It doesn't matter if the majority of people want something to be institutionalized b/c the majority wants it. It's not correct to leave the minority groups out of the system by so doing. For example: slavery. Back when it was first practiced, the majority of colonists thought it was an a-ok practice. But, by golly, it turned out that the whole "owning people and treating them like dirt" deal wasn't really a superb idea. And certainly not democratic.
Yeah, we could put all those names on the money. Or you could simply remove "In God We Trust" altogether.

[Chase]

Most faiths believe in God, but have variations of how they worship. What you're doing is driving a wedge between Christians and Jews, Jews and Muslims, Hindus and Muslims... etc. Figuratively, not physically. It is possible to believe in one God and reach Him in various ways. Nowhere does it say in "Jesus we trust," or in "Moses we trust." By the way... you're comparing slavery to God... while you're at it you should compare apples and oranges because in no way are the two the same. You're taking my argument out of context. The South endorsed slavery... whereas the majority of Americans identify themselves as belonging to a specific faith. HUGE DIFFERENCE. You guys are making it sound like the nation has institutionalized Jesus. I didn't realize that Joe Atheist wasn't being treated equally. I didn't realize he wasn't allowed to go to college. I didn't realize that he wasn't allowed to vote. I didn't realize that he had to use restrooms with signs that read "Atheists Only." I didn't realize that his village of fellow atheists were lynched. I never realized that life as an atheist was so tough... especially with the thought of all these people of various faiths believing in one God. "In Secularism We Trust"... nice ring to it, eh? We should also get rid of those pesky menorahs and Christmas trees that we see in December on government owned property. Darn Judeo/Christians...

[Lunar Shadow]

..........Mindless regurgitated chatter from the last 3 posts I've made.....







"In Secularism We Trust"... nice ring to it, eh? We should also get rid of those pesky menorahs and Christmas trees that we see in December on government owned property. Darn Judeo/Christians...
"In Secularism We Trust"... nice ring to it, eh? weather or not it has a nice ring to it doen't mean we should put it on our currency. mind you that all secularists are Atheists, some are Xtian, some are Jews, and some are Agnostic so whats your point?




There you go saying God agian using the Xtian proper name for the diety. are you learning nothing here? RMadd and I are sitting here trying to explain to you the sepperation of church and state but you are obviously ignoring the points, putting your thumbs in your ears and going "nah nah nah nah nah."

I think RMadd's example of slaver was a great example the problem is that you are reading too far in to it.

And as a matter of fact it is rather difficult to live in America as an Atheist (thank you very much) I can't walk down the street with out being bombarded with god weather it be thoes damn WWJD stickers (all Xtian bumer stickers for that matter), or churches or people standing out in front of stores handing out tracts, or thoes people staning in front of stores collectign donations for church sponsored things, or what have you. Now don't get me wrong I am not that ass hole who wants the nativity banned, AS LONG AS IT IS ON PRIVATE LAND ITS OK!. is it bothersome to me yeah but you know what its that persons land it is their right, just like if I wanna raise a flag in my front yard that reads "All theists are delusional morons" I have a right to do so (mind you I am not that big of an ass hole I am just using that as an example). I also find it offensive that if I have to go to court that I have to swear (on a bible) to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth "so help me god." But see that isn't just me... what about Jews or anyone else who has a differing belief to Xtianity?

As I said before it is hard being an Atheist in America. If some one finds out I am an Atheist I am automatically and evil person who beats and abuses my children who is a nazi (BTW the nazis were Xtians of some strype as are the neo-nazis) and who is not to be trusted ALL BECAUSE I FAIL TO BELEIVE IN SOMETHING THAT HAS NOT BEEN PROVEN WITH ANY SHRED OF EVIDENCE!!! Why is it that we are a people here in the 21st centery who are sceptical and rely on reason but when it comes to the one thing that we should be sceptical with (god) we are expected to accept with little question and no hard facts? they call this faith, faith is the oppisite of reason it is what is asked of us when everything else falls short. Why is this? If you can actually answer this you are the smartest person I have ever met, for no one can answer this. This seems to be one of thoes flukes that just kinda happened somehow.

And you are correct Religious celebrative icons have no place of public property weather they endorse Pagan (christmas tree) Xtian (nativity) or Jewish (menorahs). all of them endorse a belief and they have no place on public land in any way shape or form

[Chase]

Which article of the Constitution reads that there is a "seperation of church and state" again? Again, you guys seem to be making the claim that the government has put Jesus Christ at the forefront of this nation. Don't get me wrong... I'm no Bible thumper... but I think a war against all religions in America is a lost cause. Kids aren't obligated to say the pledge every morning... and if it bothers you that money has God on it... then don't use it lol. Allah is God, Yahweh is God... "God" is a translated English term for all of those previously mentioned names for God. "Allah" is Arabic, "Yahweh" is Hebrew. English just so happens to be the de facto language of America.

And why is an anarchist so adamant about laws and the Constitution? And why is an atheist a Creed fan? I smell contradiction.

[RMadd]

"In Secularism We Trust"... nice ring to it, eh?
by jove, i think he's got it!
i don't care what/who people worship in their private lives, but our federal government is set up such that it should not, according to the Constitution, create preferential treatment, etc. for a single religion.

[RMadd]

Which article of the Constitution reads that there is a "seperation of church and state" again?
The First Amendment
most scholars on the constitution, dating back to 1791, have described this particular clause as the "separation of church and state" or the "Establishment Clause." i've got to go to work now, but here's a clip of an article from Wikipedia.

"
Establishment of religion

Main article: Establishment Clause of the First Amendment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishment_Clause_of_the_First_Amendment)

The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment plainly prohibits the establishment of a national religion by Congress or the preference of one religion over another. Prior to the enactment of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court generally took the position that the substantive protections of the Bill of Rights did not apply to actions by state governments. Subsequently, under the "incorporation doctrine", certain selected provisions were applied to states. It was not, however, until the middle and later years of the twentieth century that the Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_the_United_States) began to interpret the establishment and free exercise clauses in such a manner as to reduce substantially the promotion of religion by state governments. (For example, in the Board of Education of Kiryas Joel Village School District v. Grumet (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Board_of_Education_of_Kiryas_Joel_Village_School_District_v._Grumet&action=edit), Justice David Souter (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Souter) concluded that "government should not prefer one religion to another, or religion to irreligion.")"

[Chase]

"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?"

[Lunar Shadow]

More mindless blabber of trying to prove something that is non-factual



ok Chase how about this??

Among all of our Presidents, from Washington through Lincoln, not one was a professor of religion, at least not of more than Unitarianism. Without exception, the faith of our Founding Fathers was deist, not theist. It was best expressed earlier in the Declaration of Independence, when they spoke of "the Laws of Nature" and of "Nature's God."




Thomas Jefferson:

"I have examined all the known superstitions of the world, and I do not find in our particular superstition of Christianity one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology. Millions of innocent men, women and children, since the introduction of Christianity, have been burnt, tortured, fined and imprisoned. What has been the effect of this coercion? To make one half the world fools and the other half hypocrites; to support roguery and error all over the earth."
SIX HISTORIC AMERICANS,
by John E. Remsburg, letter to William Short

Jefferson again:

"Christianity...(has become) the most perverted system that ever shone on man. ...Rogueries, absurdities and untruths were perpetrated upon the teachings of Jesus by a large band of dupes and importers led by Paul, the first great corrupter of the teaching of Jesus."

More Jefferson:

"The clergy converted the simple teachings of Jesus into an engine for enslaving mankind and adulterated by artificial constructions into a contrivance to filch wealth and power to themselves...these clergy, in fact, constitute the real Anti-Christ.

Jefferson's word for the Bible? "Dunghill."

John Adams:

"Where do we find a precept in the Bible for Creeds, Confessions, Doctrines and Oaths, and whole carloads of other trumpery that we find religion encumbered with in these days?"

Also Adams:

"The doctrine of the divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity."

Adams signed the Treaty of Tripoli. Article 11 states:

"The Government of the United States is not in any sense founded on the Christian religion."

Here's Thomas Paine:

"I would not dare to so dishonor my Creator God by attaching His name to that book (the Bible)."

"Among the most detestable villains in history, you could not find one worse than Moses. Here is an order, attributed to 'God' to butcher the boys, to massacre the mothers and to debauch and rape the daughters. I would not dare so dishonor my Creator's name by (attaching) it to this filthy book (the Bible)."

"It is the duty of every true Deist to vindicate the moral justice of God against the evils of the Bible."

"Accustom a people to believe that priests and clergy can forgive sins...and you will have sins in abundance."

And; "The Christian church has set up a religion of pomp and revenue in pretended imitation of a person (Jesus) who lived a life of poverty."

Finally let's hear from James Madison:

"What influence in fact have Christian ecclesiastical establishments had on civil society? In many instances they have been upholding the thrones of political tyranny. In no instance have they been seen as the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wished to subvert the public liberty have found in the clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate liberty, does not need the clergy."

Madison objected to state-supported chaplains in Congress and to the exemption of churches from taxation. He wrote:

"Religion and government will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

These founding fathers were a reflection of the American population. Having escaped from the state-established religions of Europe, only 7% of the people in the 13 colonies belonged to a church when the Declaration of Independence was signed.

Among those who confuse Christianity with the founding of America, the rise of conservative Baptists is one of the more interesting developments. The Baptists believed God's authority came from the people, not the priesthood, and they had been persecuted for this belief. It was they - the Baptists - who were instrumental in securing the separation of church and state. They knew you can not have a "one-way wall" that lets religion into government but that does not let it out. They knew no religion is capable of handling political power without becoming corrupted by it.refhere (http://www.postfun.com/worbois.html)

If you maintain the belief that this is a nation founded by Xtians for Xtians and in fact a Xtian nation you are only fooling yourself and your constituents whom are not educated in the ways of history. Those who fail to learn from history are damned to repeat it and all of the fundie churches in they country are heading down that road of causing discrimination and persecution (the exact reason that the founding father fled England in the first place) so again if the founding fathers were reading what you have been saying they would be to quote a popular phrase "turning over in their graves."

You only show your bias toward your belief by ignoring the things RMadd and myself put forth.

If you care to read something more along the lines of truth in history rather than the fiction you are failing to spin our way go
HERE (http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html)

[RMadd]

touché, Anarkist. it's kind of interesting how most people describe our origins as strictly Christian. though i'm a Christian myself, and wouldn't necessarily mind if the majoirty of our Founding Fathers (the minds behind it, in particular--Madison, Jefferson, etc) were in fact Protestant; i certainly won't deny that the "brand" of Christianity to which Deists adhere is far different from regular ol' Protestantism. many assumptions and conclusions differ, so even though it's "God" whom we all follow, the conceptualizations of this god are remarkably different.

[Lunar Shadow]

"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?"


BTW where is your source??? where did you cut and past from?? You know if you are gonna site something you need to list a source or else it is called plagiarism. And if you read the site rules


By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-orientated, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.


now last time I checked there are laws in this country about plagiarism you are required to give due credit to an author or else it is infact plagiarism.

[Lunar Shadow]

touché, Anarkist. it's kind of interesting how most people describe our origins as strictly Christian. though i'm a Christian myself, and wouldn't necessarily mind if the majoirty of our Founding Fathers (the minds behind it, in particular--Madison, Jefferson, etc) were in fact Protestant; i certainly won't deny that the "brand" of Christianity to which Deists adhere is far different from regular ol' Protestantism. many assumptions and conclusions differ, so even though it's "God" whom we all follow, the conceptualizations of this god are remarkably different.




I will be the first to say that Jefferson is a confusing character I mean I have found quotes form him that not only condone but praise Atheism. So you can see how it is Hard to peg Jefferson as much of anything but, the most literature I can find on him come to the consensus that he was Deist and a Freemason (most of which are Deists).

[RMadd]

You only show your bias toward your belief by ignoring the things RMadd and myself put forth.
that's an interesting point you bring up. if you, for example, were commenting on the lack of sufficient hard evidence that supports the existence of God or any Supreme (and, presumably, supernatural) Being, I would be compelled to state that belief in God (or such a Supreme Being) I would acknowledge your side, but then back up my views as being merely a matter of faith in what is said. in the matter of religion and the US government, this is far more difficult --if not impossible--to do (though Chase seems to be giving it a shot anyhoo). this issue is not a matter of the existence of some invisible yet omnipresent Supreme Being. rather, it concerns two essential entities: religion and government. the federal government, in the document that describes how it's supposed to function, says that it won't compromise the rights of anyone in terms of religion, regardless of whatever the majority may desire. ironically, "In God We Trust" and "under God" constitute such a compromise. it doesn't matter what the Founders may have intended or had in their hearts (strangely enough, Chase, this view that you possess could be considered liberal, as it does not entail a strict application of the Constitution as it was written), but only what is on the document. conversely, we can conclude that when those in charge placed the phrases in question into the places where they are at present, the motive was the promotion of Christianity (or, in the very least, a truly Western perspective, as we learned much further above with the pledge & communism) over any other "heathen" religion. i might be a Christian, but I do not consider myself irreligious because I think these phrases should be stricken from the present manner in which they're used; rather, I feel the government is compromising the rights of the minority by breaking (or bending very severely) a fundamental law which they themselves wrote.

[Chase]

BTW where is your source??? where did you cut and past from?? You know if you are gonna site something you need to list a source or else it is called plagiarism. And if you read the site rules



now last time I checked there are laws in this country about plagiarism you are required to give due credit to an author or else it is infact plagiarism.

I quoted it... but since you pissed your pants... here's the web address: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

And another quick thing... you fail to put Jefferson's quotes in context. Look at the state of the Church of England at the time of the revolution. That was engough to incite protest in any colonist.

Again... you never answered my question. Why is an "anarchist" trying his best to represent the essence of the Constitution and how the hell is an atheist a Creed fan?

[Chase]

that's an interesting point you bring up. if you, for example, were commenting on the lack of sufficient hard evidence that supports the existence of God or any Supreme (and, presumably, supernatural) Being, I would be compelled to state that belief in God (or such a Supreme Being) I would acknowledge your side, but then back up my views as being merely a matter of faith in what is said. in the matter of religion and the US government, this is far more difficult --if not impossible--to do (though Chase seems to be giving it a shot anyhoo). this issue is not a matter of the existence of some invisible yet omnipresent Supreme Being. rather, it concerns two essential entities: religion and government. the federal government, in the document that describes how it's supposed to function, says that it won't compromise the rights of anyone in terms of religion, regardless of whatever the majority may desire. ironically, "In God We Trust" and "under God" constitute such a compromise. it doesn't matter what the Founders may have intended or had in their hearts (strangely enough, Chase, this view that you possess could be considered liberal, as it does not entail a strict application of the Constitution as it was written), but only what is on the document. conversely, we can conclude that when those in charge placed the phrases in question into the places where they are at present, the motive was the promotion of Christianity (or, in the very least, a truly Western perspective, as we learned much further above with the pledge & communism) over any other "heathen" religion. i might be a Christian, but I do not consider myself irreligious because I think these phrases should be stricken from the present manner in which they're used; rather, I feel the government is compromising the rights of the minority by breaking (or bending very severely) a fundamental law which they themselves wrote.

I'm not a conservative Christian by any means... but when someone attacks the foundations of America, I'm going to voice my opinion. Why do you guys believe that the government of the United States is forcing people to worship JESUS (the Christian messiah)?

[Lunar Shadow]

I quoted it... but since you pissed your pants... here's the web address: http://www.noapathy.org/tracts/mythofseparation.html

And another quick thing... you fail to put Jefferson's quotes in context. Look at the state of the Church of England at the time of the revolution. That was engough to incite protest in any colonist.

Again... you never answered my question. Why is an "anarchist" trying his best to represent the essence of the Constitution and how the hell is an atheist a Creed fan?
if I am quoting Jefferson out of context as you say please do give a quote in context. if you are gonna put forth an accusation then back it up. otherwise it is just another baseless claim that you continue to build your hause of cards on

In response to you question about my being a creed fan I respond with: Have you ever met a Xtian who was a slayer fan? I have. I also like bands like POD and such Just because I am an Atheist doesn't mean I can't like Creed does it?

in response to the other question: I am a smart enough anarchist to know that I have to use the system to my advantage. why are you throwing out red herrings anyway? are you just trying to distract the convertaiton so no one notices that you are misrepresnting the facts

[Chase]

Thomas Paine was indeed a Dieist

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish Church, by the Roman Church, by the Greek Church, by the Turkish Church, by the Protestant Church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my own church."

About the afterlife, he wrote:


"I do not believe because a man and a woman make a child that it imposes on the Creator the unavoidable obligation of keeping the being so made in eternal existance hereafter. It is in His power to do so, or not to do so, and it is not in my power to decide which He will do."

Benjamin Franklin, the delegate to the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention. He has frequently been used as a source for positive "God" talk. It is often noted that Franklin made a motion at the Constitutional convention that they should bring in a clergyman to pray for their deliberations:


In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when present to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights to illuminate our understandings?....I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men. (Catherine Drinker Bowen. Miracle at Phaladelphia: The Story of the Constitutional Convention, May to September 1787. New York: Book-of-the-Month Club, 1966, pp. 125-126)

Patrick Henry, the great orator who said on the floor of the House of Burgesses in Virginia, "Give me liberty or give me death" also said,

It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians, not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ! For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here.

John Adams of Massachusetts, a lawyer and the second president, wrote in a letter to Jefferson on June 28, 1813. He said, "The general principles on which the Fathers achieved independence, were . . . the general principles of Christianity."

Samuel Adams, cousin of John Adams, is called the "Father of the American Revolution." He incited the Boston Tea Party, signed the Declaration of Independence and called for the first Continental Congress. He said as the Declaration of Independence was being signed, "We have this day restored the Sovereign to whom all men ought to be obedient. He reigns in heaven and from the rising to the setting of the sun, let His kingdom come." Samuel Adams also said, "First of all, I ... rely upon the merits of Jesus Christ for a pardon of all my sins."

Thomas Jefferson...said, "The reason that
Christianity is the best friend of government
is because Christianity is the only religion
that changes the heart."

George Washington, the father of our nation said, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible."

Abraham Lincoln, preserver of the Union said, "I believe the Bible is the best gift God has ever given to man. All the good from the Savior of the world is communicated to us through this book."

What a bunch of anarchists and atheists.

[Lunar Shadow]

reference please!!!!! do you need me to remind you every freaking time???

[Lunar Shadow]

ooooooo loook its so easy to cut and past its great fun too (try reading you might learn something)

source http://earlyamerica.com/review/summer97/secular.html


Little-Known U.S. Document Signed by President Adams Proclaims America's Government Is Secular

by Jim Walker

Some people today assert that the United States government came from Christian foundations. They argue that our political system represents a Christian ideal form of government and that Jefferson, Madison, et al, had simply expressed Christian values while framing the Constitution. If this proved true, then we should have a wealth of evidence to support it, yet just the opposite proves the case.

Although, indeed, many of America's colonial statesmen practiced Christianity, our most influential Founding Fathers broke away from traditional religious thinking. The ideas of the Great Enlightenment that began in Europe had begun to sever the chains of monarchical theocracy. These heretical European ideas spread throughout early America. Instead of relying on faith, people began to use reason and science as their guide. The humanistic philosophical writers of the Enlightenment, such as Locke, Rousseau, and Voltaire, had greatly influenced our Founding Fathers and Isaac Newton's mechanical and mathematical foundations served as a grounding post for their scientific reasoning.

A few Christian fundamentalists attempt to convince us to return to the Christianity of early America, yet according to the historian, Robert T. Handy, "No more than 10 percent-- probably less-- of Americans in 1800 were members of congregations."

The Founding Fathers, also, rarely practiced Christian orthodoxy. Although they supported the free exercise of any religion, they understood the dangers of religion. Most of them believed in deism and attended Freemasonry lodges. According to John J. Robinson, "Freemasonry had been a powerful force for religious freedom." Freemasons took seriously the principle that men should worship according to their own conscious. Masonry welcomed anyone from any religion or non-religion, as long as they believed in a Supreme Being. Washington, Franklin, Hancock, Hamilton, Lafayette, and many others accepted Freemasonry.

The Constitution reflects our founders views of a secular government, protecting the freedom of any belief or unbelief. The historian, Robert Middlekauff, observed, "the idea that the Constitution expressed a moral view seems absurd. There were no genuine evangelicals in the Convention, and there were no heated declarations of Christian piety."


George Washington

Much of the myth of Washington's alleged Christianity came from Mason Weems influential book, "Life of Washington." The story of the cherry tree comes from this book and it has no historical basis. Weems, a Christian minister portrayed Washington as a devout Christian, yet Washington's own diaries show that he rarely attended Church.

Washington revealed almost nothing to indicate his spiritual frame of mind, hardly a mark of a devout Christian. In his thousands of letters, the name of Jesus Christ never appears. He rarely spoke about his religion, but his Freemasonry experience points to a belief in deism. Washington's initiation occurred at the Fredericksburg Lodge on 4 November 1752, later becoming a Master mason in 1799, and remained a freemason until he died.

To the United Baptist Churches in Virginia in May, 1789, Washington said that every man "ought to be protected in worshipping the Deity according to the dictates of his own conscience."

After Washington's death, Dr. Abercrombie, a friend of his, replied to a Dr. Wilson, who had interrogated him about Washington's religion replied, "Sir, Washington was a Deist."


Thomas Jefferson

Even most Christians do not consider Jefferson a Christian. In many of his letters, he denounced the superstitions of Christianity. He did not believe in spiritual souls, angels or godly miracles. Although Jefferson did admire the morality of Jesus, Jefferson did not think him divine, nor did he believe in the Trinity or the miracles of Jesus. In a letter to Peter Carr, 10 August 1787, he wrote, "Question with boldness even the existence of a god."

Jefferson believed in materialism, reason, and science. He never admitted to any religion but his own. In a letter to Ezra Stiles Ely, 25 June 1819, he wrote, "You say you are a Calvinist. I am not. I am of a sect by myself, as far as I know."


John Adams

Adams, a Unitarian, flatly denied the doctrine of eternal damnation. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson, he wrote:

"I almost shudder at the thought of alluding to the most fatal example of the abuses of grief which the history of mankind has preserved -- the Cross. Consider what calamities that engine of grief has produced!"

In his letter to Samuel Miller, 8 July 1820, Adams admitted his unbelief of Protestant Calvinism: "I must acknowledge that I cannot class myself under that denomination."
JOHN ADAMS

In his, "A Defence of the Constitutions of Government of the United States of America" [1787-1788], John Adams wrote:

"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.

". . . Thirteen governments [of the original states] thus founded on the natural authority of the people alone, without a pretence of miracle or mystery, and which are destined to spread over the northern part of that whole quarter of the globe, are a great point gained in favor of the rights of mankind."


James Madison

Called the father of the Constitution, Madison had no conventional sense of Christianity. In 1785, Madison wrote in his Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments:

"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."

"What influence, in fact, have ecclesiastical establishments had on society? In some instances they have been seen to erect a spiritual tyranny on the ruins of the civil authority; on many instances they have been seen upholding the thrones of political tyranny; in no instance have they been the guardians of the liberties of the people. Rulers who wish to subvert the public liberty may have found an established clergy convenient auxiliaries. A just government, instituted to secure and perpetuate it, needs them not."


Benjamin Franklin

Although Franklin received religious training, his nature forced him to rebel against the irrational tenets of his parents Christianity. His Autobiography revels his skepticism, "My parents had given me betimes religions impressions, and I received from my infancy a pious education in the principles of Calvinism. But scarcely was I arrived at fifteen years of age, when, after having doubted in turn of different tenets, according as I found them combated in the different books that I read, I began to doubt of Revelation itself.

". . . Some books against Deism fell into my hands. . . It happened that they wrought an effect on my quite contrary to what was intended by them; for the arguments of the Deists, which were quoted to be refuted, appeared to me much stronger than the refutations; in short, I soon became a through Deist."

In an essay on "Toleration," Franklin wrote:

"If we look back into history for the character of the present sects in Christianity, we shall find few that have not in their turns been persecutors, and complainers of persecution. The primitive Christians thought persecution extremely wrong in the Pagans, but practiced it on one another. The first Protestants of the Church of England blamed persecution in the Romish church, but practiced it upon the Puritans. These found it wrong in the Bishops, but fell into the same practice themselves both here [England] and in New England."

Dr. Priestley, an intimate friend of Franklin, wrote of him:

"It is much to be lamented that a man of Franklin's general good character and great influence should have been an unbeliever in Christianity, and also have done as much as he did to make others unbelievers" (Priestley's Autobiography)


Thomas Paine

This freethinker and author of several books, influenced more early Americans than any other writer. Although he held Deist beliefs, he wrote in his famous The Age of Reason:

"I do not believe in the creed professed by the Jewish church, by the Roman church, by the Greek church, by the Protestant church, nor by any church that I know of. My own mind is my church. "

"Of all the systems of religion that ever were invented, there is no more derogatory to the Almighty, more unedifiying to man, more repugnant to reason, and more contradictory to itself than this thing called Christianity. "

[Lunar Shadow]

The U.S. Constitution

The most convincing evidence that our government did not ground itself upon Christianity comes from the very document that defines it-- the United States Constitution.

If indeed our Framers had aimed to found a Christian republic, it would seem highly unlikely that they would have forgotten to leave out their Christian intentions in the
Supreme law of the land. In fact, nowhere in the Constitution do we have a single mention of Christianity, God, Jesus, or any Supreme Being. There occurs only two references to religion and they both use exclusionary wording. The 1st Amendment's says, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. . ." and in Article VI, Section 3, ". . . no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."

Thomas Jefferson interpreted the 1st Amendment in his famous letter to the Danbury Baptist Association in January 1, 1802:

"I contemplate with sovereign 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."

Some Religious activists try to extricate the concept of separation between church and State by claiming that those words do not occur in the Constitution. Indeed they do not, but neither does it exactly say "freedom of religion," yet the First Amendment implies both.

As Thomas Jefferson wrote in his Autobiography, in reference to the Virginia Act for Religious Freedom:

"Where the preamble declares, that coercion is a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, an amendment was proposed by inserting "Jesus Christ," so that it would read "A departure from the plan of Jesus Christ, the holy author of our religion;" the insertion was rejected by the great majority, in proof that they meant to comprehend, within the mantle of its protection, the Jew and the Gentile, the Christian and Mohammedan, the Hindoo and Infidel of every denomination."

James Madison, perhaps the greatest supporter for separation of church and State, and whom many refer to as the father of the Constitution, also held similar views which he expressed in his letter to Edward Livingston, 10 July 1822:

"And I have no doubt that every new example will succeed, as every past one has done, in shewing that religion & Govt will both exist in greater purity, the less they are mixed together."

Today, if ever our government needed proof that the separation of church and State works to ensure the freedom of religion, one only need to look at the plethora of Churches, temples, and shrines that exist in the cities and towns throughout the United States. Only a secular government, divorced from religion could possibly allow such tolerant diversity.


The Declaration of Independence

Many Christians who think of America as founded upon Christianity usually present the Declaration as "proof." The reason appears obvious: the document mentions God. However, the God in the Declaration does not describe Christianity's God. It describes "the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God." This nature's view of God agrees with deist philosophy but any attempt to use the Declaration as a support for Christianity will fail for this reason alone.

More significantly, the Declaration does not represent the law of the land as it came before the Constitution. The Declaration aimed at announcing their separation from Great Britain and listed the various grievances with the "thirteen united States of America." The grievances against Great Britain no longer hold, and we have more than thirteen states. Today, the Declaration represents an important historical document about rebellious intentions against Great Britain at a time before the formation of our independent government. Although the Declaration may have influential power, it may inspire the lofty thoughts of poets, and judges may mention it in their summations, it holds no legal power today. Our presidents, judges and policemen must take an oath to uphold the Constitution, but never to the Declaration of Independence.

Of course the Declaration depicts a great political document, as it aimed at a future government upheld by citizens instead of a religious monarchy. It observed that all men "are created equal" meaning that we all come inborn with the abilities of life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That "to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men." The Declaration says nothing about our rights secured by Christianity, nor does it imply anything about a Christian foundation.

[Chase]

Well... I'm sorry... I'm having trouble getting the freakin' audio recordings of these guys... but if you sit tight I'm sure I can dig some up.

Here's some more quotes for you to choke upon.

http://www.forerunner.com/ccbc/X0004_Christian_Nation.html

[Lunar Shadow]

No duh you going to think that America is a Xtian nation you are sighting quotes from a site affiliated with the CHRISTIAN COALITION. you really need to be going to sites that are not biased to religion. I my self have done so and the only sites that claim that America is a Xtian nation are Xtian web sites.

[Lunar Shadow]

here are a few more quotes for you

[Chase]

Oh okay... but it's okay for you to find biased sources. Any other double standards you want to start while you're at it? Regardless of the source... that does not take away from the legitimacy of a quote. I'm not saying that the quotes you provided aren't true. Now you're all upset because I shattered your dreams of a "Xtian" free early America. Hey... why is an "anarchist" such of a fan of law?

And learn how to spell "Christian."

[RMadd]

but when someone attacks the foundations of America, I'm going to voice my opinion.
Anarkist & I would argue that it is you, in fact, who are attacking our great nation's foundation.
Why do you guys believe that the government of the United States is forcing people to worship JESUS (the Christian messiah)?
We never said it in quite that manner. Strictly speaking, what we are saying is that in placing "In God we trust" and such on government-sponsored items, that becomes state sponsorship of a given religion. You say everyone worships some God, but a) that's not true, b) it's not the same god (notice I didn't say "God", as with a capital "G"). So, in placing these specifically Christian phrases in places where it has ultimate authority, the government is very clearly endorsing Christianity and giving it preferential treatment over any other religion.
Truthfully, what would your reaction be if you were a minority in some certain country who, in its most sacred document, promised not to prefer any particular religion over any other, yet went ahead and printed "In (Our Supreme Deity) We Trust" on money and made no move to prevent schoolchildren from speaking this Supreme Deity's name, yet mentioning no others, in a state-sponsored activity? Worse yet, what if both these examples represented an effort on the part of the majority, more than 100 years into that state's existence (one of them nearly 200 years in, in fact!) to promote the predominant religion and weaken any claims that other minority religions may have previously possessed within the state?

[Chase]

Well, gee... call me crazy but if I was in Israel and they put "Yahweh" on a government building I would completely understand the reasons behind it. Or maybe if I was in a Saudi Arabian supermarket using money that says "Allah Akbhar" I wouldn't pitch a fit at the fact that the majority of Saudi Arabia is MUSLIM! Even if the constitution says that it will not recognize any specific religion. I never said that "everyone" believes in God... I did, however, say that the majority of Americans belong to a monotheistic religion that believes in ONE supreme being. We're fighting this battle right now in San Diego. We have a cross on a hill... and at the the peak of this hill is a memorial for San Diego's fallen soldiers. An atheist is has a problem with it (because of the fact that it's a Christian symbol) and the main guy who is fighting to keep the cross is Jewish. The cross represents the ultimate sacrifice that can be given and the men and women memorialized on this mountain made the ultimate sacrifice for America. This atheist cannot get over the fact that it is a Jewish man protecting it! In L.A., a few atheists and the ACLU fought to remove a tiny cross that was on the seal of the city of Los Angeles. Apparently, it was their goal to alter L.A.'s religious and Catholic past. Much of California's cities were founded by Spanish priests, yet it is atheists who try to constantly rewrite history. Why is that atheists claim to be looking out for people of non-Judeo/Christian beliefs while the people they claim to be protecting don't voice out in opposition?

In New Jersey, for example, the South Orange/Maplewood School District recently banned instrumental Christmas carols for fear of giving offense. Then, in Mustang, Oklahoma, a school district recently decided to cut the Nativity scene from a school play while holiday symbols associated with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa were allowed to remain in the program. And in Washington State, a couple of plaintiffs have raised objections to a Christmas tree being placed at City Hall in Bellevue, saying the tree is a Christian symbol and inappropriate for display in a public area.

There's a strong anti-Christian and Jewish bias coming from groups like the ACLU and atheist activists. It goes far beyond the topics that have been discussed in here.

[Lunar Shadow]

Oh okay... but it's okay for you to find biased sources. Any other double standards you want to start while you're at it? Regardless of the source... that does not take away from the legitimacy of a quote. I'm not saying that the quotes you provided aren't true. Now you're all upset because I shattered your dreams of a "Xtian" free early America. Hey... why is an "anarchist" such of a fan of law?

And learn how to spell "Christian."


I do know how to spell "Christian" I use Xtian as a short hand replacement such as people do with xmas or xtina or what have you.

Now you have asked why should this matter to an anarchist, and why is an anarkist such a fan of law? Well I wouldn't say that I am a fan of law, however as long as there is law I might as well use it to my advantage and when it comes down to it I vote so I can bitch I have the right. If you don't vote you can't bitch about the way things are.

[creedsister]

Xtian i like that it saves my disorder time when typing it Well If Ye Understand what i say BITCH ON!!!! :jam: :jam: :jam: You Lit Anarchy Mutha You :flamer: :)

[Lunar Shadow]

Well, gee... call me crazy but if I was in Israel and they put "Yahweh" on a government building I would completely understand the reasons behind it. Or maybe if I was in a Saudi Arabian supermarket using money that says "Allah Akbhar" I wouldn't pitch a fit at the fact that the majority of Saudi Arabia is MUSLIM! Even if the constitution says that it will not recognize any specific religion.

You see but their constiutions don't say that. But I will say that is a nice straw man you have made there.


I never said that "everyone" believes in God... I did, however, say that the majority of Americans belong to a monotheistic religion that believes in ONE supreme being. We're fighting this battle right now in San Diego. We have a cross on a hill... and at the the peak of this hill is a memorial for San Diego's fallen soldiers. An atheist is has a problem with it (because of the fact that it's a Christian symbol) and the main guy who is fighting to keep the cross is Jewish. The cross represents the ultimate sacrifice that can be given and the men and women memorialized on this mountain made the ultimate sacrifice for America. This atheist cannot get over the fact that it is a Jewish man protecting it! In L.A., a few atheists and the ACLU fought to remove a tiny cross that was on the seal of the city of Los Angeles. Apparently, it was their goal to alter L.A.'s religious and Catholic past. Much of California's cities were founded by Spanish priests, yet it is atheists who try to constantly rewrite history. Why is that atheists claim to be looking out for people of non-Judeo/Christian beliefs while the people they claim to be protecting don't voice out in opposition?


I am not saying change the past I acknowledge the fact that CA was settled by the Catholic Church. I guess the big question here is. Are the crosses on public land?? If so, take them down what is so hard here? Where is the debate? It is plain and simple.... private land fine leave it up..... Public land? Take it down. Plain and simple.



In New Jersey, for example, the South Orange/Maplewood School District recently banned instrumental Christmas carols for fear of giving offense. Then, in Mustang, Oklahoma, a school district recently decided to cut the Nativity scene from a school play while holiday symbols associated with Hanukkah and Kwanzaa were allowed to remain in the program. And in Washington State, a couple of plaintiffs have raised objections to a Christmas tree being placed at City Hall in Bellevue, saying the tree is a Christian symbol and inappropriate for display in a public area.

There's a strong anti-Christian and Jewish bias coming from groups like the ACLU and atheist activists. It goes far beyond the topics that have been discussed in here.There shouldn’t be any "religious" holiday programs in public school (Xmas, Chanukah, or what have you) they have no place in a public school. Point blank period. Every one has an agenda I am offended by the anti-Atheist sentiment coming from the Xtians, Jews, Muslims, and so on and so on. For me I say you have the right to believe in a god; more power to you, but you have no right to legislate that with the purpose to promote that god in this country. I do not believe in god and I expect my beliefs (or lack there of) to be respected in a public sense.

[RMadd]

Well, gee... call me crazy but if I was in Israel and they put "Yahweh" on a government building I would completely understand the reasons behind it.
Well, by golly, that might be because present-day Israel was founded out of the Zionist movement, which advocated the creation of a Jewish homeland (which following WWI, happened to be Palestine... in the 20 years prior to that, the movement had also looked into places such as South America).
Or maybe if I was in a Saudi Arabian supermarket using money that says "Allah Akbhar" I wouldn't pitch a fit at the fact that the majority of Saudi Arabia is MUSLIM! Even if the constitution says that it will not recognize any specific religion.
you may well not pitch a fit if such circumstances are true, but that does not change the fact that the government's constitution is saying one thing, but is essentially doing another. let's assume, all of a sudden, white Southerners here start running around killing minorities--Muslims, Jews, blacks, Mexicans, etc.--but i claim not to have a problem with it. does that suddenly legitimize their actions? i would certainly hope not. every state has laws that say it's bad to kill your fellow man, so to go against it is what some might call "illegal," regardless of how the majority might feel about those laws. that's one distinction i feel needs to be pointed out: you're confusing how you and the rest of the majority might feel with what the law actually states.

[HeavenBesideYou]

let's assume, all of a sudden, white Southerners here start running around killing minorities--Muslims, Jews, blacks, Mexicans, etc.--but i claim not to have a problem with it.

Start?

Where have you been???

:D

Heaven

:pimp:

[uncertaindrumer]

Interesting thread... I must admit, I have always had conflicting views on the issues at hand... although I'm not exactly sure what the specific issues are because I haven't read the whole thread. Oh well. I haven't much of anything to add yet so I probably just wasted a paragraph of space... lol