Official Church and State Discussion

President Harry S. Truman once said, "This is a Christian nation." John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Patrick Henry 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."

 

And those people would be mistaken. Go back and read the links we have provided.

 

RavenKing posted on 8/30/05 5:58pm

---

But you can't deny that the rights and freedoms this country was built on were defined at the very beginning and through to today as being God Given. How can you say our rights are given by God, then turn around and say this country isn't founded on His righteousness? [hr][/blockquote] I can reject this quite easily. Out of all the laws given by God (most noteably the 10 commandments), only 3-4 are actually included in our nation's laws. Meanwhile, these are not exclusive to Christianity. Nor even Judeo-Christian religions. These are the laws that [i]every[/i] society has upheld.

[blockquote][link=http://boards.theforce.net/user.asp?usr=RavenKing][b]RavenKing[/b][/link] [b]posted on 8/30/05 6:02pm[/b][hr] President Harry S. Truman once said, "This is a Christian nation." John Jay, the first chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, said, "Providence has given to our people the choice of their ruler, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers." Patrick Henry 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." [hr][/blockquote] Not a single of the three people you mentioned were involved in the acutal founding our country and defining it's laws. Meanwhile, the links VLM and I provided involve many more than just three people, and they [i]were[/i] involved with the writing of our constitution.

I should also note that Patrick Henry did not support the US constitution. He prefered one that would give the states more right. Thus, using him as a source on what the laws of this country are founded upon seems a bit worthless to put it mildly.

It should also be noted that [i]nowhere[/i] in the Constitution does it mention God. Accidental omission? I think not.

 

From a purely HR and business standpoint I can honestly say that this train of thought is absurd. The reason that many companies don't allow religious speech is the same that they don't allow sexual speech, THERE IS A POTENTIAL LIABILITY. It could be construed as harassment. Any form of harassment can be very dangerous for a company interms of losses so companies do what they can to stamp it out. Just because you don't get offended by religious speech, doesn't mean that everyone does not and harassment is in the eye of teh beholder. Meaning you can be preaching to someone else and I over hear, I can call harassment on you if I'm offended.

The granting of rights to homosexual couples is done for teh same reason. If a company doesn't do it they open themselves up to a lawsuit for discrimination. Even if a company loses, there is still the added cost of legal fees.

Take all of this and add different state laws on top of it in regards to harassment and discrimination and companies are left with little choice if they want to remain viable. Remember, you can't get sued for something you didn't say but you can get sued for something you didn't do.

 

It doesn't have to mention God because it was already recognized that our rights are given to us by God.

Patrick Henry did actually play a part in the construction of our nation. He was a member of the constitutional convention.

Even Thomas Jefferson the one everyone says is responsible for separation idea, said "The reason that Christianity is the best friend of Government is because Christianity is the only religion that changes the heart" when he was in office as president.

And President James Madison said "We've staked the whole future of American civilization not on the power of government, far from it. We have staked the future of all our political institutions upon the capacity of each and all of us . . . to Govern ourselves according to the commandments of God. The future and success of America is not in this Constitution, but in the laws of God upon which this Constitution is founded."

Even the presidents who are elected by the majority of voters recognize that the constitution is founded on God's Laws, How is it so difficult for a few non Christians to understand how we were creayed as a country?

 

Oh yeah and the upholders and protectors of the Constitution before they went rogue on us, said, "Our laws and institutions must necessarily be based upon and embody the teaching of the Redeemer of mankind. It is impossible that is should be otherwise; and in this sense and to this extent our civilization and our institutions are emphatically Christian . . . this is a Christian nation." US Supreme Court, 1892

 

Until you have the maturity to acknowledge the material VLM and I provided, instead of posting random quotes with no context, I see no reason to dignify you with a response.

 

Why do you have to be rude, Voija? I told you that I read your your links but they gave me no new information that proves we are an atheist country. You showed me what you think means we are not Christian and I've showed you what I think means we are. Why do you call me immature? That's just rude.

I'm not saying church and state SHOULD be closely connected. I'm saying they ALWAYS WERE closely connected. Those are the principals that we're founded on. If you take away those principals, then you take away the core of our American belief structure. You take away what makes us American. our people are just hurting our country be trying to divide church and state.

 

RavenKing posted on 8/31/05 8:47am

---

Why do you have to be rude, Voija? I told you that I read your your links but they gave me no new information that proves we are an atheist country. You showed me what you think means we are not Christian and I've showed you what I think means we are. Why do you call me immature? That's just rude. [hr][/blockquote] No. You have not argued a single one of the quotes from either of the sources. Instead, you've dismissed them out of hand. Meanwhile, your quotes merely say who gave the quote, but again, out of context. Was Madison's quote from during the continental congress, or was it while speaking to a religious organization? When you say "the supreme court said...", was it one justice saying this, or was it a formally recognized majority opinion on a case regarding the first ammendment? Not having these important pieces of information does not give any credibility to your quotes. Until you can actually add some weight, I'll dismiss yours out of hand just as you have done to the articles VLM and I posted.

 

Ready now? Here we go:

Alleged quote from James Madison: ?We have staked the whole future of American civilization and political institutions on our capacity to govern ourselves according to the Ten Commandments of God.?

This is another unverified quote spread by David Barton. According to Church & State magazine (July/August, 1996 article ?Christian Nation,? Barton has issued a statement admitting that certain quotations attributed to prominent historical figures in his 1992 book ?The Myth of Separation,? are either false or, at best, questionable, and he admits that this is one of the most controversial among them.

Let's do a few more:


CLAIM: Alleged John Adams: ?It is religion and morality alone which can establish the principles upon which freedom can securely stand...?

REBUTTAL: This implies nothing regarding the promotion or recognition of religion by government. To the contrary, John Adams was a staunch supporter of religious freedom and of separation of church and state. His specific position was, ?Nothing is more dreaded that the national government meddling with religion.?

Like many other Founders, Adams goes much further in his private letters which were never intended to be made public. Despite public statements concerning the value of religion or morality, many of the Founders were not Christians. John Adams writes to fellow Deist Thomas Jefferson: ?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!"

CLAIM: Alleged Thomas Jefferson from the Jefferson Memorial monument in Washington, D.C.: ?God who gave us life gave us liberty and can the liberty of a nation be thought secure when we have removed their only firm basis -- a conviction in the minds of people that they are the gifts of God...?

REBUTTAL: Jefferson did say this, but as with other quotes, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the issue of government support of religion. This quotation is taken from a famous letter in which he argues against slavery. Jefferson claimed that slavery violated a person's God-given freedom, although he also owned slaves.

Jefferson's unorthodox views on religion, as well as his distaste for Christianity, were well known even in his own day, and he was often scorned by clergy as an ?atheist.? In his private letters, he writes to Dr. Woods: ?I have recently been examining all the known superstitions of the world, and do not find in our particular superstition (Christianity) one redeeming feature. They are all alike founded on fables and mythology.?

CLAIM: Alleged quote from James Madison: ?Religion is the basis and foundation of our government.?

REBUTTAL: James Madison was sympathetic to religion, but he was also a staunch supporter of the principle of state-church separation. As the First Amendment's author, he shared Jefferson's broad reading the amendment.

All of that comes from this page with has many other quotes to go by as well:

?CHRISTIAN REVISIONISM? -- DISTORTING THE HISTORICAL RECORD FOR RELIGIOUS ENDS

There are public statements as well as private ones. The founding fathers were at best deists who believed no god interfered in the affairs of men and that mankind should make it's own laws without religious intent. Get over it. The United States were not founded upon religion...none...not...zippo...too bad for you wether you like it or not.

 

Utah says NO to ID.

 

The most theocratic state in the union said no to ID? Wow..

 

I love that quote from there; "Invoking the supernatural can explain anything, and hence explains nothing."

So true.

E_S

 

X10

One, William Dembski, who heads the Center for Theology and Science at Louisville (Ky.) Southern Seminary, even argues in his book, Intelligent Design: The Bridge Between Science & Theology, that the designer must be the god Christians worship.

Yeah, don't see too many buddhists trying to Wedge religion into classrooms do we?

During the public comment period, Buttars repeated his intention to either introduce legislation to require intelligent design be a school topic, or place the issue on next year's ballot in the form of a referendum.

In other words he is going to force religion on them wether they like it or not, legit or not.

"Whenever anyone challenges the evolution people, they go berserk," he said. "[Evolution] is not a fact . . . We're dealing with censorship here.

Actually science is being taught in science classes and he'll just have to learn to live with it.


Some of the scientists retorted that science is not a democracy.
"Legitimacy is not determined by public opinion polls, radio and TV talks shows, privately published books and, most certainly, not by legislation," said Richard Tolman, a professor of biology and science education at Utah Valley State College.

 

Well, technically, the Christian God is Allah, just with different humans coming up with different pracitises, so...

E_S

 

Buddhists to not worship Allah, nor any other god for that matter.

 

No, I'm aware of this, I was more addressing Mr Dembski...

E_S

 

I wonder how they would react if intelligent design were to include the possibility that aliens were responsible for human life?

Peace,

V-03

 

If a evidence for for life beyond Earth were detected by SETI, then the SETI researchers might certainly be open to the idea that we may have been planted here by them, especially if there is any indication they they are ahead of us in their level of technology(Such as detecting an artificial ring around a star).
ID'ers would probably hate this idea and whould fight it on all fronts since aliens won't fit their interpretation of a biblical god.

 

I wouldn't be so sure LaMent.

After all, the current parameters of their theory are open to just such a possibility. Also, you must remember that the coalition open to intelligent design has already attempted to forge some strictly political alliances to help its cause, as with many non-Christian groups pushing for prayer in schools. Because of this, I think they might be willing to allow "aliens" under their tent for the purpose of furthering their cause.

However, I don't have much of a pulse on IDers, nor do I put much stock in it (as a theory), so its not like your getting an on-the-ground perspective here, either.

 

I would derive some measure of schadenfraude if it turned out to be Allah that was responsible. Not because I'm a Muslim, but because I'm a wicked, wicked man.

E_S

 

Honestly, if Christians were a little more like Christ, if they rejected materlialism and embraced the spirit of elevating and helping their fellow man, of dedicating their lives to helping others, I would A-freaking-ok with this being a theocratic state.

If Jesus himself were the dictator, it would be all good. But you know what's interesting? Jesus never desired, coveted, or attempted to take the throne.

He knew that religion and politics were to be held separate. That religion was not to overpower politics in a physical sense. He knew it so well, he died on the political roman cross without using his divinity to stop it.

 

In the wrong thread, _Darth_Brooks_ wrote the following, pertaing to the Separation of Church and State:

_Darth_Brooks_ has stated that he will not come to this thread to discuss this in the appropriate place, so I won't go into his actual comments. I did, however, wish to address a very simple yet very destabilizing factor in the linked article he provided, which refutes the Treaty of Tripoli.

In the above link, a comparison is made between US Law [the treaty] and private letters and opinions from the likes of Adams, Pickering, and Eaton. National Law vs Private Opinion. Certainly the latter overrules the former, yes? No.